Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on June 29, 2007, 04:10:59 PM
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1272910,00.html
Police have confirmed that not one, but two massive car bombs were set to explode in the heart of London's West End.
-
luck was on our side last night with the lucky spotting of the first car bomb by amberlance men who became suspicious of a smoking car.
Also luck was with us when a illegaly parked car was towed away to a compound which was also a car bomb,for once the parking attendents wshould be thanked for takeing away the car .
today we have been lucky and as useual london carries on as normal.
luck be with us
-
What has been the official response from the new PM? Wouldn't be surprised if part of the plan was to test the resolve of the new PM.
ack-ack
-
Not sure how he would 'prove' his resolve. Launch an indescriminate bombing raid on Bradford?
-
They are saying they think it was a 'terror scare' but do they know or has anyone claimed responsibility?
Sure am glad they caught the bombs before detonation.
to the cop for recognising the situation and doing something about it.
-
heres another viewpoint...
Larry C Johnson
No Quarter
Friday, June 29, 2007
So I turn on the telly this morning and find breathless CNN anchors hyperventilating over the nuclear suicide car weapon of mass destruction discovered smoldering outside of a London nightclub. One report from the scene notes that:
London police were contacted when witnesses saw a Mercedes being driven erratically near London West End night club Tiger Tiger, and the driver jumped out of the automobile and ran away. The car was reported to have two gasoline canisters and be full of nails.
CNN adds:
Explosives officers discovered the fuel and nails attached to a "potential means of detonation," inside the vehicle. Officers "courageously" disabled the trigger by hand, he said. Security sources told CNN that the "relatively crude device" in the first car contained at least 200 liters, or about 50 gallons, of fuel in canisters.
You know what you call a vehicle with 50 gallons of gas? A Cadillac Escalade. The media meltdown over this incident is simply shameful.
For starters, gasoline is not a high explosive. If we were talking 50 pounds of Semtex or the Al Qaeda standby, TATP, I would be impressed. Those are real high explosives with a detonation rate in excess of 20,000 feet per second. Gasoline can explode (just ask former owners of a Ford Pinto) but it is first and foremost an incendiary. If the initial reports are true, the clown driving the Mercedes was a rank amateur when it comes to constructing an Improvised Explosive Device aka IED. Unlike a Hollywood flick the 50 gallons of gas would not have shredded the Mercedes into lethal chunks of flying shrapenal.
The fact that "officers courageously disabled the trigger by hand" coupled with the report of the smoke in the car leads me to believe that the mad London "bomber" tried to construct a Molotov cocktail of sorts and lit a cloth fuze. Fortunately he left the windows in the car up and there was not enough oxygen to really get the fire going. Looks like the brave British police reached in and snuffed the flame.
Judging from the overreaction to this non-incident I think we can safely conclude that Osama Bin Laden will remain holed up in Pakistan and let the fear mongers at CNN, MSNBC, and FOX do the dirty business of scaring the **** out of people.
-
Right, and if the fifty gallons of non explosive gas would have exploded and people were maimed and mutilated by nails, and car parts, i wonder who he'd be making fun of then.
I say good job on preventing a potential disaster.
-
I reckon a if that caddie blew up Fester, it would make quite a big bang!
-
WTG you Brits.
Always one step beyond :aok
-
I was in that area on a night out last week, same situation when the London tube bombs went off, i was on the kings cross train exactly a week prior to when the suicide bombs went off then... kinda scary when you think how close to home it all is.
-
"there are no car bombs in london" bagdad bob.
-
maybe.
close enough bystanders not seeing a flaming car could get caught in the fire but I do not believe the fire would project the nails at a lethal velocity.
I happen to have much experience with nails and have had one of the nail guns which I have used for roofing get the safety tared up ejecting a 1 1/4 inch nail at around 120 psi max it will not break the skin after traveling more than a few feet. point blank sure but still like a gasoline fire the only means of velocity would be compressed gas or in this half baked IED attempt the ignited gas expanding instead of compressed air
still the point is this was a rank amateur defiling a nice car.
-
Nice cars? they are ****ty old Mercedes. Stand on a corner and watch the cars go past in the centre of London and you will see 50% worth $100k +
-
Bloody Gentry...ahhh, the humanity.
-
aye my mistake on the mercedes as I unintentionally associated the name with quality automobiles not accounting for condition or location. (in the US they are high priced imports)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Not sure how he would 'prove' his resolve. Launch an indescriminate bombing raid on Bradford?
If something like this causes the PM to withdraw support from the war on terror then the PM showed lack of resolve but if this stiffens the British stance and strengthens their committment to defeat terrorism, then he's proven his resolve.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Citabria
maybe.
close enough bystanders not seeing a flaming car could get caught in the fire but I do not believe the fire would project the nails at a lethal velocity.
I happen to have much experience with nails and have had one of the nail guns which I have used for roofing get the safety tared up ejecting a 1 1/4 inch nail at around 120 psi max it will not break the skin after traveling more than a few feet. point blank sure but still like a gasoline fire the only means of velocity would be compressed gas or in this half baked IED attempt the ignited gas expanding instead of compressed air
still the point is this was a rank amateur defiling a nice car.
The explosives found were both fuel (gasoline) and gas canisters (preliminary reports indicate the gas canisters were propane tanks commonly used for gas BBQs). Had any of those propane canisters (if that's what the gas canisters contained) gone off, it would have been a pretty big explosion, at least enough to kill or seriously injure/maim those in close proximity.
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/world/0706/gallery.london.scare/images/super.patiogas.weir.jpg)
Picture shows one of the gas canisters that was found in the car.
ack-ack
-
If it doesn't go off, everyone forgets about it in two media cycles. If it does go off, we have website after website proving it was the government or Haliburton but never, ever Islamists doing what they have been doing for the last 1400 years.
Odd isn't it that when people claiming to be Christians were bombing abortion clinics and threatening abortionists in the early 90s no one claimed it was a conspiracy by the Government or Haliburton?
-
If it doesn't go off, everyone forgets about it in two media cycles. If it does go off, we have website after website proving it was the government or Haliburton but never, ever Islamists doing what they have been doing for the last 1400 years.
But we do get you slagging off another religion either way, don't we?
-
those zany moslems. good one for the good guys. I'm glad to hear no one was injured.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
But we do get you slagging off another religion either way, don't we?
His imaginary friend is better than the other fellas imaginary friend so you kinda have to live with that. ;)
-
I happen to have much experience with nails and have had one of the nail guns which I have used for roofing get the safety tared up ejecting a 1 1/4 inch nail at around 120 psi max it will not break the skin after traveling more than a few feet.
I too have extensive experience with nail guns (siding guns shooting 8P nails). While you are correct that they won't break the skin after traveling a few feet, they will go all the way through your knee at point blank range. :eek: Don't ask me how I know this and I'll tell you no lies. :p
*edit* Oh yeah, framing guns shooting 16P nails can do some damage at point blank range also, but I wouldn't know anything about that. :noid
-
Originally posted by john9001
"there are no car bombs in london" bagdad bob.
Get back to us on your 13th birthday.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Not sure how he would 'prove' his resolve. Launch an indescriminate bombing raid on Bradford?
For you Americans or any other nationality that are prolly unaware of the pun. Bradford is a small town mid north of England. Was typical of the industrial revaluation but as time passed on it's industrial heritage wained. A deprived town now living in the shadow of resent economic recession. However, it is still fondly remembered by Brits as a "hard working mans" town. Salt and earth of English "working class" BUT that is a nostalgic view. In reality the population isn't the indigenous British. Whites are outnumbered by ethnics mostly Pakistani and Indian. Fair to say that a small minority of the present ethnic community are second and third generation. Using a euphormism,.......... Brit Pak's.
Bradford was also high lited in a "LOW" lite way for race riots some years ago. Many suspect the lack of media coverage the dumbing down of these events wasn't to do with "Indigenous" whites on the war path but much more to do with Brit Paks intimidating the "indigenus". A belief punted by the BNP (neo nazi's). I can't comment further on the facts or fiction to the riots because I simply do not now. Perhaps someone could comment later without getting into a "us and them" drama. Just facts please.
As for our new PM's resolve it was just the standard political response on the lines of "we should be ever vigilante in these trying times". Not an exact quote but you get the drift.
As for the timing to test the new leaders resolve as touted by the media..... who knows. More to the point who bleedin cares The Brits wouldn't give a monkeys about what leader we have. They (bad guys) are messing with the country us Brits. I'll tell you this if the Luftwaffer couldn't bomb old Mrs Smith out of the east end of London a disenfranchised, deluded individual, or a Ala-bleedin-akbar type, doesn't stand a chance.
-
Originally posted by LYNX
For you Americans or any other nationality that are prolly unaware of the pun. Bradford is a small town mid north of England. Was typical of the industrial revaluation but as time passed on it's industrial heritage wained. A deprived town now living in the shadow of resent economic recession. However, it is still fondly remembered by Brits as a "hard working mans" town. Salt and earth of English "working class" BUT that is a nostalgic view. In reality the population isn't the indigenous British. Whites are outnumbered by ethnics mostly Pakistani and Indian. Fair to say that a small minority of the present ethnic community are second and third generation. Using a euphormism,.......... Brit Pak's.
Bradford was also high lited in a "LOW" lite way for race riots some years ago. Many suspect the lack of media coverage the dumbing down of these events wasn't to do with "Indigenous" whites on the war path but much more to do with Brit Paks intimidating the "indigenus". A belief punted by the BNP (neo nazi's). I can't comment further on the facts or fiction to the riots because I simply do not now. Perhaps someone could comment later without getting into a "us and them" drama. Just facts please.
As for our new PM's resolve it was just the standard political response on the lines of "we should be ever vigilante in these trying times". Not an exact quote but you get the drift.
As for the timing to test the new leaders resolve as touted by the media..... who knows. More to the point who bleedin cares The Brits wouldn't give a monkeys about what leader we have. They (bad guys) are messing with the country us Brits. I'll tell you this if the Luftwaffer couldn't bomb old Mrs Smith out of the east end of London a disenfranchised, deluded individual, or a Ala-bleedin-akbar type, doesn't stand a chance.
sounds sort of like dearborn michigan
-
Fifty gallons of gasoline would make a very nice fire. It would also be plenty to explode the canisters of propane which would be a very very intense explosion. Remember the fuel air bomb??? Same principle. The first tank to blow would likely shred the others adding even more explosive power to the first and would then send the nails out as frags and far more velocity than a nail gun. Remember using nails as a weapon is not new. Think beehive round in 105 mm artillery and tank guns in Viet Nam as well as beehive rounds in the "thumper" (40mm grenade launcher).
The idea of a terror weapon is not to cause massive loss of life alone, it's to cause mass casualties of all kinds. Having a few nails stuck in you, even superficially would not make your day at all. There is also no telling if they were "clean" either.
-
And now a burning jeep crashes into Glasgow Airport (failed suicide bombing it appears).
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1273090,00.html
Got the people alive, hope they let them burn for a while before they put the flames out.
-
Just my impression of things, but it seems like more and more moderate, average muslims are beginning to speak out against the radicals.
The radical Islamists seem to have tunnel vision. They never miss any faux pas committed by the U.S., Britain, or any western power....and never see the things done by these same nations to safeguard the lives and rights of their fellow muslims. The fact that NATO forces composed mainly of U.S. and west European forces stopped the ethnic cleansing aimed at muslims in Bosnia has been totally forgotten. As have the atrocities Saddam committed against Shi-ites in Iraq.
As I said, it's just my impression, but some of the moderate muslims are beginning to "get it."
-
Shuckins,
I'd like to think that what you said is happening. Until I see non radical muslims turning in or removing the radical components on their own I don't think I'll have much credence in it.
I see lots of demonstrations dealing with death to something, country etc. but not death to radicalism and terrorist acts.
-
Every little bit helps...odd ya only hear this from blogs, etc and not the NY Times, etc
link (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010210.php)
According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights group's annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.
The organization instead is relying on about two dozen individual donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR's budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year. ...
Critics of the organization say they are not surprised membership is sagging, and that a recent decision by the Justice Department to name CAIR as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a federal case against another foundation charged with providing funds to a terrorist group could discourage new members.
M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, says the sharp decline in membership calls into question whether the organization speaks for 7 million American Muslims, as the group has claimed.
For a group that only has 1,700 members, it has an inordinate amount of political clout. The fact that roughly 25 people paid $3 million and represented the majority of its financing should raise some eyebrows. It comes to an average contribution of $120,000 each for last year alone.
-
Today's attack happened because the terrorists panicked. Their main attacks failed / were stopped, so they hastily put together a plan to try to do something before they could be tracked down and caught by the police.
