Paris attacks

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thread Starter

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,081
So fight genocide with genocide. That sounds like a losing battle for everyone. :-/ Hence my original quote.
It's not a battle for everyone as most people don't have the stomach for it but if these people can't be contained in their rat-hole then someone has to kill the rats before they infect the entire population. Total war with Daesh is a last resort but if that's what needs to be done I'm for being all in to get the job done once and for all.
 

boatsman

Joined Jan 17, 2008
187
Here I thought in 1947, the U.N. defined the creation if Israel. Arabs and Israeli's have been fighting since then. It didn't start in the 1970s. The six day war was in 1967.
For your information Israel was a civilized nation when in Britain they were painting themselves with woad (quoted by Benjamin Disraeli in parliament). Also the Arab attacks on Israel didn't start after the Six Day War. There was a massacre by Arabs of the Jews living in Hebron in 1929 so that can't be considered as a result of the "occupation". But that is of no concern to a lot of PC people. "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
I wonder how many ISIS leaders are really pursuing a radical agenda, versus a plain old power grab for themselves. The fanatical footmen may be whipped into their frenzies using religious trappings, but many of the military leaders are ex-Iraqi red guard officers. I bet they see themselves as the next Saddam Hussein. Not a religious leader by any stretch of the imagination, but willing to use religion as one more tool to exploit and control the useful idiots.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,234
I wonder how many ISIS leaders are really pursuing a radical agenda, versus a plain old power grab for themselves. The fanatical footmen may be whipped into their frenzies using religious trappings, but many of the military leaders are ex-Iraqi red guard officers. I bet they see themselves as the next Saddam Hussein. Not a religious leader by any stretch of the imagination, but willing to use religion as one more tool to exploit and control the useful idiots.
Undoubtedly, there are some that are out for power. But I think most are truly religious fanatics, in the most accurate sense of the word. Remember that many of the leaders already have/had wealth and power to some extent. Think Osama bin Laden, or the current Ayatollah of Iran. Many were educated in the US and Europe at some of the 'best' universities.

They truly believe they are doing Allah's work. And if their own death is a result, it is welcome -- they are convinced they will be rewarded.

Personally, 72 virgins are insufficient for eternity. I'd probably go through them in about a month or so. Then what?
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,218
Personally, 72 virgins are insufficient for eternity. I'd probably go through them in about a month or so. Then what?
Here's an interesting fact, all of the promises made in the Koran to the so called "martirs" are hedonistic in nature, and none of them truly spiritual.

"... There will be two Gardens containing all kinds (of trees and delights); In them (each) will be two Springs flowing; In them will be Fruits of every kind, two and two. The Fruit of the Gardens will be near (and easy of reach). In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched; Like unto Rubies and coral. Is there any Reward for Good— other than Good? (55: 46– 60)"

And if that weren't enough, here is a hadith narrated by the famous scholar al-Ghazzali:

"... These places [in paradise] are built of emeralds and jewels and in each building there will be seventy rooms of red color and in each room seventy sub-rooms of green color and in each sub-room there will be one throne and over each throne seventy beds of varied colors and on each bed a girl having sweet black eyes. . . . There will be seven girls in each room. . . . Each believer will be given such strength in the morning as he can cohabit with them. These virgins “do not sleep, do not get pregnant, do not menstruate, spit, or blow their noses, and are never sick.” "

It is this sort of statements, and the countless number of specific rules dictating a muslim's everyday life, that has made me arrive at the conclusion that islam is not a true religion, but rather a form of tyrannical government.
 
Last edited:

OBW0549

Joined Mar 2, 2015
3,566
It is this sort of statements, and the countless number of specific rules dictating a muslim's everyday life, that has made me arrive at the conclusion that islam is not a true religion, but rather a form of tyrannical government.
I find it really difficult to take seriously any "religion" whose concept of Paradise, as a reward for a life of virtue, is a sort of cosmic Bunny Ranch full of virgin hookers.
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,218
I find it really difficult to take seriously any "religion" whose concept of Paradise, as a reward for a life of virtue, is a sort of cosmic Bunny Ranch full of virgin hookers.
So do I... but what if we had been raised in a society that had kept us in misery and want our entire lives?
Being offered for our suffering a house full of fruits and delis, and decorated with precious stones, and women to tend our yearnings and every need will sound very appealing.

The deliberate cycle of hunger, poverty and need (and hence, ignorance) is the prime mover of their ideology... it's like a snake feeding upon itself.
 
Last edited:

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
Sorry if I'm interrupting this debauchery fest but, Are the French people generally disarmed by their government so the terrorists have a good chance that nobody in a crowd might shoot back at them?
 

OBW0549

Joined Mar 2, 2015
3,566
Sorry if I'm interrupting this debauchery fest but, Are the French people generally disarmed by their government so the terrorists have a good chance that nobody in a crowd might shoot back at them?
France's gun laws are extremely strict, stopping barely short of an outright, total ban on firearm possession. This article in the Washington Post from last January, right after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, asks-- with touching innocence and naivete-- why these laws didn't protect the victims.

The article said:
French gun laws date back to April 18, 1939, though they have been amended a number of times since. They are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires apsychological evaluation.

According to Gun Policy, a project by the University of Sydney, the punishment for illegally having a gun is a maximum of seven years in prison and a fine. In 2012, the French government estimated that there were at least7.5 million guns legally in circulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top