Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal eglamkowski's Journal: News 24

Journal by eglamkowski

Look, the government is "doing something"!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dougbandow/db20040329.shtml
*puke*

----

Even Richard Clarke's own friends say he no longer has credibility. But that won't stop the rabid Bush haters!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37790

----

Should we trust this guy? Probably not. Still interesting to read this stuff.
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm

----

Billionaire makes his own kid work at McDonalds. Aaahh, character building. Obviously this isn't in the US, where character building exercises are practically illegal.
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cp_oddities_home&articleID=1562012

----

http://www.jnewswire.com/news_archive/04/03/040328_real_estate.asp

What sort of religion requires bogus charities to fund terrorist activities? Anybody ever heard of a bogus buddhist temple whose funds were diverted to terrorist groups? A shintoist temple? Taoist?

And it's not just an isolated case or two, this happens all the time, all over the world - muslim terrorist groups using charities and mosques to fund terrorism.

And yet we're supposed to believe this is a religion of peace...

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

News More

News

Comments Filter:

  • What sort of religion requires bogus charities to fund terrorist activities? Anybody ever heard of a bogus buddhist temple whose funds were diverted to terrorist groups?

    IIRC, the buddhists fund the Democratic Party. Close enough.

  • What sort of religion requires bogus charities to fund terrorist activities? Anybody ever heard of a bogus buddhist temple whose funds were diverted to terrorist groups? A shintoist temple? Taoist? And it's not just an isolated case or two, this happens all the time, all over the world - muslim terrorist groups using charities and mosques to fund terrorism. And yet we're supposed to believe this is a religion of peace...

    Given that Islam is not a monolith, any more than Christianity is, it's unfair -- bord

    • It's not just Hamas. I shouldn't have had to point this out, but sometimes the obvious does need stating:

      Al-Qaeda gets funding in this way too. As does the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf and all the rest. It is problem highly endemic to Islam in a way that does not exist in any other religion. This is simple fact, not bigotry.

      Hamas was just mentioned specifically for the simple reason that it is specifically in the news at this time.

      So, can you name any other religion where this sort of th
      • So, can you name any other religion where this sort of thing goes on in this endemic way?

        Nice straw man you set up there.

        Be that as it may, I don't need to provide an example: all I need to point out is that at various times all religions went through that sort of phase, especially when the culture it is part of feels threatened. Think of Crusader-era Europe.

        You're in effect arguing that it is the fault of the religion: it is not. It is the fault of demagogues using religion to further their ends, jus

        • No I do not set up a straw man. You miss an absolutely fundamental point about Islam: it seeks to fully integrate religion and politics.

          This is not easy for westerners to really grasp at the gut level, since we take it for granted that religion and politics are separate. That's not how Islam works in most of the world. In most countries where Islam is the dominant religion, it is also the state religion.

          So it's not about a few loonies abusing religion. The very religion itself dictates it must be used
          • You miss an absolutely fundamental point about Islam: it seeks to fully integrate religion and politics.

            Oh, you mean like the Covenanters in Cromwell's England, the Puritans and Pilgrims in colonial America, John Knox in Scotland, David Koresh, the Mormons, the Russian Orthodox church...?

            Secularized Christianity is hardly the only flavor of Christianity out there (not now and certainly not historically). Neither is fundamentalist Islam the only kind of Islam...

            This is not easy for westerners to reall

            • You continue to miss the point: when "Christians" claim to desire a combination of Church and State, they are acting against the very dictates of their religion, against the very words of Jesus himself.
              "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

              When muslims combine religion and state, they are following the example of Mohammed himself, who was both political and religious leader of the early muslims.

              Please explain how the directive to slay idolators is taken out of context. Here are the verses from the Shakir
              • when "Christians" claim to desire a combination of Church and State, they are acting against the very dictates of their religion, against the very words of Jesus himself. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

                Many Christians throughout history have apparently gone against that quote in the Bible in order to create a Christian state -- I've already named a ton of examples and don't need to bother with more. That they were wrong to do so is irrelevant: just the Bible was misused in the Crusades to justify k

      • The various Muslim religions have a structural problem that allows for more idealogues. There is no 'head of the religion' as there are in Christianity and Judaism. Like it or not, the Pope's proclamations carry much weight, even amongst Protestants. Perhaps more to the point, what Popes 1000 years ago said still resonate with nearly all Christians today. I don't think I need to go into the rabbinical traditions of Judaism. But Islam lacks any structure to create a... definitive interpretation of the Quran.
        • That's essentially true: Islam does not have a Pope, bishops, not even priests per se (the closest to a "priest" would be an imam; and to be an imam, depending on your flavor of Islam, you pretty much find people to listen to you and say "hey, I'm an imam!").