-
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/WNT/abc_wn_glasgow3_070630_ms.jpg)
Both the London and Glasgow attacks have all the hallmarks of failures due to lack of training, both look like the work of cells with extremely limited knowledge of how to actually manufacture and detonate explosive devices. My guess would be that these men were organized into cells at the local Mosque level but did not receive training abroad, which is a huge mercy. The Glasgow attack in particular was obviously an attempt at a martyrdom mission and had they known how to prepare and detonate a fuel/fertilizer bomb they would have likely killed scores in the main terminal building. Reports are coming in that 17 hrs prior to the London bombings, a post on Jihadi internet site called Al Hesbah warned that London would be bombed particularly in "response" to the Rushdie knighting (you naughty Brits, they warned you what would happen if you knighted him, but you just don't listen, do you?)
Anyway, this is something that Britain in particular is probably going to have to get used to, my hope is that while they have nothing that will squelch the zeal of the would be shaheeds who will carry out these operations, and no ability to remove the threat entirely, that the security forces would continue to be effective in ensuring that the quality of training and equipment remains low and that the majority of the really ambitious attempts continue to be detected and broken up.
Sadly though, as in most of Europe, all the Jihadis have to do to win is continue to immigrate and massively out-reproduce the indigenous population. In a hundred years, Europe will have become "Eurabia" without the need to fight a war of conquest.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Anyway, this is something that Britain in particular is probably going to have to get used to
It is okay, we had the IRA, it is nothing we cannot handle.
-
we just need to take the gloves off and kill as many of these a-holes as possible. i say no spot in the middle east should stop glowing for 300 years.
-
the terrorists got what they wanted, the media are rolling out their expert talking heads for 24/7 non stop coverage.
-
Remember using nails as a weapon is not new. Think beehive round in 105 mm artillery and tank guns in Viet Nam as well as beehive rounds in the "thumper" (40mm grenade launcher).
Iirc, those aren't nails. A more accurate term would be flechettes which are designed to fly through the air. Nails will rapidly lose their energy in a home made bomb like this. You would still have to be fairly close for them to do any serious damage.
Don't ever underestimate a nail gun. Nails protruding from your body parts hurts. :O
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Sadly though, as in most of Europe, all the Jihadis have to do to win is continue to immigrate and massively out-reproduce the indigenous population. In a hundred years, Europe will have become "Eurabia" without the need to fight a war of conquest.
- SEAGOON
Breed for jesus is it? When the Moors ruled spain and the Mediterranean , they brought culture, prosperity, and intially were tolerant to the areas they ruled whereas the rest christian europe was mired in the dark ages...
Originally posted by Furball
It is okay, we had the IRA, it is nothing we cannot handle.
true, and those guys were actually good at this sort of thing....
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Iirc, those aren't nails. A more accurate term would be flechettes which are designed to fly through the air. Nails will rapidly lose their energy in a home made bomb like this. You would still have to be fairly close for them to do any serious damage.
Don't ever underestimate a nail gun. Nails protruding from your body parts hurts. :O
Nails propelled by a large explosion will not be doing minor damage as they will be traveiling far in excess of what a nail gun can do. They won't travel like a bullet that's true. You can stand close if you want. I would rather be about a klick or so from them.
-
Breed for jesus is it? When the Moors ruled spain and the Mediterranean , they brought culture, prosperity, and intially were tolerant to the areas they ruled whereas the rest christian europe was mired in the dark ages...
So what have they done in the LAST 700 or so years? Oh yah, stay exactly where they were;)
-
sadly this is what the world is coming to in israel its day to day but people dont mind it much since 2nd antifada the explosives commenly used by suicide bus bombers where a mix of a c4 comopund rat poisen and nails you can imagine the damage i even have a vidieo tapped bombing where the cahrred head of the bomber was all that was left. Hopefully this was a set of freak incidents by a small faction and they will all get caught hopefully!
big to the poeple of london for being brave in this time of hardhship its hard but life goes on and from experience i know that its all up to perseverence and hope and a dab of caution!
once again and stay safe guys!
-
Interesting,were was the war on terrorism,when we were getting bombed in the seventies,eighties,and Nineties.
Anyway you can't have a war on terrorism.Terrorism is a Tactic!
It's a deliberatly vague phrase to allow you to go to war ad infinitem.
You fight terrorism using your intelligence services,and infiltrating terrorists cells,Not by going to war.
What would have happened if we had countered Northern Irish Terrorists by marching in to southern Ireland...see what I mean,not intelligent at all,in fact counter productive.
GET USED TO IT? ..lol I've lived with terrorism since I was Nine.;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nails propelled by a large explosion will not be doing minor damage as they will be traveiling far in excess of what a nail gun can do. They won't travel like a bullet that's true. You can stand close if you want. I would rather be about a klick or so from them.
Nails won't fly straight. They start to tumble very quickly even when initially fired straight, as in from a nail gun. Because they tumble, they will lose energy and lethality quickly. Unless you are talking a 16P nail or larger, nails don't have the weight to hold their energy for long either.
I'm not saying to stand next to the bomb, that would be just dumb. Normal nails are a far cry from military style flechettes though in terms of lethality.
These guys should have used steel ball bearings if they wanted maximum damage.
-
the explosives commenly used by suicide bus bombers where a mix of a c4 comopund rat poisen and nails you can imagine the damage i even have a vidieo tapped bombing where the cahrred head of the bomber was all that was left.
Inside an enclosed area, coated with rat poison, and propelled by a decent explosive, nails would be quite nasty.
-
Given the area they chose for the blast, the damage would have been significant as well as the injuries. They were not in an area that they had to cover a big distance with the explosion, they were in a people packed environment, the same that makes market bombs in Baghdad so horrific.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Nails won't fly straight. They start to tumble very quickly even when initially fired straight, as in from a nail gun. Because they tumble, they will lose energy and lethality quickly. Unless you are talking a 16P nail or larger, nails don't have the weight to hold their energy for long either.
i'd be more worried about penny nails than anything else, your more likely to get cut by the head of the nail than the point.
i've been hit by richocheted framing nails, it didnt hit hard enough to even bruise, its not like it didnt hurt.
i imagine being hit by a bunch of them while there still hot from being in a explosion would be most unpleasant, even if it doesnt do any serious damage.
of course, just using readily available BBs or ball bearings would work better...but nobody accused terrorists of being particularily smart.
-
dont make me post some of the pics that i have of what nails can do when blown up in proximity to a human :(
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i'd be more worried about penny nails than anything else, your more likely to get cut by the head of the nail than the point.
i've been hit by richocheted framing nails, it didnt hit hard enough to even bruise, its not like it didnt hurt.
i imagine being hit by a bunch of them while there still hot from being in a explosion would be most unpleasant, even if it doesnt do any serious damage.
of course, just using readily available BBs or ball bearings would work better...but nobody accused terrorists of being particularily smart.
I've been hit by nails that have ricocheted as well, it stung, but not to bad. Heck, I had a 16P nail in my wrist one time.....that hurt lol. I agree that being hit by a bunch of hot nails would be most unpleasant.....most unpleasant.
I hadn't thought of using BBs, but yeah, even BB's would probably do more damage than nails.
-
Nails may not be the ideal projectile. But when you put enough force behind them, they'll make a nasty mess. Propane is not necessarily the ideal explosive either. But you can sure as Hell put enough tanks off of back yard grills in a van to make a pretty big bang. Terrorists, especially when the authorities are on top of them, have to use improvised explosives. Sure, ball bearings and C4 would be most effective. But you can't find that at your corner hardware store. Buy some C4 or some torpex, or several hundred pounds of ball bearings, and someone is going to come to see you, you might get away with picking up some BB's though. The problem with BB's is they aren't as effective as bigger ball bearings. Work your way around town buying tanks of propane and boxes of nails, and you likely won't get noticed, if you're careful. Sort of like there was a time if you had a cap and some overalls you could buy a few tons of ammonium nitrate and a couple hundred gallons of diesel no questions asked.
-
Originally posted by evenhaim
dont make me post some of the pics that i have of what nails can do when blown up in proximity to a human :(
Oh, no need for that. If you are close enough to the blast, nails WILL most certainly mess you up pretty badly.
My only point is that nails could be substituted for a far more effective material, such as ball bearings. Ball bearings will hold their energy for much longer than nails will and as such do more damage over a greater area than a bomb made with nails.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Oh, no need for that. If you are close enough to the blast, nails WILL most certainly mess you up pretty badly.
My only point is that nails could be substituted for a far more effective material, such as ball bearings. Ball bearings will hold their energy for much longer than nails will and as such do more damage over a greater area than a bomb made with nails.
I am guessing that nails are probably easier and less suspicious to get hold of.
-
Originally posted by Furball
I am guessing that nails are probably easier and less suspicious to get hold of.
Only until your gooberment (which is no better than my gooberment) passes a law saying you can only possess a handful of nails at one time ;)
-
they are sharp and pointy, you will need a permit before using them, and then will have to write a risk assessment and method statement for the use of every nail.
-
Originally posted by Furball
they are sharp and pointy, you will need a permit before using them, and then will have to write a risk assessment and method statement for the use of every nail.
heh
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Nails may not be the ideal projectile. But when you put enough force behind them, they'll make a nasty mess. Propane is not necessarily the ideal explosive either. But you can sure as Hell put enough tanks off of back yard grills in a van to make a pretty big bang. Terrorists, especially when the authorities are on top of them, have to use improvised explosives. Sure, ball bearings and C4 would be most effective. But you can't find that at your corner hardware store. Buy some C4 or some torpex, or several hundred pounds of ball bearings, and someone is going to come to see you, you might get away with picking up some BB's though. The problem with BB's is they aren't as effective as bigger ball bearings. Work your way around town buying tanks of propane and boxes of nails, and you likely won't get noticed, if you're careful. Sort of like there was a time if you had a cap and some overalls you could buy a few tons of ammonium nitrate and a couple hundred gallons of diesel no questions asked.
Nails can be pretty bad. If I can remember, nails around explosives was the unabomber's favorite method.
-
Propane as a bomb? Not very effective. Take a look at this. According to journalists and police 'hundreds could have been killed' by the propane cylinders in those cars. Yeah? maybe if you they were in the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28cUOpOtc8Ihttp://
You tube is full of videos of nuts blowing up propane tanks with no noticeable mass carnage. As an aside. looking at all those guns in the video, maybe it's just as well British gun laws are tough. Those guys in the video could do a lot of damage with their mini arsenal.
Someone mentioned the IRA, whatever happened to them? Oh yes, they're sharing government in Northern Ireland at the moment. So much for defeating terrorism.
-
The would-be bombers in London sure could have chosen better bomb making supplies all the way around it seems. Lucky for Londoners these particular guys were about as sharp as a tack when it comes to making bombs.
-
Are the new outlets in Britain downplaying all this? Been SOP over here
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Propane as a bomb? Not very effective. Take a look at this. According to journalists and police 'hundreds could have been killed' by the propane cylinders in those cars. Yeah? maybe if you they were in the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28cUOpOtc8Ihttp://
You tube is full of videos of nuts blowing up propane tanks with no noticeable mass carnage. As an aside. looking at all those guns in the video, maybe it's just as well British gun laws are tough. Those guys in the video could do a lot of damage with their mini arsenal.
Someone mentioned the IRA, whatever happened to them? Oh yes, they're sharing government in Northern Ireland at the moment. So much for defeating terrorism.
Realize that those videos, at least the 3-4 that I watched, showed what happens when you puncture a propane cylinder while it is near or in a fire. They do not show what happens when the propane itself builds up pressure inside the cylinder until it ignites itself inside the cylinder under extreme pressure. That is much like the difference in igniting black powder or smokeless powder while it is piled up on a cookie sheet and igniting it when it is contained in a pressure vessel. Two entirely different reactions.
Notice what happened with the small hand held (about 1 pound or less) propane torch bottle in the fire, it actually exploded. Now, imagine 2-6 30 pound propane cylinders in a burning vehicle (full of all sorts of material like plastic, foam, rubber, and oil, that burns hotter than your average campfire). While you might not level a building with it, realize they don't care as much about wrecking objects as they do about killing and maiming people. Surround those same 30 pound propane cylinders with various types of shrapnel. Further, you'll have one tank explode ahead of the others, creating the effect of making all the flammable stuff go to aerosol form (for example, containers of gasoline, kerosene, or diesel not yet burning), then causing the other cylinders to explode together from the shock wave and pressure.
Yes, the goobers screwed it up (thank God for small miracles), and yes, it isn't the ideal efficient improvised anti personnel explosive. But had things gone the other way, as in much better for the bad guys and much worse for the good guys, and it could have been really ugly.
-
I'm sure I'm merely reiterating what others have said thus far.
To our friends in the UK:
WE'RE WITH YOU!
