Islam Must Rule the World

Argument from false authority again.

Response: Or you could live as a member of a minority religion there. Or anywhere, as a secularist or a Christian. Or sign up for Dawkinianism. Or move to Israel and become Jewish. Suggestions, of course, you understand.

?? What what what? Is Israel party to the NPT? They haven't announced possession of any nuclear weapons.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are they supposed to fulfill NPT obligations even though they don't apparently have nukes?? Geez, you're sure stringent about international politics.

Not really, but then again neither of those places are theocracies, and neither of them have threatened to "wipe [a smaller country] off the map"; they also have democratic systems and controls for removing corrupt officials. Those might be only sparingly used, but I think they would probably be enacted for a rogue nuking. Iran's...not so much. Anyway: which NPT obligations have those countries not fulfilled?

*cough cough* Much like Israel has denied having nuclear weapons?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hey, if we're taking everyone completely at their word here, then the Israelis don't have nukes, the Armenian Holocaust never happened, women have full rights in Saudi Arabia, there's religious freedom in Pakistan and WMDs in Iraq. And so and so on, ad infinitum.

So you're saying the current president is really in charge after all? Different posters on the site go one way or another, so I'm not sure which it really is.

Bomb with what? It takes a nuke to kill a dam?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

geoff here you say they dont have nukes, and then you insinuate they do below

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

israel is not obliged by the NPT as they have not signed it. thats the point. Not very responsbile of the Israelis is it??? And yes they have got nukes, stop being an Israeli nukes denier??!!

Well you are right geoff they are not theocracies, but the soviets were led by a comunist dictatorship and so is china and then guess what the only country to have used a nuke in anger is the US, so really your argument does nto stand up. Tell me one dictatorship which has used a nuke in anger

Oh i thought you said they did nto have nukes, make up your mind geoff.

oh so you beleive it when you hear translatins of the iranains sayign they "want to wipe israel"off the map, but you dont believ them when they say they dint want to buld nukes. you seem to believ what you want o also Geoff

was i????? No not really, but dont worry you have already confirmed that it is not ahmendijad which is the problem but iran

