Edited by
SCB27769
on
Tue 03/22/16 07:45 PM
|
|
Salafism (Wahhabism)is certainly the cause of the spread of much radical Islamic thought, and Saudi money has built Mosques all over to spread the word. However, the number of Americans killed by Iranian IEDs reads in the thousands and the spread of terror with money and weapons to match by the Iranians is unmatched. Both branches of Islam are to blame and both pursue the hatred of the West with equal vigor. Is ISIS a bigger threat than Iran? ... Only time will tell. Both should be removed from the civilized world. Enough said! And my sentiments EXACTLY!! |
|
|
|
Edited by
SCB27769
on
Mon 03/21/16 08:42 AM
|
|
Thanks, metalwing! That's tellin' it like it is!! Soooo telling! |
|
|
|
Edited by
SCB27769
on
Mon 03/21/16 08:31 AM
|
|
Okay, so that means we are at "war" against not Islam, but EVIL. Right? Terrorism, in any and all forms for any and all reasons, is EVIL. AND EVIL DOES NOT KNOW NOR CARE THE RELIGION, ETHNICITY, NATIONALITY OR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISPOSITIONS OF INDIVIDUALS! Is this NOT correct? Evil's only purpose in existence is to prevent the spread and perpetuation of anything that is not evil, anything that is "good". Evil cares not about Wahabbi or Shi'a or Protestant or Catholic or even Satanist. Evil only wants darkness, chaos, death and destruction, the exact and polar opposite of good, which seeks to build, heal and create peace and light in the universe. A discussion on the role of Saudi funding in British mosques, Nina of the Center for Religious Freedom sets Saudi Arabia’s program of Wahhabi indoctrination into a global context following the Center’s pioneering work examining the Kingdom’s textbooks. Among the tens of thousands of schools using these textbooks worldwide is the Islamic Saudi Academy, run by the Saudi Embassy, in Fairfax, VA. Yes, there's no surprise there. And all of this is the fault of both the West AND Middle Eastern influences. Where is all the world's oil? IN SAUDI ARABIA! And, unfortunately, it is oil dollars that have gone towards funding these terrorists and their madrassas. So we are as much to blame for this as the others. AND AMERICA NEEDS TO STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH SAUDI ARABIA!! BUT, if we do that, we will potentially end up collapsing the world economy and destroy ourselves in the process. A very bad Catch-22, to say the least. |
|
|
|
I don't know you and I'm not trying to be disrespectful but, how do you know this? Where did you get your information from? I find your claim to be interesting. I thought that the ISIS freaks came from all parts of Islam, not just the Wahabbis. I've been under the impression that many of the lowlives in ISIS were primarily Shiites. Can you clarify for me please? Thanks. Muslims are basically divided in two major factions, Sunnis and Shias. Sunni Muslims are the largest denomination of Islam they are currently four recognized schools; Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and Hanbali. Hanbali is considered to be the most conservative of the four schools. Hanbali jurisprudence is predominant among Muslims in Saudi Arabia. The Salafi movement (Wahhabism) was revived by Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab in the Arabia Saudi. Osama bin Laden was a wealthy businessman with close ties to the Saudi royal family. He was Wahhabi, the leader of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has continued to exist and grew through the decade from 2001 to 2011. Then came ISIS. I appreciate your attempt at some clarification here and thank you. However, you are remiss to not acknowledge that there are radicalized elements in all sectors of Islam. While true that bin Laden was of Saudi descent and his close ties with the Saudi royalty are certainly well established and, yes, the Wahhabis (I am not getting the correct spellings here, so give corrections where needed) and the Shiites are historically opposed in viewpoint stemming from the age-old debate over whether Muhammad was the "true Prophet" (am I getting that correct?), TODAY'S ISIS has "adherents" from seemingly every conceivable walk of life. It isn't restricted to only one sect of Islam. This is why they have such a huge reach and commanding power in the Middle East (that and their very savvy use of social media as a recruitment tool). Although the Shi'a and Sunni are at war with each other, BOTH have declared mutual war on the Western nations. And I think it fair to draw the line back to Sheikh ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. He can be held up as the original wellspring for the kind of hatred and maleficence that has lead to ISIS today. But ISIS themselves are not only Wahhabi as they have psychotically radical Muslims from almost all sects, excepting the Sufis and any individuals who choose not to kowtow to the ISIS way. In doing so, they risk death, Muslim on Muslim violence if you will. One could say that the long history of tyrannical leadership, married up with extreme interpretations of the Qur'an contributed unnecessarily large amounts of fuel to this fire. You not only have the usual suspects but there are also the so-called "Twelvers" from Iran mixed in. Look, the simple thing is ALL of ISIS are Muslims. They are all radicalized. It does not matter the sects or "schools" these guys belong to, they are EVIL and EVIL MUST BE STOPPED! And anyone supporting them also MUST BE STOPPED! Unfortunately, the situation is so mired up with economic resources that any attempt to "pull the plug" would likely also result in worldwide economic collapse and a massive depression far worse than anything the 1930s could have dished up. All parties are guilty, either directly or by association, for the madness ensuing. Apologies for the long-winded and probably off-topic reply. |
|
|
|