Long live The Britannias
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Propane as a bomb? Not very effective. Take a look at this. According to journalists and police 'hundreds could have been killed' by the propane cylinders in those cars. Yeah? maybe if you they were in the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28cUOpOtc8Ihttp://
You tube is full of videos of nuts blowing up propane tanks with no noticeable mass carnage. As an aside. looking at all those guns in the video, maybe it's just as well British gun laws are tough. Those guys in the video could do a lot of damage with their mini arsenal.
Someone mentioned the IRA, whatever happened to them? Oh yes, they're sharing government in Northern Ireland at the moment. So much for defeating terrorism.
Wrong on both accounts. A punctured propane vessel isn't anywhere near as destructive as a boiled up exploding one. I have witnessed one go up in a vehicle fire. From 100ft away the "EXPLOTION" rippled my clothing. I actually felt a shock wave. The vessel made a low boom as it shot about 40ft in the air after coming through the roof of the snack van that was on fire. Obviously there was a much larger extension to the actual vehicle fire with bits of vehicle being tossed around. I don't mean doors or wheels just particles of burning interior and fragmented glass. Fair to say these particles didn't go far 20 to 30 ft max and didn't seem to travel with any great velocity, Remember I am talking of just 1 canister not 6 with nails strapped to them.
The vessel or canister on examination was peeled open to almost being flat. The base being the only part not to effected. Have you seen that vid of the ice buried p38's 50 cal shooting the 50 gallon oil drum? That propane vessel looked worse.
As for your IRA comment. It shows I'm sorry to say your lack of knowledge with this matter which surprises me as your from Ireland. To be brief and in short. Southern Ireland no longer has a "united Ireland" mandate. The IRA no longer have a united Ireland mandate. The type of government is pretty much as it was 40 years ago prior the "troubles". Perhaps if the IRA went to the ballot box 40 years ago they could have saved themselves a lot of bother but had they done that, the guys at the top of the IRA wouldn't be so wealthy right now.
-
A couple of observations.
Apparently two of the terrorists are medical doctors. The suspected "brain" has a wife and a two year old kid. Goes to show that jihadism doesnt grow just in the lower social strata. Nor does it grow only in the hearts of those with nothing to lose. If two doctors can be terrorists...if family fathers in good social positions can be terrorists...who can be trusted, really?
There are speculations over here that these amateurish attempts were set to be performed by "second tier"-terrorists in an attempt to thin out police resources, and then the big effort comes on saturday, when it is the anniversary of the London bombings.
There are also rumors of a "spectacular" attack in the US. Intelligence agencies see the same type of chatter as they saw before 9-11.
Prague is also at the highest readiness now. Dont know why, but Prague and Rome are next on the Al Qaeda "to do"-list if one are to believe their own statements. The threat to Prague is reported to be very serious, very real and very spectacular.
-
I sure that we are due for an attack.. I don't worry too much tho since it will be in a very blue city.... probly one with heavy gun control.
up side? Gun sales will go up.... less people will vote blue next time... people will realize they need to be responsible for their own safety.
Down side? the blue areas will become more like 1984 (the book) with even more freedom given up for false security.
lazs
-
Both my parents and sister-in-law passed through Glasgow airport a short time before the eejits did their thing.
Scary, but then my parents were also in Manchester when the IRA blew up a large chunk of the city center and I was in London during the IRA attack on Docklands and (more recently), that nutter that was going after the gay community by setting off bombs in the West End. He used nails in his devices to great effect by the way.
This is nothing new for the Brits and for most, it wont change anything - they wont stop going about their normal lives as:
a: It would be admitting defeat.
b: If your time is , your time is up - no point worrying about it.
To be honest, the biggest effect of all this will be the reduced numbers of Americans prepared to travel to the UK both for business and tourism. After previous attacks and things like the Foot and Mouth outbreak, this had a serious impact on the economy - partcularly in rural parts like Scotland that depend on tourism.
The support of America is truely appreciated, but the best thing you could do for us rght now is not to be scared away and cancel any trips you had planned. Remember, statistically, you are MUCH more likely to be involved in a traffic accident driving to the airport than be involved in a terrorist incident. But nobody ever thinks twice about jumping in their car.
Cheers,
Wooley.
-
Picture in the Telegraph of the gas canisters. Remember they were in the car. I rest my case.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/07/02/glasgow/gl1.jpg) [url]
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/07/02/glasgow/gl2.jpg)
As for the IRA, well as Sinn Fein they share power in Northern Ireland. Which is what I meant. Sinn Fein, IRA same thing. Remember I know a lot of Sinn Feiners personally. Believe me the difference is nil. They still want a united Ireland as we all do but have finally joined the rest of us in doing it democratically and peacefully. Slow learners, they are. I still personally don't trust them. Here in the Republic their vote collapsed in the recent election
-
CPXX - Sinn Fein hold seats in the Northern Irish Assembly because they were duely elected by democratic process.
I know for many in Irish and British, having Sinn Fein involved in democratic process feels like defeat, but it always had to be this way - the only way out the circle of violence was for them to agree stop the bombings and us to stop pursuing them as criminals. It took compromise on both sides, but we are now mostly where we should be; if people don't like Sinn Fein or their IRA connections, they don't vote for them.
At least with Sinn Fein and the IRA, we understood their aims and motivations, even if we didn't agree with them or - particularly - their means of achieving them. With these Jihadists, they only aim I can see is to destry the western way of life with no room for comprimise.
-
Google the term BLEVE. It stands for boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion. That's what the gasoline was supposed to accomplish, not scatter the car. It takes a bit of time to make the tanks reach their failure point.
As to the force, I invite you to ask a qualified fire fighter if they think fighting a fire with propane tanks in it is safe to do or if they want to get anywhere near it.
-
Two quotes from an eye-witness.........John Smeaton (these are real)....
John just surpassed himself on the National ITV news. The interviewer asked "What message do you have for the bombers" - and he replied
"This is Glasgow,...we'll just set about you"
John also did an interview on CNN and they asked how he restrained the guy and he said:
"Me an other folk were just tryin' to get the boot in when some other guy banjoed him" !
-
Originally posted by Grisbeau
Two quotes from an eye-witness.........John Smeaton (these are real)....
John just surpassed himself on the National ITV news. The interviewer asked "What message do you have for the bombers" - and he replied
"This is Glasgow,...we'll just set about you"
John also did an interview on CNN and they asked how he restrained the guy and he said:
"Me an other folk were just tryin' to get the boot in when some other guy banjoed him" !
ya mean they didnee even give um a glasgee kiss. Put the heed in ?
-
I find it retarded that some here are stating the bombs were not big enough .. amazing.
wtg GB, glad to see it did not hamper the concert
-
only a little one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmbWldLbsSY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmbWldLbsSY)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I find it retarded that some here are stating the bombs were not big enough .. amazing.
+10
-
Ok so I want reductions in NI contributions
I don't want to be deemed to be funding Terrorists through the NHS!
-
Hello Tronsky,
Originally posted by -tronski-
Breed for jesus is it? When the Moors ruled spain and the Mediterranean , they brought culture, prosperity, and intially were tolerant to the areas they ruled whereas the rest christian europe was mired in the dark ages...
Tronsky
I should thank you Tronsky, in that posts like this remind me that as Paul reminded the Ephesians in Eph. 6:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph%206:12&version=50) that the conflict Christians are engaged in (unlike Islam) is not physical but spiritual and that the primary battleground will ever be in the heart. You are under ruthless attack by individuals who, whether they are rich or poor, educated or uneducated, British born of foriegn immigrants all have a common fanatical devotion to Islam, and yet you go out of your way to defend them and instead attack Christ and Christianity.
Admittedly, I never did much self-examination when I was doing the same thing, but have you ever wondered why you have such a visceral hatred for Christianity and an innate desire to make excuses for Islam? And don't kid yourself that it is because Christianity is "repressive" or "intolerant" or "judgmental" - Islam is far more moralistic, even going so far as to tie salvation directly to the performance of good works (of which fighting in the Jihad is but one) so that someone righteous is someone who does righteous works, and intolerant (for instance the Saudis are free to build Mosques and spread Islam throughout the West while no new building of non-Islamic houses of worship or evangelization is permitted). As I said, I didn't think on this phonomena at all prior to being born again, but after that I found the explanation for my prior actions in John 15:18-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2015:18-25;&version=50;)
In any event in answer to your question nothing in my post said anything remotely like the cynical "breed for Jesus" line. As you'll remember, I'm orginally from Britain myself and still keep in touch with friends and family, read British media, etc. We both know that Britain is to use the German Chancellor's phrase a "post-Christian" nation with only a tiny evangelical community. Football has a much larger and devoted following than Christ, so in a very real sense the current worldview struggle there is not between Islam and Christianity, its between Islam and various expressions of materialism.
What I was pointing out in my original post was simply a statistical certainity given current trends. As British Journalist Melanie Phillips put in 2002, Britain is committing a form of "social suicide." Indigenous Britons no longer marry (the marriage rate has dropped to 40%) or have families of any size, in fact they are currently having children at a rate below the replacement level and abortion has reached all time highs (So much for Nelson's: "England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty"). By contrast, Muslims marry and generally have large families. They are in that sense providing the future population of Britain. They are also proving resistant to the siren-song of atheistic materialism which dominates indigenous Britain, in fact their leaders routinely complain about how decadent and empty of purpose the society has become and I'd say their critique is correct, but their solution is worse than the problem. Tronsky, if current trends continue, in a hundred years Britain will be a nation dominated by masjids, maddrassas, minarets and hijabs.
As for the "enlightened" rule of Spain. It depends on which dynasty you are talking about - the Berber kingdoms of the Almoravides and Almohads were certainly far from enlightened and "tolerant". They make the modern day Wahabbis seem mild by comparison and during their rule both the Christians and Jews fled from their territories to avoid death or forced conversion.
But even if one takes the most benign and ahistorical view of Islamic rule of "Andalusia" my point was that Islam being about the business of Jihad was the norm, lets just take the years you referenced between the conquest of Spain and the eventual reconquest for instance:
711 - Beginning of the Muslim Conquest of Spain
711 Tariq ibn Malik, a Berber officer, crosses the strait separating Africa and Europe with a group of Muslims and enters Spain.
711 With the further conquest of Egypt, Spain and North Africa, Islam included all of the Persian empire and most of the old Roman world under Islamic rule. Muslims began the conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan
715 By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands. The Muslim conquest of Spain only took around three years but the Christian reconquest would require around 460 years.
716 Lisbon is captured by Muslims.
717 Second Siege of Constantinople
719 Muslims attack Septimania in southern France
724 Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes
730 Muslim forces occupy the French cities of Narbonne and Avignon.
732 Battle of Tours: With perhaps 1,500 soldiers, Charles Martel halts a Muslim force of around 40,000 to 60,000 cavalry under Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi from moving farther into Europe.
732 Muslim empire reaches its furthest extent.
755 Abd ar-Rahman founds an Umayyad Dynasty in Cordoba, Spain.
800s Written collections of Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) are compiled. Sicily comes under Muslim rule.
813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome.
831 Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Palermo and make it their capital.
838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille.
846 Muslim raiders sail a fleet of ships from Africa up the Tiber river and attack outlying areas around Ostia and Rome. Some manage to enter Rome and damage the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. Not until Pope Leo IV promises a yearly tribute of 25,000 silver coins do the raiders leave. The Leonine Wall is built in order to fend off further attacks such as this.
859 Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Castrogiovanni
869 Arabs capture the island of Malta
870 After a month-long siege, the Sicilian city of Syracuse is captured by Muslim invaders.
876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy.
884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground.
902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed. Muslim rule of Sicily would last for 264 years
911 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy, cutting off passage between the two countries.
920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony, and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse.
928 Umayyad Abd ar-Rahman III declares himself caliph in Cordoba.
939 Madrid is recaptured from Muslim forces.
969 Fatimids gain power in Egypt and attack Palestine, Syria, and Arabia.
985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona
994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destroyed a second time by Arabs.
1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa
1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies.
1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands.
1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed.
1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia.
1030 Umayyad caliphate in Cordoba defeated by the Christian Reconquista.
1042 The rise of the Seljuk Turks begins.
1055 Seljuk Turks take Baghdad
1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia.
1071 Seljuk Turks defeat Byzantines at Battle of Manzikert.
1071 - 1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine.
1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara.
1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans.
1096 FIRST CRUSADE
1099 Christian Crusaders take Jerusalem.
1100-1200s Sufi orders (turuq) are founded.
1171 Fatimid power ends in Egypt with the conquests of Saladin.
1174 Saladin declares himself sultan of Egypt and Syria.
1193 Death of Saladin; most of Crusader states have returned to Islam.
1221 Genghis Khan and the Mongols enter Persia.
1241 Mongols take the Punjab.
1258 Mongols capture Baghdad; city is sacked and caliph is killed. End of Abbasid caliphate.
1281-1324 Reign of Uthman (Osman), who founds the Ottoman Empire. Muslim merchants and missionary Sufis settle in SE Asia.
mid-1300s Ottomans capture Bursa and Iznik and move into Europe.
late 1300s Ottomas take control of the Balkans.