Ask the Dpeuty PM of Israel and minisiter for strategic threats Avigdor Leiberman, who issued one of such statements.


~~~~~~~~~
Also the NPT obligations not fulfilled is the disarment of the nukes.

~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do? But then I don't, obviously. Because, naturally, it isn't. Look, I think my position is perfectly clear. They always have been. If there were one word to sum up the basis of my contributions to this site, that word would be: "perfect clarity".

I deny nothing! Nothing at all! Except that Israel has nukes! But I deny saying that! I deny the denial.

Yes but I don't think we should wait around "just to see". I think Iran should open up their facilities and just let the UN properly regulate them. What's there to hide? Otherwise, why the nuclear weapons documents?

I certainly have. And my position is very clear, except where it isn't.

Don't we all?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have? All I'm doing is asking. Is there a law against that or something?

I'm thinking a nuke would probably be overkill, besides being kind of a bad move internationally.

They didn't disarm the nukes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks Geoff you post makes everything all clear now!

cheers for that!

 

Ah, and here's Geoff again.

Sums it up......

 

Nnnnnnope. Steve, tell him what he didn't win...

Political islam is dangerous because it's secular power derived from a system that's inherently prone to abuse via suppression of other religions, women and homosexuals.

Political Christianity is much the same, except that it's mostly under control (although they do have the "turn the other cheek" thing, plus a couple other points). If it weren't, I'd bitch about it.

Rampant capitalism - or, frankly, any capitalism at all - is inherently a bad thing, since it promotes inequity and discourages humanitarianism.

Rampant socialism or communism is just as bad, since it discourages society and sometimes even humanitarianism.

Got it? Are we learning yet? Feel all better now?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Did YOU read the articles SAM? 1) I did read the sites and they do not answer my question. How does creating capitol starve people?
2) The only half-way solutions they hinted at were pro-gloabalization. Not anti- but Pro.
Poor countries should have equal access to Western markets.
That of course makes one wonder - what do you suppose would happen if there were no Markets? Do you think that the power-hungry rulers in many of these coutnries would sit up and say - Hey Hey Hey I think I'll look after the needs of the people now that there isn't a market to sell to?

Don't be naive.

What these people NEED are democracies.
I suggest for people at very low level of societal development they may need a religion to control them somewhat while they develop to a secular democracy in the future. The Greek God Athena will do. Anything but monotheism really.

If you carefully read the opening article you will see it is completely full of crap.
1) Leaders must address trade practices. Yes I agree. THEIR LEADERS
2) As a result of official inaction - THEIR OFFICIALS
3) The strawberries and flower - where to begin. This person's writing is all over the place and this sentence contradicts the opening argument - whihc was to address equal trade not food production. Jesus. The second article already stated the world make more food than it needs. So the answer is equal access. So what's this crap about flowers and strawberries - as if the fields are NEEDED for food. Very poorly written.
4) I try to only eat organic - but the fact is GM food is sought after by farmers. India has made HUGE strides in supplying their farmers with GM seed. So lets take an even hand here. If anything the problem with those arse holes at Monsanto's is a problem for any farmer - including US farmers. But so long as people shove the shit in their mouths Monsanto's AND India will continue to sell their GM seed. (I've rarely read anything suggesting all GM food is dangerous - but maybe some?)

In the end the article complains but offers no solution. Certainly not a one world Islamic government!

Here's the opening:
To solve the world hunger crisis, it’s necessary to do more than send emergency food aid to countries facing famine. Leaders must address the globalized system of agricultural production and trade that favors large corporate agriculture and export-oriented crops while discriminating against small-scale farmers and agriculture oriented to local needs. As a result of official inaction, more than thirty million people die of malnutrition and starvation every year, while large industrial farms export ever more strawberries and cut flowers to affluent consumers. Excessive meat production, again largely for the affluent, requires massive amounts of feed grains that might otherwise sustain poor families. Giant agribusiness, chemical and restaurant companies like Cargill, Monsanto and McDonalds dominate the world's food chain, building a global dependence on unhealthy and genetically dangerous products. These companies are racing to secure patents on every plant and living organism and their intensive advertising seeks to persuade the world's consumers to eat more and more sweets, snacks, burgers, and soft drinks.



So what was your solution SAM? Equal access to global markets (aka free trade) or a One World Islamic government run by the Ayatollah?

Viva La Republic!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Where did I suggest that capital breeds starvation? I just said its easily to fall into the myth of secularism and liberty when the costs of your comfort are paid elsewhere.

Thats why I stopped right there. You're obviously still spinning your own stories.

Or being chased by balloons

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh so now you are pro-capitolism?

You have never qualified the second statement. Even the statement "the myth of Secularism and Liberty" has as much substance as fluff. Secular Democracy is a form of government that relinquishes control to the people in that country.

I don't SAM maybe you'd be happier living under a Catholic King in Spain 400 years ago. I'm sure you'd either find pork very tasty in short order or be wishing for secular democracy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

pooork Yum Yum.

 

Yes, again - SAM's solution was what?

 

Yeah pretty obvious that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah so what's your point? Secular Democracy is a form of government that relinquishes control to the people in that country.

What is "the myth of Secularism and Liberty"

And what exactly is your solution SAM?

 

Syncretism of course, the way we do it in India, i.e. don't demonise people for their beliefs and don't harm anyone for profit.

I hate to see what the effect of western secularism has been on Indian culture. I just hope they wake up and realise we haven't survived 5000 years by giving up our Indianness.

 

Frying up red herring today? People in India will "survive" even if they become blatant Atheist Communists. Peoplein India today would be different than people 5000 years as culture is constantly changing.

I am sure that some people in India demonise some people in Pakistan.

As for Indian culture. Yes, I hope it remains unique as it develops. How does that fit with a One World Islam? Wold a One World with an Islamic Government be conducive to certain aspects of Indian culture - like Atheists or Hindu? Would it safe guard Hinduness? History suggests no.