people seem to try to demuslimize isis... they are all muslims, regardless... like saying a baptist isn't a christian... Obama said;"We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam ... They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam. We must never accept the premise that they put forward because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders. They are terrorists." Okay, so that means we are at "war" against not Islam, but EVIL. Right? Terrorism, in any and all forms for any and all reasons, is EVIL. AND EVIL DOES NOT KNOW NOR CARE THE RELIGION, ETHNICITY, NATIONALITY OR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISPOSITIONS OF INDIVIDUALS! Is this NOT correct? Evil's only purpose in existence is to prevent the spread and perpetuation of anything that is not evil, anything that is "good". Evil cares not about Wahabbi or Shi'a or Protestant or Catholic or even Satanist. Evil only wants darkness, chaos, death and destruction, the exact and polar opposite of good, which seeks to build, heal and create peace and light in the universe. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Bi polar
|
|
Planet Earth is bipolar, but you Humans don't seem to mind that. True 'dat. |
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
I'm not saying I believe in the existence of a god, because I don't. I'm mostly posting here because the atheist forums are practically dead, which I don't really understand. Over 200k posts in religion and 1k in atheist forums. How do so many people in the age of logic and reason still believe in the existence of a god? It is written in the bible that god is a loving god, god is a forgiving god, blah blah. But in practice, god is a vindictive god, god is a childish god and god is a cruel god. The whole story about Noah's ark is basically a story about a god that got mad, threw a childish temper tantrum and killed everyone on the planet save a boatload of people and animals. Does that really seem like an all knowing god of great wisdom to anyone? If anyone has seen the movie "machine gun preacher". There's a movie based on the real life of Sam Childers, a biker that found religion after he thought he killed a man then traveling to Africa and helping to save a bunch of children from a corrupt warlord. On to my point. In the movie(based on real life) you see a bunch of children in a pile that were torched to death because they tried to escape. Was that all part of gods plan, did god "love" these children in their final minutes as they were brutally burned to death and screaming? Seems like a damned sadistic god to me. Basically what I'm saying is that if god does exist, he's pretty much using us as lab rats in his psychological experiment. All of the good stuff and "miracles" that he's let happen really do pale in comparison to all the atrocities that he's turned a blind eye to all in favor of fulfilling his "divine plan". In my honest opinion the novelty of "god" died off in the 20th century. I think that many of us are smart enough to come to the realization that the invention of a god in inevitable because we all fear death and therefore invent the prospect of an afterlife, and who would be powerful enough to design such a thing? "God" and only that. But all that is self defeating, instead of confronting our fear of death and helping to seek a method of prolonging our lives through science, we run to religion which has a long standing history of stifling science. Many people will argue the existence of a god because they feel that they've seen him in one manner or another. His face is on a door, his face was on a grilled cheese sandwich or the classic "I see it in the miracles that happen every day". Such as what? Newborn life? Every time a baby is born it's a "miracle". Well what about those born into third world countries that starve to death before they're old enough to read or what about those born into overpopulous that struggle through their entire life just trying to make ends meet(because it's a rat race just to get a job)then ultimately succumb to suicide. Was there really a point in either of those being born just to live a life of pain and suffering with no chance for a happy ending? Or perhaps people will argue the "miracles" of rain or the sun coming up each day. Nope, the sun is a giant ball of gas and the rain is just precipitation. God exists because like an imaginary friend when we have no other, we want him to exist and if we stop believing, he will not exist. You may be right. But, you might also be wrong. I'm not particularly religious, either, but I'll reply like this... What came before the Big Bang? Can science answer that right now? How about you? If you can definitely answer without any shadow of doubt or uncertainty what exactly came prior to the Big Bang, then you don't need God. In effect YOU are "God" if you can answer my question truthfully. But, I am a somewhat avid follower of science, and I can tell you that science today is not any closer to solving what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang. So, I still like to think of a "God" that transcends everything, even time, as being the "ultimate Source" of all that is, however loving or not He happens to be. In fairness and respect, I ask the same sorts of questions you ask here. I don't much believe in "miracles" either, but I'm "Agnostic". I may not believe at first, but I question. I "Test ALL things and hold fast to what's true and righteous", to quote the Bible just once. And in questioning, I try to find my "truth" in life and the results have been fascinating and sometimes unexpected. So, I keep myself open to possibilities without committing myself completely to one religion or another. I don't know what "love" is because I don't have anyone "loving" me, physically nor emotionally. So I question its reality. I haven't had any "miracle" happen to me, but there are so many examples of things that happen that I'd be completely stumped by how they happen without explanation. My personal view of "God" is that of an energetic force-being that takes no physical form, is bound by neither physics nor time and probably can't see or hear us, no matter how hard one might pray to it/him/her. I think of our "relationship" to this "God" as being much like our "relationship" to microbes. To "God" we are microbes and he can't any more see us than we can see Botulinus, though we have the advantage of the microscope. I don't know whether "God" can do that. So, is "God" loving? I can't exactly say, though given my handful of proof, I'd assume not. I can't really fall in love with an amoeba or a yeast cell, so maybe "God" can't really love us for similar reasons. But, I would not yet write off "His/Her/Its" existence altogether until science can definitely tell me what came before the Big Bang, how it came to be and where, when and how it will all end. |