1400s Islam reaches the Philippines.
1453 Mehmet Fatih (rules 1451-81) conquers Constantinople.
1492 Reconquista ends. All Muslims expelled from Spain.
The reversal of that Reconquista is proceeding apace in modern day Spain with Jihadist attacks actually increasing after Spain's withdrawal from Iraq. As in nature, weakness never deters predators.
-
Did you notice that that chronology was kind of not relevent.
I found this passage from the Koran.. thought it was interesting.
"Say to the disbelievers:
I do not worship that which you worship.
Nor do you worship that which I worship.
And Nor will I worship that which you have worshiped.
Neither will you worship that which I worship.
To you belongs your religion, and to me mine."
Chapter 109.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I found this passage from the Koran.. thought it was interesting.
"Say to the disbelievers:
I do not worship that which you worship.
Nor do you worship that which I worship.
And Nor will I worship that which you have worshiped.
Neither will you worship that which I worship.
To you belongs your religion, and to me mine."
Chapter 109.
i guess the terrorists didn't read that part.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I sure that we are due for an attack.. I don't worry too much tho since it will be in a very blue city.... probly one with heavy gun control.
up side? Gun sales will go up.... less people will vote blue next time... people will realize they need to be responsible for their own safety.
Down side? the blue areas will become more like 1984 (the book) with even more freedom given up for false security.
lazs
Why do you think less will vote blue? A large scale attack would just point out the complete failure of the current administratiuon.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i guess the terrorists didn't read that part.
Kind of my point. People who point fingers at an entire faith based on the actions of a few are just plain wrong headed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of my point. People who point fingers at an entire faith based on the actions of a few are just plain wrong headed.
the actions of a few, but the support of many.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Did you notice that that chronology was kind of not relevent.
I found this passage from the Koran.. thought it was interesting.
"Say to the disbelievers:
I do not worship that which you worship.
Nor do you worship that which I worship.
And Nor will I worship that which you have worshiped.
Neither will you worship that which I worship.
To you belongs your religion, and to me mine."
Chapter 109.
Why did you think it was interesting? And why are you quoting that part instead of the part about killing the infidels, stoning the adulterers or opressing the women?
-
The IRA puts these jokers to shame tbfh.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Why did you think it was interesting? And why are you quoting that part instead of the part about killing the infidels, stoning the adulterers or opressing the women?
Why would you not find it interesting? Look up the "slaying the infidel" passages. You may be surprised by the context.
-
Originally posted by Karash
The IRA puts these jokers to shame tbfh.
the IRA wanted to free their country, the islamists want to take over the world.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Why do you think less will vote blue? A large scale attack would just point out the complete failure of the current administratiuon.
Let's not forget the outrage of the current anti-administration over the monitoring of overseas calls. I expect those who were silent during the repeated attacks while Clinton was in charge to remain silent. Of course I know the hypocrites won't.
-
...but have you ever wondered why you have such a visceral hatred for Christianity and an innate desire to make excuses for Islam?
Hey look Tronsky, he's got you all figured out! You visceral hater of Christianity, you!
If anyone has a visceral hatred of another religion around here, Seagoon, I'm afraid you would appear to be one of the most likely candidates. Like some reciprocal, up-side-down David Irving, you seek to blame the actions of a minority on a diverse majority. It really is quite interesting to watch.
Fundamentalists are the same the world over - they want to take away your independence of action and thought, building a mono-ideological society as they go... whatever flavour they come in.
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kind of my point. People who point fingers at an entire faith based on the actions of a few are just plain wrong headed.
The Sura you quote, 109, is from the earlier portion of Muhammad's life while he was still in Mecca attempting to persuade animists, Christians, and Jews to embrace his new religion. Eventually these attempts collapsed and he was forced to flee to Medina. From that point onwards the Quran takes on a more militant tone with Suras like the following: "[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). Eventually, of course, the conversion of the other cities of the Arabian peninsula came not via "discussion" but the sword, and Muhammad was at the forefront of the early Jihad to establish Islam, and when it comes to a religion you judge a faith by the life and teaching of its founder(s) and its fruits.
Most Westerners studying the Quran are unaware of the doctrine of "Abrogation" or Naskh (the are also sadly unaware of doctrines like Taqqiya or "permissible dissimulation") which means that earlier verses are replaced or abrogated by later ones so a few comments on that subject might be worthwhile. Here's a good summary from Robert Spencer on the subject:
How does this work? Consider the verses about wine. In one place the Qur'an says that wine has “some profit” (2:219) for mankind, but elsewhere declares it an “abomination, of Satan’s handwork” (5:90). Muslim scholars generally agree that the wine verses are a relatively clear instance of abrogation. Without abrogation, a pious Muslim would have to declare that "Satan's handiwork" offers "some profit" for mankind.
There is wide disagreement among Muslim theologians as to precisely which verses have been abrogated and which others have replaced them. Still, it has been a mainstream notion in Islamic theology that if a verse revealed at Mecca contradicts another revealed later at Medina, the Medinan verse takes precedence. In an earlier response to Esmay I explained how this principle of abrogation works for the Islamic teaching on jihad, and for general reference I will repost that material here, with some revisions.
Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur'an commentators argue that violent material, such as sura 9, abrogates more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109. This is not a newly-minted view "cherry-picked" by Osama bin Laden; it is in fact a very ancient view. When discussing why Muhammad didn't begin sura 9 with the customary invocation bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, "in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful," an intriguing answer comes from a Qur'an commentary that is still highly valued today in the Islamic world, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. This is a fifteenth-century work by the renowned imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505). The invocation, suggests this tafsir, “is security, and [Sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword.”
Security’s removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur'an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them") “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” He adds from another authority: “No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse’s functions is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.”
This idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109 — the sources of many of the Qur'an's verses of peace and tolerance — are all Meccan. That means that many Muslims, guided by commentators such as those above and the imams who teach from them, see these suras only in light of what was revealed later in Medina. Being the last or next-to-last sura revealed, sura 9 is generally understood as being the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book — including the “tolerance verses” — must be read in its light.
Ibn Kathir states this explicitly in his commentary on another “tolerance verse”: “And he [Muhammad] saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not. Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know” (Qur'an 43:88-89). The commentator explains that “say Salam (peace!) means, ‘do not respond to them in the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.’” However, that is not the last word on the subject. As Ibn Kathir notes: “But they will come to know. This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until the people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west.”
In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance, with the pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the better course.
For a quick explanation from Islamic sources check out this page:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=2656&CATE=1
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Why would you not find it interesting? Look up the "slaying the infidel" passages. You may be surprised by the context.
Why would I not find it interesting? Id say its about as interesting as the rest of that cursed book.
The context would be that the passage was written during a period when Mohammeds tribe was involved in a war with a neighbouring tribe. Therefore it is a very agressive and hostile verse...and in it, all good moslems are instructed to slay the infidels. Whats your point?
-
Hello Dowding,
Originally posted by Dowding
Hey look Tronsky, he's got you all figured out! You visceral hater of Christianity, you!
If anyone has a visceral hatred of another religion around here, Seagoon, I'm afraid you would appear to be one of the most likely candidates. Like some reciprocal, up-side-down David Irving, you seek to blame the actions of a minority on a diverse majority. It really is quite interesting to watch.
Fundamentalists are the same the world over - they want to take away your independence of action and thought, building a mono-ideological society as they go... whatever flavour they come in.
A lot of this argument always strikes me as positively surreal. Its rather like being in the middle of the Blitz and commenting "Nazism is the greatest threat we face, we must all seriously consider how best to stop it's violent expansion, and combat it as an ideology" and hearing:
* How can you condemn an entire political ideology? You are overlooking all the good teachings of National Socialism.
* National Socialism is no more "violent" than democracy, look at all the agressive wars "democratic nations" have waged!
* Not all Nazis are violent, why I know some Nazis who lived nearby and they were the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. Not like some people around here...
* Well if warmongers hadn't provoked them, they never would have gone to war in the first place! Besides they've been terribly oppressed by the Western Democracies, we've brought this upon ourselves. Besides do you know how many innocent Nazis we've killed, and how many attrocities we've committed? why I have this running tally I can't wait to put on the internet when we invent it. I'll call it germanwardead.co.uk!
In any event, Dowding, while I dislike Islam as an ideology because I believe it is false and has not produced anything approaching good fruit, I don't hate Muslims, as a matter of fact one of the differences between Christianity and Islam is that I am commanded to love them and pray for them, while they are commanded to fight and either kill or subjugate me. Usually when you ask Westerners what they like about Islam, the answers they give are not actually teachings of Islam. For instance, seldom do I hear, "O I'm a big fan of the Hijabs and Burkas, total abstinence, stoning for adultery, preventing other faiths from operating in the Dar-El-Islam, women being classed essentially as beasts of the field, Jihad, slavery, and corporate prayer 5 times a day." Instead we get ephemeral statements about arts and sciences in the middle ages, references to changes the West has introduced into the Dar-El-Islam, and complaints about the crusades and the oft-quoted "O its just a small minority" which theory should have been exploded by the Danish Cartoon riots but predictably wasn't.
Dowding my views may be different because I interact with the Soldiers and Missionaries who go into the Dar-El-Islam on a regular basis, as well as ordinary people who have converted from Islam, not with businessmen from Dubai or playboys from the gulf-states, or a few westernized individuals in the USA or Britain. I also have tried to read as much Islamic history, theology, and law as I have had time for.
Now you can dismiss me as a loon and a rabid hater, that's your right in our mercifully democratic society, but I don't think you can prove me wrong by making a coherent argument that Islam is a "religion of peace" or that it is not at the root of events like the slaughter in Darfur and southern Sudan, or countless terrorist campaigns from Thailand to Britain.
If Christians had protested in London holding signs saying "Behead those who call Christianity violent" we'd never have heard the end of it and ultimately "fundamentalist" people like me would have been held responsible, but when Muslims do it, the veil is pulled over the events in embarassment and everyone starts waving their hands and saying "this has nothing to do with Islam as a religion" even when embarrassing documentaries filmed at "moderate" London mosques prove otherwise.
I will willingly uphold, proclaim, and accept every single one of Jesus Christ's actions and teachings and never seek to incoherently disconnect them from the Christian faith, but Just answer me this, did the murder of Asma Bint-Marwan at Muhammad's command have nothing to do with Islam? What say ye?
- SEAGOON
-
It just occurred to me that my comment about documentaries filmed at so-called "moderate" mosques might be confusing to some non-Brits. I was making reference to an edition of Channel 4's Dispatches program which was filmed undercover in a number of Mosques held to be "moderate" and eager to cooperate with the government. What was discovered was that if these were the "moderate" mosques, then things were far worse than anyone had previously thought:
Dispatches, part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo)
Dispatches, part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI&mode=related&search=)
Dispatches, part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k&mode=related&search=)
Dispatches, part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE&mode=related&search=)
Dispatches, part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs&mode=related&search=)
Dispatches, part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjvNScmTQA&mode=related&search=)
-
In any event, Dowding, while I dislike Islam as an ideology...
When someone goes out of their way to use Nazism as a comparative, I would contend that there is something deeper than 'dislike' at work. I won't call you dishonest, however you are in danger of appearing that way.
As for a surreal aspect to the argument, I quite agree. On the one hand portraying yourself as a paragon of piety, praying for people yet judging them to being akin to card carrying Nazi party members. Very tolerant. Very - if you will allow me to use the term - Christian.
My knowledge of the theology of Islam is not as learned as yours - you clearly preach for a living and that is your religion. However, I would love to see you and an Islamic scholar 'discuss' these issues. What is more, I would like to see the O-Club audience see that argument. At the moment we have an amateur theologian, who readily compares Islam to Nazism as the only side to this argument.
Sadly, the odds of seeing a balanced discussion are slim.
The 'root of events' is not Islam. It's human greed, lust for power and stupidity. Maybe even the need to feel significant. Those have been the key drivers of human behaviour since before Mohammed or Jesus ever walked the earth.
-
Really Dowding, there isn't anything wrong with using an analogy to show a point.
-
Dowding wishes for "peace in our time", how British of you old boy.
-
I would say that we've already seen some of the muslim "discussion". I believe some of it is broadcast on al jazeera. It does seem to be one sided in the discussion. Once the allah akbars start and the knife is used as a point before the opposing side is allowed to speak there doesn't seem to be a differing view. I suppose I will be branded as a "reactionary" since I use this as an analogy as well.
-
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."
Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf
"The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were".... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."
Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933
"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie."
Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party
"As Fuehrer of the German people and Chancellor of the Reich, I can thank God at this moment that he has so wonderfully blessed us in our hard struggle for what is our right, and beg Him that we and all other nations may find the right way, so that not only the German people but all Europe may once more be granted the blessing of peace."
Adolf Hitler, before the Reichstag, 06 Oct. 1939
"But he who dares to use the word "God" for such devilish activity blasphemes against Providence and, according to our belief, he cannot end except in destruction."
Adolf Hitler, speaking about Jews and international "warmongers," on 04 May 1941, before the Reichstag
So much for that analogy...
-
I've seen guys living under bridges claiming to be Jesus. Hitler claiming he was following him didn't make it so. A comparison of Mohammad's vs Jesus' teachings might be interesting.
-
Teachings are one thing, practice another.
Was Martin Luther a Christian?
-
Originally posted by AKH
Teachings are one thing, practice another.
Was Martin Luther a Christian?
Perhaps in the case of Mohammad he didn't practice all of his teachings, we could examine that. I know enough about Jesus' teachings to know you can't say he didn't walk his talk. Yes, Martin Luther claimed to be a follower of Christ though I couldn't quote him offhandedly.
-
Luther's theology challenged the authority of the papacy by emphasizing the Bible as the sole source of religious authority and the church as a priesthood of all believers. According to Luther, salvation was attainable only by faith in Jesus as the messiah, a faith unmediated by the church. These ideas helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.
The man who instigated the Protestant Reformation and you can only manage a "claimed to be a follower of Christ?" Is this in the same sense that guys living under bridges claim to be Jesus or that Hitler claimed to be a Christian, or that Seagoon claims to be a Christian?
-
Originally posted by AKH
The man who instigated the Protestant Reformation and you can only manage a "claimed to be a follower of Christ?" Is this in the same sense that guys living under bridges claim to be Jesus or that Hitler claimed to be a Christian, or that Seagoon claims to be a Christian?
I'm a lowly IT tech who has had a couple of Margaritas tonight. If I knew more specifically what you would have from me I would gladly oblige.
-
Well, I was after a simple yes or no answer, but I can understand your reticence to commit either way.
If you had to bullet-point the main teachings of Christianity, what would they be?
-
Originally posted by AKH
Well, I was after a simple yes or no answer, but I can understand your reticence to commit either way.
If you had to bullet-point the main teachings of Christianity, what would they be?
Yes, Martin Luther was definitely a christian.
Bullet points:
-All of mankind has the nature of sin
-Sin will not be allowed to exist in the presence of God
-God desired for us (you and I) to have communion with him
-God made a way, through Christ, for us to exist with him eternally
Pretty much it in my understanding
-
Hi All,
I'm not sure if the situation is more funny or sad. Middle-class British Muslims attempt to blow up Nightclubs and an Airport in Britain, and as I expected when the religious motivations of the would be bombers are mentioned, the British AH2 BB members respond by defending Islam and attacking Christianity. Good thing you lads aren't distracted by all this Muslim bombing nonsense and are still able to identify the real threat. Namely the hordes of secret British evangelicals just waiting to tie you up and force you to suffer through an entire Christian Rock concert complete with overweight flag dancers.
It's also disappointing, but not really surprising that neither Hoopy nor Dowding bothered to deal with the Social issues I mentioned.
Anyway, regarding the Hitler was a Christian too, so there! argument, here we go again, to quote an earlier thread:
Hitler was not a Christian, philosophically, like most Nazis of the period he was a Nietzschian. For those of you not familiar with the 19th century German philosopher, here is a brief synopsis of his life and thought regarding Christianity written by Simon Kistemaker:
"Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, born in 1844, belonged to a family of preachers. His father was a minister of the gospel and so were numerous ancestors of his mother. Studying theology, he developed a deep aversion to the Christian faith. He portrayed Jesus as a weakling who shamefully died on a cross in utter failure. Nietzsche despised not only Jesus but also all who believe Christ's gospel. According to Nietzsche, Christians favor suffering, scorn riches and learning, and prefer the weak to the strong. For him, God was dead and Jesus a fool."
Hitler and the Nazis therefore saw Christianity as a weak and foolish religion that stood in the way of the strong dominating the weak. But Hitler realized that most Germans (though overwhelmingly theologically liberal - i.e. anti-supernaturalists) still had an attachment to the church. Therefore the Nazis made concerted efforts were made to co-opt and "Nazify" the churches in Germany and work towards the day when National Socialism and Aryanism would replace all other ideologies. In the "Nazi" church, nationalism and Aryanism became the central creeds, and Christ was in effect replaced by Hitler. An example of this would be the famous quote from Nazi church leader, Pastor Julius Leutheuser: "Christ has come to us through Adolf Hitler... We know today the Saviour has come... We have only one task, be German, not be Christian."
Eerdman's Handbook of Church History gives a good synopsis of this period and makes clear that Hitler cyncically first used the church for his own ends, and then worked to eliminate it entirely -
"The plight of Christians under the Nazi regime was also precarious. Born and reared a Catholic, Hitler abandoned whatever Christian principles he had in favour of the secular philosophies of the day. But he never formally cut his ties with the church, nor was he excommunicated. National Socialism itself was a new faith which appealed to the millions of Germans who longed for national regeneration. Hitler's hatred for the church was primarily political; he envied the power Catholicism had over its adherents, and despised Protestantism for its lack of unity and of authority. However, he courted both Protestant and Catholic support during his rise to power by emphasizing the nationalist aspects of his programme, and by claiming to support the church's position in the state.
...
Hitler's policy toward the churches after January 1933 was purely pragmatic. He realized the power they possessed, and did not want to initiate another Kultur-kampf. But he assumed that, in time, the outdated Christian faith would die out. The Catholic bishops endorsed the new regime. The Catholic Centre Party voted for the measure which allowed Hitler to rule by decree, and the Centre and Catholic trade unions 'voluntarily' dissolved themselves.
In return the Fuhrer agreed to a concordat with the Vatican... The concordat greatly increased the prestige of Hitler's regime. By it the church sanctioned the liquidation of the religious (confessional) political parties, and the barring of the clergy from politics. It formed a milestone in the consolidation of the totalitarian state. Many churchmen feared that open conflict with the regime might jeopardize those privileges still protected by the agreement. The Nazis violated the concordat almost from the very beginning; it gave no protection against attacks, and at the same time it undermined the developing Catholic resistance.
A movement swept the Protestant church in 1933 calling for 're-unification and 'nationalization' of the twenty-eight provincial churches (Landeskirchern) with a single "Reich-Bishop" at its head. This seemed in line with Hitler's policy of bringing all groups under the total control of the Fuhrer and the state. The "German Christians" secured the election of Ludwig Muller, a fervent Nazi. They also restructured the church along Nazi lines, by introducing the Fuhrer principle into church government and adopting the 'Aryan paragraph' which provided for dismissal of all people of Jewish origin from church staffs.
Hitler, however, took little notice of these steps, and rejected the 'German Christians' idea of a National Socialist state church. He felt that the church's sole function was to cater for benighted [benighted: intellectually unenlightened] people who still had religious needs. Any church, even a Nazified one, threatened to divide loyalties; he would tolerate no such limitations to his power.
Hitler listened increasingly to anti-Christian Nazis who called for the elimination of both the 'German Christians' and their opponents in the church. After 1934 Nazi support for the 'German Christians' waned, although many continued to occupy church posts. They became even more extreme in their claims that the Nazi movement represented the true fulfilment of Christianity, but they found that Nazi favour could be gained only by a wholehearted commitment to its racial ideas and the exaltation of the Fuhrer. With the creation of the Ministry of Church Affairs in 1935, under Hanns Kerrl, they and the Reich-bishop were put on one side.
The increasing encroachment of the Nazi state on religious matters alarmed many Protestants and Catholics, and what followed was the well-known Kirchen-kampf (church-struggle). In September 1933 Dr Martin Niemoller formed a Pastor's Emergency League to combat 'German Christian' ideas. In the following year his group repudiated Muller and set up an alternative church government structure known as the Confessing Church. Its theological basis was spelled out in the Barmen Declaration of May 1934. ... the Declaration called the German church back to the central truths of Christianity and rejected the totalitarian claims of the state in religious and political matters.
...
Harassed by the Gestapo and repudiated by most Protestant leaders, the Confessing Church led a perilous existence. Its very presence was an embarrassment to the Nazis and its witness to Christ's Lordship over the world implicitly challenged Hitler's totalitarianism."
[Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity p.578]
Several members of the Confessing Church movement ended up in concentration camps, and a few like Bohoeffer were active in the anti-Hitler resistance.
It's important to note that the resistance to the claims of Hitler and the Nazis on the allegiance of Christians came from the sectors of the church that actually believed the bible and considered the claims of Christ to be paramount. In other words it was by-and-large the evangelicals who resisted. A fact that is born out by the fact that the signers of the Barmen Declaration Available online here self-consciously identified themselves as evangelicals. The churches that were most easily co-opted and controlled by the Nazis were those which had dismissed the truth claims of the bible and thought Christianity was just another source of morals and national pride.
Hitler believed that he was the savior of the German people, and dismissed all other claimants to that title including of course, Jesus.
- SEAGOON
-
What about love?
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He said,"YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." (Matthew 22:37) He then added that the second most important law was "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Jesus said that the entire law was dependent upon these two commandments.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)
-
Originally posted by AKH
What about love?
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, He said,"YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." (Matthew 22:37) He then added that the second most important law was "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Jesus said that the entire law was dependent upon these two commandments.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)
"Love is all you need."
Beetles plagiarizing God.
-
So Seagoon - was Martin Luther a Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.
-
Originally posted by AKH
So Seagoon - was Martin Luther a Christian? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Sounds like you have something up yer sleeve H? Martin Luther was but a man and no man is perfect but Christ.
-
Middle-class British Muslims attempt to blow up Nightclubs and an Airport in Britain,
British Muslims?
All the suspects identified so far are foreign born and trained, they arrived in Britain in the last few years to work as doctors. None of them have citizenship, afaik.
-
Counter to Seagoon's impressively lengthy post.
Myth 1: Hitler was not a Christian
The evidence itself destroys any opinions or beliefs about Hitler's alleged apostasy.
The evidence shows that:
Hitler was born and baptized into Catholicism
His Jewish antisemitism came from his Christian background.
His early personal notes shows his interest in religion and Biblical views.
He believed that the Bible represented the history of mankind.
His Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution) included a section on Positive Christianity, and he never removed it.
He confessed his Christianity.
He tried to establish a united Reich German Church.
Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish synagogues and temples, but not Christian churches.
He encouraged Nazis to worship in Christian churches.
He spoke of his Christian beliefs in his speeches and proclamations.
His contemporaries, friends, Protestant ministers and Catholics priests, including the Vatican, thought of Hitler as a Christian.
The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic.
To ignore the evidence of Hitler's Christianity demonstrates how power of belief can obscure the facts.
Myth 2: Hitler pretended his Christianity only for political purposes
This one represents one of the most persistent constructions about Hitler's Christianity. Revealingly, proponents of this myth never provide evidence for this hypothesis. If he, indeed, pretended himself as a Christian, then on what evidential material does it stand on? If Hitler acted as a pretend Christian, then were does he disown his belief in Christ? Does he write in his private notes that he used religion only for political purposes? Did any of his close associates or friends think so? Where?
Of course Hitler did try to use political force to control Christianity and he tried to establish a unified Reich Christian Church, but this only supports his stand on his view of "positive Christianity" as described in the Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution). And yes, he criticized the Catholic and Protestant hierarchy, but so what? So do Popes and Protestant leaders. Martin Luther himself strongly condemned the Catholic religion and thought of it as the work of the Devil.
I suspect that those who propagate this myth rely on mainly one source: the dubious reliability of Hitler's table talk (a second-hand source that allegedly records the words of Hitler). The table-talk got edited by the anti-Catholic Martin Bormann (Hitler's secretary) and describes political views against the hierarchy of orthodox Christianity (just as Bormann would have liked) but even here, Hitler never speaks against Jesus Christ, but rather in favor of him. (See Hitler's table talk and other extraneous sources).
What obliterates this theory comes from the fact that Hitler continued to express his "positive" Christian views, well after his rise to power. If, indeed, he needed Christianity only for political purposes, then why-oh-why does he continue with the charade after he has established himself as absolute dictator?