Japanese people have done exceptionally well at remaining "Japanese" while at that same time interacting and progressing with the rest of the modern secular institutional World. Can Indian people do likewise? Maybe, maybe not.

What is "the myth of Secularism and Liberty"

And what exactly is your solution to the starving children SAM?

 

Does Pakistan and India have the same culture? I often find many Indians are quietly proud of India - the last to say something. Pakistani often seem to be the first to tell you how great Pakistan is, much better than India, but one gets the feeling they don't really believe it themselves.

 

I'm talking about the ethos of the country; Indians for instance would never vote for invading a country on such flimsy principles and nor would they consider that using corporations to deprive people of livelihood is a good thing.

And no its not my job to tell you how your economy functions. You are the people with the power, right? Use it to educate yourself.

Like for example, the 800 years of Mughal rule in India vs the 200 years of British colonialism. Which one led to the partition of a Muslim Pakistan? Western ideology breeds dissent and separatism; they refuse to accommodate other ideologies, in fact destroy everything they cross.

 

Actually, Christianity does surpress Homosexuals and does not standardize women as the same rank as a man.

 

Yes, the recognition and application of "turn the other cheek" is oh so evident within political Christianity's history, what with their death toll that easily surpasses every religion that ever existed. If you fail to agree with this statement, I question your sanity and credibility. The timeline of religious history is well recorded, much like the bloodshed that accompanied it. Political Christianity has caused more deaths than just about any other force of factor we've ever witnessed. The complete conquering of all the Western world, all of Europe, half of Africa, colonialism, and even bloodshed within its own borders: Christianity would have conquered the whole world were it not for Islam. Christianity also is against homosexuality, and a glance at the OT will rapidly reveal the inequality within genders...but I suppose that is not of importance to you, considering your narrow-minded hatred for one particular religion.

 

Firstly, I have never met a person who thinks depriving people of their livelihood is a good thing. Is there an example you'd like to provide?

Secondly, it hard for me to really accept your statement as I am the one who is against the invasion of Iraq and think that the conquest of Persia was equally as wrong and think conquering polytheistic Arabs was wrong as well – while you are the one who thinks the Iraq invasion was not warranted but the Persian and Arabs - they had it coming.

This is code for: I have no idea what I am talking about. I like to say things like “globalization” is bad “capitalism” is starving children to dead but when pressed I really have no idea.

NOTE: The websites you posted were pro-globalization SAM. They were also pro-Capitalism. The point was that they think there is not enough free in the free-trade between poor countries and rich and that barriers should come down in the rich so that poor can export their produce to the rich. I actually agree with them. I buy pomegranate juice from Iran, lychee juice from Africa and goji fruit from Tibet. As long as they, hopefully, don’t use banned pesticides then I am happy to do business with my shopping cart.

You seem to think one precludes the other. I agree British colonialism was wrong but that doesn’t mean a Monarchy is therefore beneficial. A Monarchy can function well when there is a great leader but when one gets a crap leader then it’s horrendous – which is why Democracy is a better option. Because one WILL show up. But Democracy has its faults too - democracy can only work when people make semi-educated decisions. The best is a secular Democracy where people are educated. As this puts a lot of power in the hands of the Citizens with that power comes a lot of responsibility. Perhaps you’d rather a Monarch do the thinking for you, I will stick with a Republic thank you.

Wiki:
The language of the court was Persian although most of the subjects of the Empire were Hindu. The dynasty remained unstable until the reign of Akbar, who was of liberal disposition and intimately acquainted, since birth, with the mores and traditions of India. Under Akbar's rule, the court abolished the jizya (the poll-tax on non-Muslims) and abandoned use of the lunar Muslim calendar in favor of a solar calendar more useful for agriculture. One of Akbar's most unusual ideas regarding religion was Din-i-Ilahi ("Faith-of-God" in English), which was an eclectic mix of Hinduism, versions of Sufi Islam, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Christianity. It was proclaimed the state religion until his death. These actions however met with stiff opposition from the Muslim clergy, especially by the Sufi Shaykh Alf Sani Ahmad Sirhindi.

The Mughal emperor Akbar is remembered as tolerant, at least by the standards of the day: only one major massacre was recorded during his long reign (1556–1605), when he ordered most of the captured inhabitants of a fort be slain on February 24, 1568, after the battle for Chitor. Akbar's acceptance of other religions and toleration of their public worship, his abolition of poll-tax on non-Muslims, and his interest in other faiths bespeak an attitude of considerable religious tolerance, which, in the minds of his orthodox Muslim opponents, was tantamount to apostasy. Its high points were the formal declaration of his own infallibility in all matters of religious doctrine, his promulgation of a new creed, and his adoption of Hindu and Zoroastrian festivals and practices.

Religious orthodoxy would only play a truly important role during the reign of Aurangzeb Ālamgīr, a devout Muslim and the man responsible for many atrocities and eventual downfall of the Mughal empire; this last of the Great Mughals retracted the liberal policies of his forbears. Although under Aurangzeb, the empire extended to its largest, his rule was thus less popular with the Hindu Rajputs, and with the rise to military power of the Sikhs, may have been the prime factor in the downfall of the Mughals.

yeah, that whole “lets tax the infidel” thing is soooo much more enlightened. Yeah, they were soooo accommodating when they blew those 2500 year old Buddhist statues to smithereens. Yes Islam is a testament to pluralism – just look at all the Synagogues, Churches and Arab Polytheistic temples on the Arabian peninsula. Yeah, look at all the Zoroastrian fire-temples in Iran. Taxing people based on their personal belief – there’s a accommodation for ya.

Much better than those evil “Western” ideologies like - the banning of Slavery , or how legal equality between women and men, or a Civil government?

Evil stuff those "ideologies" – it’s a wonder the Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Honkongese, Singaporeans, etc.. etc.. etc.. are still alive!

One more time in case we missed it:
Western ideology breeds dissent and separatism; they refuse to accommodate other ideologies,

religion was Din-i-Ilahi ("Faith-of-God" in English), which was an eclectic mix of Hinduism, versions of Sufi Islam, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Christianity. It was proclaimed the state religion until his death. These actions however met with stiff opposition from the Muslim clergy,

Michael

 

Agreed politcial monotheism is the worse form of government on the planet.