          It is precisely this lack of a structure that made it difficult to have anything like an "Islamic Reformation" -- Islam was "reformed" (in the sense of lacking a central authority like the Pope) right from the beginning. Even the Shia "grand ayatollah

        • That is actually completely wrong.

          Islam was designed to unify religion and state in a theocracy with a Caliph as the supreme authority on all matters of life secular and spirital.

          This is not idle speculation, this is how it actually worked for centuries from the death of Mohammed.
          • Islam was designed to unify religion and state in a theocracy with a Caliph as the supreme authority on all matters of life secular and spirital.

            Oh, you mean like the Pope claimed temporal supremacy over both Church and State in the Middle Ages?

            Besides, you're only talking of one variant of Islam that was centuries ago. The last caliphate of much significance was destroyed by the Mongols in, oh, 1258.

            As to whether Islam was "designed" to have caliphates...it was no more "designed" for it than Christia

            • Oh, you mean like the Pope claimed temporal supremacy over both Church and State in the Middle Ages?

              Curiously, that happened 700 years after Jesus. The Church was not created by Jesus or his Apostles so as to combine the two. The Muslim Caliphate occurred immediately after the death of Mohammed and the Caliphate was specifically designed to combine the two.

              And actually, the position of Pope has existed since the death of Jesus. St. Peter was the first Pope in 32AD. Matthew 16:17-19 show that the Chur
              • WTF? You're arguing on the one hand that the Caliphate existed "immediately" after Muhammad's death (what difference does that make, anyway?), then say in effect that the Pope existed "immediately" in the form of Peter -- and then try to argue there's a difference in their "designs" because one had a leader early on and the other...had one as well?! What the hell are you trying to say?

                So here you're trying to draw a distinction between some implied "design" of Islam to have a Caliphate because they had Ca

                • The point is that the Pope was set up as a purely spiritual leader, and has always been so from the very beginning. "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's" is a very clear statement of intention on the part of Jesus that the Church and the State are separate.

                  The Caliph was BOTH a spiritual leader AND a political leader, and was so from the very beginning. Mohammed practiced this as a matter of historical fact, and his successors followed his example and continued the practice after his death.

                  There is noth
                  • I'm focused on how the religions were practiced by the founders and using that as a standard against which to judge the practices of subsequent generations.

                    And you're implying that Muslims have the green light to kill non-Muslims, which is flatly wrong. They do in highly specific circumstances have permission to kill "idolaters" who have betrayed them -- "idolaters" is meant as "pagans", i.e. those not believing in one God, or "people of the Book" in the Islamic term. IOW it's forbidden for Muslims to kil

          • I'll defer to Ethelred on this one.
  • Even Richard Clarke's own friends say he no longer has credibility. But that won't stop the rabid Bush haters!

    Something I've noticed lately:

    When someone backs Clarke, there are invariably a "shrill partisan" who is "lined up for a position in the [hypothetical] Kerry administration."

    However, when someone discredits Clarke, they are merely providing "impartial, thoughtful analysis of the facts."

    Funny thing, that.

  • Do not protect me from myself. I am fully aware of my own actions and I accept full responsibility for them. If I want a short term, high interest loan for an emergency (Like say the $450 we spent on my car last week), please do not tell me that you are protecting me when you say I cannot have it.

    Argh, ridiculous. We need some kinda waiver, I don't want all these "rights". I do not want the freaking government to "protect" me.

  • What sort of religion requires bogus charities to fund terrorist activities? Anybody ever heard of a bogus buddhist temple whose funds were diverted to terrorist groups? A shintoist temple? Taoist?

    And it's not just an isolated case or two, this happens all the time, all over the world - muslim terrorist groups using charities and mosques to fund terrorism.

    And yet we're supposed to believe this is a religion of peace...

    And what would you say to the "bogus charities" that raise money to support Christian
  • Even Richard Clarke's own friends say he no longer has credibility. But that won't stop the rabid Bush haters!

    Another Accuser Confirms Clarke's Charges [truthout.org]

    Billionaire makes his own kid work at McDonalds. Aaahh, character building. Obviously this isn't in the US, where character building exercises are practically illegal.

    Saw that, thought it was quite cool. Not just billionaire - the leader of Thailand, too. It should be noted, however, that Bill Gates supposedly plans on not leaving anything for his k

Slashdot Top Deals

About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the ends. -- Herbert Hoover

Close