But just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that Hitler really did pretend his Christianity; that his sole aim went to politically winning over German Christians so that he could gain their confidence. How in the world does that improve your argument in protecting Christianity from Hitler? If that proved the case, then who should get the blame, Hitler or the gullible Christian German citizens who believed him? And what does that say for the integrity of Christianity if the most Christianized country in the world could not distinguish a member of their own belief system? Think about it. If the most pious Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false or "real" Christianity, then how in the world could anyone tell? I submit that the only way to tell comes from the very words from those who make the claim. Indeed, this constitutes the very flaw of any religion because there never has existed a testable way to determine the truthfulness of a belief in the supernatural. And if you cannot tell by the words of your fellow Christians, then anyone with minimal acting talent can deceive anyone, including monks, bishops, or popes. In fact, monks, bishops and popes themselves, could fall prey to falsehood. I submit to you that a false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they both practice falsehoods!
The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.
But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.
Myth 3: Hitler got his ideas of Aryan superiority and Jewish hatred from Darwinian evolution
Hitler showed no knowledge of Darwinian evolution or natural selection. Nowhere in Mein Kampf does he mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution" (in the context of natural selection).
As for Aryan superiority and his Jewish hatred, Hitler clearly describes in Mein Kampf how he slowly began to change his mind about the Jews from the influence of the anti-Semitic movement of the Christian Social Party. His views with regard to anti-Semitism he said, "succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all." (read volume 1, chapter 2). Nowhere does he explain his anti-Jewish beliefs in Darwinian terms.
In his private notes, where he describes the Bible as a "Monumental History of Mankind," Hitler outlines his views of the Aryan and the Jew, all in the context of Bible reasoning, never in the context of Darwinian natural selection.
Moreover, Hitler viewed progeny, not in regards to evolution but in terms of blood lines (a Biblical view). He peppered his writings and speeches with "blood" words. Examples in Mein Kampf include:
"One blood demands one Reich."
"Bavarian by blood, technically Austrian, lived my parents..."
...the German in Austria had really been of the best blood..."
"...the weakness of leadership will not cause a hibernation of the state, but an awakening of all the individual instincts which are present in the blood..."
Clearly, Hitler had no scientific sophistication or an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution and his "blood-line" explanation of human "progress" reveals a Biblical view, not a Darwinian view. He did, however, at times express ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Herbert Spencer's concept of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection and served as an adjunct to his already established religious views. Spencer's Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin's biological theory with the field of social relations. The result of Social Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs that began in America and adopted by the Nazis. [Note that Darwin never expressed the idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems to social systems.]
Hitler best sums up his belief of Aryan superiority and his stand against the Jews with his declaration in Mein Kampf:
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
-
Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy
If Hitler followed Nietzschian philosophy or even admired his work, then where does he describe him or his philosophy?
Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchian terms such as superman (uberman), or super race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryan's represented a superior race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchian terms.
Note that Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau invented the theory of the superior Aryan race in the 1800s in his book, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Gobineau believed that racial mixture would bring about the decline of "superior" peoples. Gobineau influenced Richard Wagner (beloved by Hitler), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (whom Hitler read and met), both of who influenced early National Socialism (and both mentioned in Mein Kampf). Popular in Germany in the 1900s, many Germans accepted Gobineau's ideas and, no doubt, influenced Hitler either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Hitler's "superior" race ideas sound like a combination of Biblical race laws and Gobineau's Aryan race ideas, but not at all like Nietzsche.
Nor does it make sense that the Christian Hitler would admire an atheistic Nietzsche. Hitler loathed atheism. In his writings and speeches, he admonished atheists. For example:
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive exactly once and only for political purposes to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German news article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche's philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Unfortunately many Germans fell for the Nietzsche-Nazi connection including many members of the Thule society.
The pre-Nazi Thule society began in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.
Anyone who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding of Hitler.
Let's face it; Hitler showed no philosophical sophistication. If any philosopher had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhuer (which he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation with him throughout World War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche or his philosophy.
-
Argh, too much text H. I like to read but not about Hitler's supposed Christianity. The proof is in the pudding, or the fruit, depending on your millennium. Will you at least accept from me (and probably Seagoon) that Hitler is not a good example of a Christian?
-
Agreed, Hitler was an outstanding example of a self-delusional hypocrite. I'd tar anyone who attempts to ferment hate with the same brush.
People really should practice what they preach, or profess to.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Agreed, Hitler was an outstanding example of a self-delusional hypocrite. I'd tar anyone who attempts to ferment hate with the same brush.
People really should practice what they preach, or profess to.
Profess to preach? Is that the antithesis of an oxymoron?
I did warn you about the margaritas. ;)
-
Er, no ;)
I think.
-
I take it things have gotten wierd?
-
Dear Hoopy,
I want to be as patient as I can, but I have two sermons, a kid's catechism class, a bible study and a number of pastoral emails to guys in Afghanistan, and other replies to write this week (and I'm losing a work day to the holiday), and consequently I'm not sure I have the time to go round in circles with clip and pastes from internet atheists ("Hitler Myths" from http://www.nobeliefs.com for instance) or even what the point of that would be. I realize I'm being a wimp about that, but I'm pooped and I'd like to spend some time with my family as well (including my parents, who are in town). As far as I can see no dialogue is going on, and there doesn't seem to be any real desire to deal with the question of Britain's future, militant Islam, or for that matter anything to do with any ideology other than the religion atheists most love to hate. And there, all it seems to be is yet another series of point scoring exercises.
Anyway, my conclusions regarding Hitler and his relationship to the German church are not based on a few webpages, they are based on reading the history of National Socialism in Germany and a decent working knowledge of the history and theology of Christianity in Germany during the 19th and 20th century. I purposely framed a response in philosophical historical terms, because a reply based on the fact that Hitler was obviously not regenerate, nor a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, nor a keeper of his commandments would be too esoteric and difficult for non-believers to accept or understand. Certainly what Christ said of the Saducees was doubly true of the Nazis: "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? Which is also why many of the Germans who did know both, ended up in concentration camps.
Regarding Luther, yes of course he was a Christian, but also a sinner and a deeply flawed man. While I love and am inspired by many of his sermons and his commentary on Galatians in particular, I am also aware of and saddened by his anti-semitic comments, and could probably point you to a few other gaffes on his part that the internet miners haven't yet found. I also disagree with his and some of the other Reformers Constantinian views of Church/State relations. I personally believe along with countless other Christians in the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, and with Jesus believe that Caesar's kingdom and Christ's are separate spheres. Nevertheless, not even Luther came close to Muhammad's single world-wide one human ruler theocracy (the Caliphate) nor did he endorse and teach a systematic program of conversion by the sword.
Regarding your request for a bullet point list of central or fundamental Christian beliefs, mine would be slightly larger than Irons:
* The Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.
* There is one God, who exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
* All men are sinners and totally unable to save themselves from God’s displeasure, except by His mercy.
* Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, who through His perfect life and sacrificial death atoned for the sins of all who will trust in Him, for salvation.
* The Holy Spirit regenerates and indwells God’s people and gives them the strength and wisdom to Love and trust Christ and follow Him.
* Believers in Jesus Christ are united to Christ and Justified by Faith. Justification is an act of God's free grace not the result of our works, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.
* Good works, done out of Love to Christ and in obedience to his commandments are the evidences of a true and lively faith, and they will be manifested by all true believers. By these good works believers "manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, love their fellow men, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto."
* Jesus will return, bodily and visibly, to judge all mankind and to receive His people to Himself.
* Man's Chief End in Life should be to glorify God and Enjoy Him Forever.
Anyway, Hoopy, even if I were to spend from now till the second coming answering jabs at Christianity or debating Dowding's hypothetical Imam. Even if I lost that and every debate we held, it still wouldn't change the situation one iota. Your problem still wouldn't be terrorist attacks by evangelicals, and your future wouldn't suddenly not involve an Islamic majority and very likely life under Sharia, neither would it make Christianity violent or Islam peaceful. If you ever want to discuss the real issues, I'm more than willing to do so. Till then pax and godspeed.
- SEAGOON
-
I pulled some history books from the bookshelf, and yes, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity gives an accurate account of what actually happened, unlike "Hitler Myths," which appears to be pure poppycock. My mistake, for which I apologise.
As you no doubt realised, Martin Luther still made the point that I was trying to make - hate and violence are at odds with the teachings of Jesus, yet some Christians have little trouble advocating their use. That is when Christianity has the potential to be just as bad as Islamic fundamentalism.
You'll notice that I don't generalise it to Islam as you do. Why not, well, unlike you, I live in a city where 4.6% of the population are Muslim. I deal with these people on a day to day basis, I even have Muslim friends. And you know what, the vast majority of those people are just like you and me - they have absolutely no desire to engage in conversion by the sword.
As to our Islamist terrorist problem. Again, this is a matter of history. When did our problems start? Well, shortly after we joined with the US in fighting the "War on Terror." Of course, the whole thing got a lot worse after we invaded Iraq. So, when I point the finger of blame, I do so in the direction of Tony Blair and the Labour government of the time, since no invasion would have meant no problem for us.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Propane is not necessarily the ideal explosive either. But you can sure as Hell put enough tanks off of back yard grills in a van to make a pretty big bang.
Propane is a compressed, flammable, and a VERY EFFECTIVE propellant. It will produce around 2,500 BTU's of energy (or 778—782 ft·lb of force PER BTU) when used as a combustible. As you can see even a 20lb patio grill tank, or a 40 lb hi-lo tank will not be fun to be within moderate proximity of.
I deal with Compressed Gases daily at work. A huge tragedy was avoided.
Furry, Dowding, and the rest of the Brits on this Forum. We all have our debates over Guns (fan favorite) and other things we don not see eye-to-eye on. But, this isn't a time for jokes, you have been targeted twice within a week. I applaud the efforts of the Bobbies, and New Scotland Yard. May this madness end soon. <>
-
Originally posted by storch
sounds sort of like dearborn michigan
When's the last time you were there? I live 7 minutes from it. What you fail to realize is most here, left that region for a reason.
-
1) The question "was Hitler a Christian" has got nothing to do with the nazism - islam analogy.
2) Hitler was not a Christian.
3) Martin Luther was a Christian.
4) Hate and violence ARE directly at odds with the teachings of Christ. Whats your point?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
1) The question "was Hitler a Christian" has got nothing to do with the nazism - islam analogy.
2) Hitler was not a Christian.
3) Martin Luther was a Christian.
4) Hate and violence ARE directly at odds with the teachings of Christ. Whats your point?
According to Islamists hate and violence are directly at odds with Islam too, so what's your point?
Oh yeah, the Spanish inquisition never happened. Our christian hands are clean.
The problem with these poor things is that they're 400 years retarded, repeating the christians mistakes at 2000 friggen o 7. Why don't we just announce anti-Jihad and start segregating the fediddleers.
Oh yeah, that wouldn't be PC.. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
According to Islamists hate and violence are directly at odds with Islam too, so what's your point?
Oh yeah, the Spanish inquisition never happened. Our christian hands are clean.
You need to read up on what Islam says about violence...FFS seagoon even posted about it in this very thread.
The Spanish inquisition sure happened...400 years ago was it? Is that the best you can do? Slavery was legal 200 years ago in the US, does that mean that we should accept slavery in other parts of the world now? Your logic is so full of holes its not even fun.
-
I'm not particularly fond of either Christanity or Islam ... but I know which I'd prefer.
-
Originally posted by AKH
As to our Islamist terrorist problem. Again, this is a matter of history. When did our problems start? Well, shortly after we joined with the US in fighting the "War on Terror." Of course, the whole thing got a lot worse after we invaded Iraq. So, when I point the finger of blame, I do so in the direction of Tony Blair and the Labour government of the time, since no invasion would have meant no problem for us.
The problem you have goes further back than that. Try WW1 and shortly after when you gave the Arab world the big shaft.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'm not particularly fond of either Christanity or Islam ... but I know which I'd prefer.
Oh come on, its not like asatro is so much better. All those messy animal or human sacrifices, all those weird traditions...yuck.
-
Well it seems Gordon Brown has figured how to deal with this problem:
Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in connection with the terrorism crisis.
The Prime Minister has also instructed his team – including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith – that the phrase “war on terror” is to be dropped.
The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more “consensual” tone than existed under Tony Blair. ...
Perhaps all the Ministers could wear bhurkas too, THAT would make the bombers the errors of their ways!
-
Originally posted by bj229r
always seem to have a visceral hatred of Christianity (but NEVER Islam) that transcends all logic?>
Key words bolded.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh come on, its not like asatro is so much better. All those messy animal or human sacrifices, all those weird traditions...yuck.
Asatro?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Asatro?
You know, Tor, Oden, the old gang.
-
Ásatrú (Icelandic for "Æsir faith", pronounced [auːsatruː], in Old Norse [aːsatruː]) is a new religious movement whose focus is reviving the Norse paganism of the Viking Age - as described in the Eddas - prior to the Christianization of Scandinavia.