|
|
|
Why would any Non Muslim be surprised? There is more in the Qu'ran about having sex with slaves than there is about prayer. Not surprised here. In fact, this is to be expected wherever you have cults, Muslim or otherwise. The cult types crave attention and want a place to belong, a place to fit in in this world. We all crave something. But most of us don't really want (or like) to kill or harm others. Most sane human beings would generally agree that sex slavery is bad. Most would agree that raping women and children is morally deficient and highly destructive to everyone involved, most especially the victims of such acts and atrocities. One thing I'd like to know is what makes the difference. What is it that causes these people to perpetuate this mindset and have these cults when there are better, less destructive ways to go about trying to "fit in". Religion plays a big role, but decades of ruthless tyrannical leadership and forced conscription also contributes, I think. I surmise that it all boils down to the kind of people, the nature of their character, placed in positions of power that typically leads to this. Poverty and strife alone can't be entirely to blame for this situation, though it seems to greatly exacerbate it. I sometimes have to hearken back to the Heaven's Gate cult to get a basic comparison to today's ISIS, with a few crucial differences of course. |
|
|
|
I don't know you and I'm not trying to be disrespectful but, how do you know this? Where did you get your information from? I find your claim to be interesting. I thought that the ISIS freaks came from all parts of Islam, not just the Wahabbis. I've been under the impression that many of the lowlives in ISIS were primarily Shiites. Can you clarify for me please? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, IgorFrankensteen. I hadn't considered that. I typically assume most people have a laptop similar to my Toshiba Satellite. I can upgrade both the RAM and hard drive in it. But you are correct to point out the smaller "netbook" and "ultrabook" machines which often don't allow for easy RAM, CPU or hard drive upgrades. I'd strongly recommend avoiding those at all costs unless you (A) can't afford anything more than that and/or (B) absolutely MUST have a computer that small. Okay, this is the second time tonight I'm posting about Dell but I'm really excited about their latest XPS laptops. The XPS 15 has ultrabook proportions, while having a fully modular interior with easily replaced batteries, ram, harddrive, etc. As far as I know, they are the only computer to produce such a powerful, modern machine in an ultrabook profile and STILL keep all of those components replaceable. Either your chosen system is an outlier or Dell does things a bit differently than HP, which is the brand that I know more about. Interesting that your XPS 15 is, in fact, designed such that you can upgrade/replace RAM, hard drive and battery with ease. The little HP laptops my mom and sister have lack any such panels that most other systems have to allow easy replacement or upgrade of the main innards. This fact obviously suggests that these machines would have to be completely torn apart to get at the RAM, hard drive and battery assembly. I confess that I don't know every system out there and my experience with Dell computers is almost nonexistent beyond using the old computers at the library. My first laptop was an HP Compaq system and it had an easily replaceable battery pack, hard drive and memory. And it was not an ultrabook, but a 15" class full laptop system. My present Toshiba Satellite is much the same, just larger at 17 inches. That's what my suggested "advice" was based on. Yes, exactly. The purpose of my post was to promote this amazing exception to the general rule, which you were correctly commenting on. Most ultrabooks (and too many regular size laptops for that matter) sacrifice the ability to do future upgrades. Macs are some of the worst. These days, it seems like most consumers value either 'thin and light' or 'cheap' so much, they are willing to buy a laptop with a reduced lifespan. The Dell XPS 15 is an outlier, in several excellent and exciting ways, including the fact that they have achieved an ultrabook profile while keeping a large screen and replaceable components. UGH! Why would ANYBODY buy ANYTHING Apple?! Yes, you are absolutely spot-on about Macs being virtually non-upgradeable. The reason being that Apple holds a very tight grip on all parts and software for Macintosh-based systems. Even attempting to put Windows or any other OS other than MacOS X or iOS risks voiding the warranty, depending on how you do it. If you use BootCamp, no problemo. But, run "format C:/" and then install Windows by itself and the warranty goes bye-bye. Apple was (and to some extent still is) very much a closed-box brand. You can't just go to Best Buy and pick up some RAM or a replacement SSD for your MacBook Pro. Nope, you gotta get that straight from Apple, for a ludicrously high premium. And that's assuming you can even figure out how to get in the damn thing to see if the RAM or SSD is replaceable or not. At least with my Toshiba the RAM is all standard DDR2 SODIMMs and the hard drive is a standard 2.5" SATA laptop type that I can theoretically get anywhere. Not only does this explain why Apple Mac parts are so much more expensive, but it also explains why there are no cheaper clones of Mac computers. The advice I used to get in school, and it's still valid today (maybe moreso than ever), is to not buy anything you can't upgrade or replace at least some part of. |
|
|
|
Here :-) Muah Muah Muah Ugh! Really?! Is THIS what women really dream about?! I mourn eternally the death of human society. |
|
|
|
Topic:
i love you all
|
|
...Thank you?...I love you too?...