Ásatrú was established in the 1960s and early 1970s in Iceland, by the Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið, an organization founded by Sveinbjörn Beinteinsson. Ásatrú is a religion officially recognized by the governments of Iceland (since 1973), Norway (since 1994), Denmark (since 2003) and Sweden (since 2007). The United States government does not officially endorse or recognize any religious group, but numerous Ásatrú groups have been granted nonprofit religious status going back to the 1970s.
-
Asatru ?
edit I mean "odinisme" :)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
When's the last time you were there? I live 7 minutes from it. What you fail to realize is most here, left that region for a reason.
I was there last in 2001 in the summer. we were visiting with friends that live in auburn hills, a detroit suburb when I mentioned the arab population problem in my neighborhood he told me about dearborn. I suggested he was exaggerating. he drove us there, I couldn't believe my eyes. I saw few blacks, no whites and mostly middle easterners.
what people left the region? there was humanity everywhere. :aok
what struck me as odd was the amazing prosperity of some communities and the bleak poverty evident in others within such proximity. you could be in a hellhole and literally five blocks away be in a much nicer section. the north is a strange place.
we don't have that here.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You know, Tor, Oden, the old gang.
Ah ... no I'd rather not have those Gods back. The Irish might get nervous.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Asatru ?
edit I mean "odinisme" :)
lol "odinisme"? Is that the french name for it?
Asatro comes from "asa" or "asar" wich is the generic name for the old gods..I suppose it could be translated as "god" or "gods"
tro is the swedish word for faith/believe.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
lol "odinisme"? Is that the french name for it?
Asatro comes from "asa" or "asar" wich is the generic name for the old gods..I suppose it could be translated as "god" or "gods"
tro is the swedish word for faith/believe.
Yep it's the French word for it ... I love this word it because it can be easily confused with ondinisme :D
ondinisme : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondinisme_%28sexualit%C3%A9%29
(check the English link ;))
odinisme : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asatru
-
Originally posted by storch
I was there last in 2001 in the summer. we were visiting with friends that live in auburn hills, a detroit suburb when I mentioned the arab population problem in my neighborhood he told me about dearborn. I suggested he was exaggerating. he drove us there, I couldn't believe my eyes. I saw few blacks, no whites and mostly middle easterners.
what people left the region? there was humanity everywhere. :aok
what struck me as odd was the amazing prosperity of some communities and the bleak poverty evident in others within such proximity. you could be in a hellhole and literally five blocks away be in a much nicer section. the north is a strange place.
we don't have that here.
Michigan is far more segregated then most other places i have seen, we really do for the most part live within our own race and or nationality here.
but for all the arabs we have here. if they were as evil as everyone thinks, we should have truck bombings daily here.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
In any event in answer to your question nothing in my post said anything remotely like the cynical "breed for Jesus" line. As you'll remember, I'm orginally from Britain myself and still keep in touch with friends and family, read British media, etc. We both know that Britain is to use the German Chancellor's phrase a "post-Christian" nation with only a tiny evangelical community. Football has a much larger and devoted following than Christ, so in a very real sense the current worldview struggle there is not between Islam and Christianity, its between Islam and various expressions of materialism.
What I was pointing out in my original post was simply a statistical certainity given current trends. As British Journalist Melanie Phillips put in 2002, Britain is committing a form of "social suicide." Indigenous Britons no longer marry (the marriage rate has dropped to 40%) or have families of any size, in fact they are currently having children at a rate below the replacement level and abortion has reached all time highs (So much for Nelson's: "England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty"). By contrast, Muslims marry and generally have large families. They are in that sense providing the future population of Britain. They are also proving resistant to the siren-song of atheistic materialism which dominates indigenous Britain, in fact their leaders routinely complain about how decadent and empty of purpose the society has become and I'd say their critique is correct, but their solution is worse than the problem. Tronsky, if current trends continue, in a hundred years Britain will be a nation dominated by masjids, maddrassas, minarets and hijabs.
Oh please - you're no better than the morons on foxnews adding up the fifty ways to spell mohammed to make a point about how Islam are racking up the babies, while dullard westerners are too busy playing Xbox, and having abortions to stop Johnny Jihad from (as South Park elequently put it) Damnit, they took our jaorbs! Its hardly like you warned in a hundred years, Britain are going to be overun by Manchester United fans! I'm very sure the next time you ring Auntie Beryl from watford she'll be *****ing and moaning about the darkies down the road (not like that nice paki chap who owns the curry shop on the high street)....it must be quite the high times for the National Front and their kind...
Originally posted by Dowding
Hey look Tronsky, he's got you all figured out! You visceral hater of Christianity, you!
If anyone has a visceral hatred of another religion around here, Seagoon, I'm afraid you would appear to be one of the most likely candidates. Like some reciprocal, up-side-down David Irving, you seek to blame the actions of a minority on a diverse majority. It really is quite interesting to watch.
Fundamentalists are the same the world over - they want to take away your independence of action and thought, building a mono-ideological society as they go... whatever flavour they come in.
Yes, I hadn't realised the hate flowed so very freely from me....damn this free will, oh whoes me...if only someone could take it away from me and just tell me what to think and do!
I'm sure there's a passage in the bible thats would explain my cynicisms away...opps I did it again...damn damn damn damn this hate...but then nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Tronsky
-
May I ask what the point is here?
We are (were) talking about terrorist attacks in the UK planned and executed by fundie moslems. You are talking about christianity because...?
Has there been some major wave of terrorist attacks carried out by christians lately that I have completely missed?
Why is it, that whenever someone says "fundie moslems scare the **** out of me" someone else always harps in with "all fundies are bad...lets not forget the christian fundies"
There is a degree of difference between the two that is so enormous that comparing the two would be like comparing the casualty figures in ww2 with the number of injuries in the world series last year.
If you dig out the worst fundie christian you can think of right now, I think this guy must be a contender for the #1 spot.
(http://www.citypages.com/blogmedia/amadzine/phelps.jpeg)
If we dig out the worst fundie moslem you can think of right now...well, first, there is quite a handful to chose from...right... but we can probably all agree that their handywork looks something like this:
(http://radified.com/911/JPEGs/911_plane_02b.jpg)
(http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/IMG/jpg/15-5.jpg)
(http://www.benettontalk.com/London%20bombing.jpg)
Notice anything different between the two categories of fundies?
After that, lets look at the relative frequency of fundies to "normals" of each faith.
After that, lets look at the relative number of lethal terrorist attacks performed by members of each faith.
After that, lets look at the actions and activities in the "silent majority" of each faith.
After that, lets look at the relative influence in respective nations of fundies in each faith.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Oh please - you're no better than the morons on foxnews adding up the fifty ways to spell mohammed to make a point about how Islam are racking up the babies.....
Wow, did you learn such techniques at Harvard? Such a typical knee-jerk, emotionally devoid-of-thought response to well-reasoned, factually correct assertion .Where might I learn such techniques that I might be as good a debater as you?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Wow, did you learn such techniques at Harvard? Such a typical knee-jerk, emotionally devoid-of-thought response to well-reasoned, factually correct assertion .Where might I learn such techniques that I might be as good a debater as you?
Perhaps it's the University of Fosters............
:p
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If you dig out the worst fundie christian you can think of right now, I think this guy must be a contender for the #1 spot.
No, I’d say these guys are more deserving of that dubious honor:
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/northernireland/gfx/gerry_adams.jpg)
And their handiwork looks like this:
(http://www.battlehill395.freeserve.co.uk/Omagh%20after%20the%20IRA%20bomb.jpg)
The Kingsmill Massacre
The Altnaveigh Massacre
Enniskillen War Memorial Massacre
The Tullyvallen Massacre
Darkley Gospel Hall Massacre
Glennanne Ulster Defence Regiment Base
The Warrenpoint Massacre of soldiers from the Parachute Regiment
Bloody Friday in Belfast
The Dropping-Well Inn
The RUC station in Newry mortar bombed
Omagh bus bomb Massacre of British soldiers
Then there is the Bosnian Serbs and the Kosovo Serbs and we all know what those good Christians did:
(http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/07/12/mn_srebrenica105.jpg)
Your point is taken though; that there are a LOT of Muslim fanatics. But contemporary Christianity is not devoid of monsters either.
-
So you are claiming that the IRA acted out of religious motivation? And that they were not driven by other motives...such as northern Ireland being reunited with the rest of Ireland?
You are claiming that the serbs acted out of religious motivation, and not some desire to create a greater serbia?
It would seem that you have little to no knowledge about the causes of the civil war in FY or the IRA. Perhaps that was to be expected, I dont know.
But the case you are arguing right now is that because there was a war and some of the participants had one religious belief or the other, then the cause of the conflict was that belief. Which of cource makes Vietnam a war of between Christian USA and Budhist Vietnam. I am not sure if you understand the complete stupidity of your argument, but I can assure you it ranks among the most ludicrous crap I have encountered so far on the internet...and that says alot.
-
Originally posted by rogerdee
luck was on our side last night with the lucky spotting of the first car bomb by amberlance men who became suspicious of a smoking car.
Also luck was with us when a illegaly parked car was towed away to a compound which was also a car bomb,for once the parking attendents wshould be thanked for takeing away the car .
today we have been lucky and as useual london carries on as normal.
luck be with us
My dad actually saw the green merc, 2 hours before the attack on the A46 i believe; (he drives trucks overnight)
he said he could see a load of crap piled up on the back seats covered in rugs but he assumed they were moving house or something.
They were driving so badly that he almost phones the police to report drunken driving!. He saw TWO men in the car and he actually looked the passenger right in the eyes a for a few seconds. he's pretty freaked out about it now.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No, I’d say these guys are more deserving of that dubious honor:
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/northernireland/gfx/gerry_adams.jpg)
And their handiwork looks like this:
(http://www.battlehill395.freeserve.co.uk/Omagh%20after%20the%20IRA%20bomb.jpg)
The Kingsmill Massacre
The Altnaveigh Massacre
Enniskillen War Memorial Massacre
The Tullyvallen Massacre
Darkley Gospel Hall Massacre
Glennanne Ulster Defence Regiment Base
The Warrenpoint Massacre of soldiers from the Parachute Regiment
Bloody Friday in Belfast
The Dropping-Well Inn
The RUC station in Newry mortar bombed
Omagh bus bomb Massacre of British soldiers
Then there is the Bosnian Serbs and the Kosovo Serbs and we all know what those good Christians did:
(http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/07/12/mn_srebrenica105.jpg)
Your point is taken though; that there are a LOT of Muslim fanatics. But contemporary Christianity is not devoid of monsters either.
Yes but viking, the religions tensions were CUASED by the struggle for land and union in Ireland, rather than the other way round.
-
Yes Hortlund, because the IRA has not been targeting and murdering Christian Protestants and the Serbs did not commit ethnic clenching against the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians (Muslim). Sure. In your world this may not be acts based on religion, but then again in your world Muslims are the root of all evil. Next you’re going to say that the Holocaust had nothing to do with religion, the Nazis were just trying to make Germany greater. You sound like a Nazi-apologizer.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
Yes but viking, the religions tensions were CUASED by the struggle for land and union in Ireland, rather than the other way round.
And for how long have the Middle-East and Afghanistan been warzones, to say nothing of the Creation of Israel and the constant meddling of Middle-Eastern affairs by the West and Russia. You don’t think Islamic fanaticism has been born out of conflicts over land and freedom?
-
Originally posted by Viking
You sound like a Nazi-apologizer.
LOL and you sound like a lunatic.
Anyway, take a step back, read up a bit on history and current events.
Try to focus on understanding the difference between a conflict caused by religion (crusades) and a conflict between different areas/groups of people with different religion that have other causes (Vietnam).
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL and you sound like a lunatic.
Anyway, take a step back, read up a bit on history and current events.
Try to focus on understanding the difference between a conflict caused by religion (crusades) and a conflict between different areas/groups of people with different religion that have other causes (Vietnam).
Just the kind of response I would expect from a right-wing extremist lawyer. When you can’t attack the argument, avoid it and attack the credibility of your opponent. No of course it is not at all religious motivation that make N.I. Catholics and Protestants murder each other, burn down each other’s homes, stone each other’s children on their way to school, murder each other’s clergy … no, clearly not religiously motivated acts of violence and terrorism. Lol, in the world of Hortlund.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Just the kind of response I would expect from a right-wing extremist lawyer. When you can’t attack the argument, avoid it and attack the credibility of your opponent. No of course it is not at all religious motivation that make N.I. Catholics and Protestants murder each other, burn down each other’s homes, stone each other’s children on their way to school, murder each other’s clergy … no, clearly not religiously motivated acts of violence and terrorism. Lol, in the world of Hortlund.
I dont know what kind of response I was expecting from you. But perhaps you have noticed that we have drifted off the subject and into some sort of lovebombing of Hortlund.