Not sure how I should respond to this. No one ever tells me "I love you". |
|
|
|
I do apologize if I caused any confusion or gave any misinformation.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, IgorFrankensteen. I hadn't considered that. I typically assume most people have a laptop similar to my Toshiba Satellite. I can upgrade both the RAM and hard drive in it. But you are correct to point out the smaller "netbook" and "ultrabook" machines which often don't allow for easy RAM, CPU or hard drive upgrades. I'd strongly recommend avoiding those at all costs unless you (A) can't afford anything more than that and/or (B) absolutely MUST have a computer that small. Okay, this is the second time tonight I'm posting about Dell but I'm really excited about their latest XPS laptops. The XPS 15 has ultrabook proportions, while having a fully modular interior with easily replaced batteries, ram, harddrive, etc. As far as I know, they are the only computer to produce such a powerful, modern machine in an ultrabook profile and STILL keep all of those components replaceable. Either your chosen system is an outlier or Dell does things a bit differently than HP, which is the brand that I know more about. Interesting that your XPS 15 is, in fact, designed such that you can upgrade/replace RAM, hard drive and battery with ease. The little HP laptops my mom and sister have lack any such panels that most other systems have to allow easy replacement or upgrade of the main innards. This fact obviously suggests that these machines would have to be completely torn apart to get at the RAM, hard drive and battery assembly. I confess that I don't know every system out there and my experience with Dell computers is almost nonexistent beyond using the old computers at the library. My first laptop was an HP Compaq system and it had an easily replaceable battery pack, hard drive and memory. And it was not an ultrabook, but a 15" class full laptop system. My present Toshiba Satellite is much the same, just larger at 17 inches. That's what my suggested "advice" was based on. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Emails Showing 2-3 times
|
|
Yeah, I'm having this problem too. One click, two posts. Not doing anything wrong, I don't think. I thought it was my mouse (the left-click button has recently gotten a little sticky), but it still happens even after logging out and logging back in. Hopefully this get sorted out. I don't like my message inbox looking (and sounding) like Max Headroom hopped up on speed.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Artificial intelligence
|
|
No, I don't think AI will take over humankind, for the simple reason that we can't currently get artificial intelligence to "think for itself". The things that make the human brain work are not completely understood and any attempt to replicate that with robotics and computers is next to impossible. I know it's really easy and convenient to think this way, but AI won't be doing away with us any time soon. In fact, as I see it, our "AIs" will not be able to survive long without us. Sorry, no robot uprising. Hopefully never, and certainly not for a really, really, really long time.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
What is the point of life?
|
|
What is the point to life?...I don't know. I kind of don't see one. I can't find a purpose or point to my life. Being unemployed pretty much kills any hope of a future. No women seem to be much interested in me, so what good is my life? What good is life in general? I wish I could answer that.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Broken and Moving on tips
|
|
Am too alone! We can chat, but no one's gonna marry me because I'm broke and unemployed. No women of any ethnicity for me anywhere.
|
|
|
|
I don't know. Though, judging by my present degree of success, I might say "No". But, I could be totally wrong as well. The truth is, I'm 36, still unmarried and my conclusions are badly skewed by that fact. I tend to assume that it isn't at all possible for me to meet my desired mate, period. It doesn't seem to matter how I'm doing it.
I'm not going to tell you whether or not to use dating sites. Only you can make the ultimate determination on that. You might be overwhelmingly successful or you might have a worse time than I. It's really all a massive crap shoot and there can be no positive way of predicting outcomes. Does this make any sense to you? |
|
|
|
WOW, TRY CONVINCING THE AVERAGE MODERN WOMAN TO NOT BE PICKY!! The only thing women want of you are a job, college degree and money! They don't care enough about the unemployed poor men (like me!!!) to allow themselves to even be near them let alone love them. I'm 36 and still single. I'll probably never marry because no one will really love me.
|
|
|