And actually no, the conflict on northern ireland was not motivated by religion. It was motivated by the desire to reunite all of Ireland into one independent country...alternatively the desire to remain in the united kingdom. The battle lines were drawn along the religious lines however, since the pro-british tend to be protestant, and the pro-irish tend to be catholic. But to say that the conflict was CAUSED by religion only displays a deep missunderstanding and/or outright ignorance.
I tried to explain this to you, and got some "you must be a nazi" thrown back in my face? Well, that puts you in the idiot-category. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You sound like a Nazi-apologizer.
If you are going to throw stones Viking, don't pull the 'I am an angel' act when someone comes back at you.:(
But to say that the conflict was CAUSED by religion only displays a deep missunderstanding and/or outright ignorance.
Would say the later in Viking's case.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But to say that the conflict was CAUSED by religion only displays a deep missunderstanding and/or outright ignorance.
Another lawyer move on your part; a straw man argument. Never did I claim that the conflict was caused by religion (it was, but I never said so), only that there are contemporary Christian monsters that kill and terrorize for religious reasons. For the actual causes of the N.I. conflict read up on Elizabeth I and the English Church’s war on the Catholic rulers of Scotland, then carried over to Ireland by Henry VIII during the 16th century. That’s where the N.I. conflict started and it was a war, or rather several wars started by the Church of England and the Anglican monarch of England.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
If you are going to throw stones Viking, don't pull the 'I am an angel' act when someone comes back at you.:(
Would say the later in Viking's case.
Ah … you found a friend in Hortlund. How nice for you.
-
Conversation so far.
Hortlund:
Blah blah blah and therefore there is a difference between christianity and islam
Viking:
You are a right wing extremist and nazi sympathizer.
Hortlund:
Why do you call me that? You are an idiot.
Viking:
How typical of you, you cant attack the argument so you attack the poster.
-
Again you're avoiding the argument. Badly this time.
-
WHAT ARGUMENT?
You havent presented any argument you ****ing imbecille. My posts state very clear what I am saying, and your posts does not counter my arguments at all...beside some juvenile "are too...just because I say so" crap. Now **** off.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
WHAT ARGUMENT?
You havent presented any argument you ****ing imbecille.
For your convenience I will recap my arguments:
Originally posted by Viking
No, I’d say these guys are more deserving of that dubious honor:
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/northernireland/gfx/gerry_adams.jpg)
And their handiwork looks like this:
(http://www.battlehill395.freeserve.co.uk/Omagh%20after%20the%20IRA%20bomb.jpg)
The Kingsmill Massacre
The Altnaveigh Massacre
Enniskillen War Memorial Massacre
The Tullyvallen Massacre
Darkley Gospel Hall Massacre
Glennanne Ulster Defence Regiment Base
The Warrenpoint Massacre of soldiers from the Parachute Regiment
Bloody Friday in Belfast
The Dropping-Well Inn
The RUC station in Newry mortar bombed
Omagh bus bomb Massacre of British soldiers
Then there is the Bosnian Serbs and the Kosovo Serbs and we all know what those good Christians did:
(http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/07/12/mn_srebrenica105.jpg)
Your point is taken though; that there are a LOT of Muslim fanatics. But contemporary Christianity is not devoid of monsters either.
Originally posted by Viking
Yes Hortlund, because the IRA has not been targeting and murdering Christian Protestants and the Serbs did not commit ethnic clenching against the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians (Muslim)…
Originally posted by Viking
...No of course it is not at all religious motivation that make N.I. Catholics and Protestants murder each other, burn down each other’s homes, stone each other’s children on their way to school, murder each other’s clergy … no, clearly not religiously motivated acts of violence and terrorism. Lol, in the world of Hortlund.
Originally posted by Viking
...Never did I claim that the conflict was caused by religion (it was, but I never said so), only that there are contemporary Christian monsters that kill and terrorize for religious reasons. For the actual causes of the N.I. conflict read up on Elizabeth I and the English Church’s war on the Catholic rulers of Scotland, then carried over to Ireland by Henry VIII during the 16th century. That’s where the N.I. conflict started and it was a war, or rather several wars started by the Church of England and the Anglican monarch of England.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Now **** off.
Sorry. You’re not my type. Ask MiloMorai, I’m sure he’ll oblige.
-
INstead of repeating your already debunked arguments, perhaps you should try to come up with new ones?
This is very simple really. You say the IRA awere fighting a religious struggle.
And I say no, the conflict on northern ireland was not motivated by religion. It was motivated by the desire to reunite all of Ireland into one independent country...alternatively the desire to remain in the united kingdom.
The battle lines were drawn along the religious lines however, since the pro-british tend to be protestant, and the pro-irish tend to be catholic. But to say that the conflict was CAUSED by religion only displays a deep missunderstanding and/or outright ignorance.
It displays an equal amount of ignorance to say that the killings are motivated by religion.
To this you have not replied. Period.
-
Originally posted by storch
I was there last in 2001 in the summer. we were visiting with friends that live in auburn hills, a detroit suburb when I mentioned the arab population problem in my neighborhood he told me about dearborn. I suggested he was exaggerating. he drove us there, I couldn't believe my eyes. I saw few blacks, no whites and mostly middle easterners.
what people left the region? there was humanity everywhere. :aok
what struck me as odd was the amazing prosperity of some communities and the bleak poverty evident in others within such proximity. you could be in a hellhole and literally five blocks away be in a much nicer section. the north is a strange place.
we don't have that here.
You have arrogance and not much else storch. I don't judge others, you do.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
INstead of repeating your already debunked arguments, perhaps you should try to come up with new ones?
It is in fact your argument that an old guy with a sign is the worst fundamentalist Christian today that has been repeatedly debunked. My arguments stand on their own merit; yours otoh require wordplay, fallacies and crude juvenile language.
Originally posted by Hortlund
This is very simple really. You say the IRA awere fighting a religious struggle.
No I said that those two men I posted a picture of are worse fundamental Christians than your old guy with a sign. You on the other hand tried, and are still trying, to shift the focus of the debate towards something you might stand a chance winning.
Originally posted by Hortlund
But to say that the conflict was CAUSED by religion only displays a deep missunderstanding and/or outright ignorance.
It displays an equal amount of ignorance to say that the killings are motivated by religion.
To this you have not replied. Period.
Actually I have. That you don’t recognize it is not my fault.
Originally posted by Viking
Another lawyer move on your part; a straw man argument. Never did I claim that the conflict was caused by religion (it was, but I never said so), only that there are contemporary Christian monsters that kill and terrorize for religious reasons. For the actual causes of the N.I. conflict read up on Elizabeth I and the English Church’s war on the Catholic rulers of Scotland, then carried over to Ireland by Henry VIII during the 16th century. That’s where the N.I. conflict started and it was a war, or rather several wars started by the Church of England and the Anglican monarch of England.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You need to read up on what Islam says about violence...FFS seagoon even posted about it in this very thread.
The Spanish inquisition sure happened...400 years ago was it? Is that the best you can do? Slavery was legal 200 years ago in the US, does that mean that we should accept slavery in other parts of the world now? Your logic is so full of holes its not even fun.
No you are full of holes, the largest one being where your brain should be. Re-read what I wrote and this time take time to try to actually understand it.
-
It is in fact your argument that an old guy with a sign is the worst fundamentalist Christian today that has been repeatedly debunked.
Not really. Your opinion amounts to exactly jack **** in this discussion since you clearly dont have a ****ing clue. If you do any sort of poll among any sort of people and ask whos a fundie christian, I dont think anyone will answer "serbs" or "IRA"...you, however do.
My arguments stand on their own merit; yours otoh require wordplay, fallacies and crude juvenile language.
You dont have any arguments. Your examples of religiously motivated killings are in reality examples of something else entirely...nationalistic motivated killings.
there are contemporary Christian monsters that kill and terrorize for religious reasons.
Who? Serbs kill and terrorize for nationalistic reasons. IRA kill and terrorize for nationalistic reasons. Who are these mythical christians you are referring to?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
No you are full of holes, the largest one being where your brain should be.
mr ripley is making another personal attack.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Not really. Your opinion amounts to exactly jack **** in this discussion since you clearly dont have a ****ing clue. If you do any sort of poll among any sort of people and ask whos a fundie christian, I dont think anyone will answer "serbs" or "IRA"...you, however do.
I think a lot of Britons would point towards Northern Ireland if asked that question, and I know quite a few Bosnian Muslims who would point to the Serbs. Or I should say “knew” since it has been a while since I was “in country”. If you ask the Americans I would wager some of them would point to the Christian “Army of God” fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics, but then again the Americans never were much interested in European affairs. If you ask the Indians many would point to the National Liberation Front of Tripura, a fundamentalist Christian militant group in India. Ask the Ugandans and some would point to the Lord's Resistance Army.
Originally posted by Hortlund
You dont have any arguments. Your examples of religiously motivated killings are in reality examples of something else entirely...nationalistic motivated killings. Who? Serbs kill and terrorize for nationalistic reasons. IRA kill and terrorize for nationalistic reasons. Who are these mythical christians you are referring to?
The conflict in Northern Ireland is not the result on any one factor, but a multitude of factors. Nationalism is certainly one of them, and so is religion. My opinions do not stand alone:
Gary Easthope
University of East Anglia
Conflict in Northern Ireland in August 1969 is seen as a consequence of the type and patterning of social relationships in that society. Social relations are personal and patterned primarily by the categories of Protestant and Catholic which are ascribed at birth. This patterning results in communities of Catholics and communities of Protestants. These communities form `congregations' in the `churches' of Republicanism and Loyalism respectively. Conflict between communities has two effects. First, it serves to clearly delineate the physical, social, and symbolic boundaries between communities. Second, it creates conditions conducive to the growth of `political sects' based on the `congregations' which may conflict with each other, sometimes violently, even though they belong to the same `church'.
The Longest War: Northern Ireland's Troubled History
by Marc Mulholland (Author) "Why have divisions dating from the Reformation of the sixteenth century and the plantations and religious wars of the seventeenth century persisted through Enlightenment, revolution,..."
"The Northern Ireland conflict is a religious conflict. Economic and social considerations are also crucial, but it was the fact that the competing populations in Ireland adhered and still adhere to competing religious traditions which has given the conflict its enduring and intractable quality" Steve Bruce: God Save Ulster, Oxford, 1986, p24
"Politics in the North is not politics exploiting religion. That is far too simple an explanation: it is one which trips readily off the tongue of commentators who are used to a cultural style in which the politically pragmatic is the normal way of conducting affairs and all other considerations are put to its use. In the case of Northern Ireland the relationship is much more complex. It is more a question of religion inspiring politics titan of politics making use of religion.
It is a situation more akin to the first half of seventeenth ‑century England than to the last quarter of twentieth century
Britain" ‑ John Hickey: Religion and the Northern Ireland Problem, Gill and Macmillan, 1984, p67
"The ancient quarrel is, of course, about power, and about its economic base as well as about its political manifestations. But such clichés can hardly satisfy us. If we ask further what are the ends for which the possession of power is coveted, we may perhaps come closer to the truth about Ulster. In that small and beautiful region different cultures have collided because each has a view of life which it deems to be threatened by its opponents and power is the means by which a particular view of life can be maintained against all rivals. These views of life are founded upon religion because this is a region where religion is still considered as a vital determinant of everything important in the human condition. And religion is vital because there have been in conflict three (latterly) two deeply conservative, strongly opinionated communities each of whose Churches still expresses what the members of these Churches believe to be the truth" F.S.L. Lyons: Culture and Anarchy in Ireland, 1984, p144
"If the characteristic mark of a healthy Christianity be to unite its members by a bond of fraternity and love, then there is no country where Christianity has more completely failed than Ireland” W.E.H. Lecky
-
The conflict in Northern Ireland is absolutely one of religion. Anyone who says otherwise has clearly never been there or even to the west coast of Scotland. Sure, the IRA was fighting for a united Ireland, but why was it divided in the first place? If you're ever with two people from the North, watch and see how long it takes them to ask each other which school they went to...All the divides are along religious lines.
That said, I think all we've shown with this thread is the power of religion - any religion - to cause division, arguement and conflict. I don't know why we're so surprised that doctors got involved in the latest attacks. You only need to see the number of professional educated people on either side of an Old Firm football match at Celtic Park or Ibrox spouting pure hatred at each other to realize religion's power to poison people's minds.
-
Right then. If any of the 4 odd-million people from Ireland want to get on the plane with me, have THEM get in the other line with the 3 BILLION Muslims who are trying to blow everything up:aok
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
SNIP
Oh yeah, the Spanish inquisition never happened. Our christian hands are clean.
SNIP
That wasn't run by all Christians, just by the Catholic Church. It was some 500 or 600 years ago, wasn't it?
The Radical Islamists are feeding a revolutionary movement. They are willing to Kill and die to promote that cause. We are not giving them the rapid opportunity to die that we should be. We should be at least as brutal or even more brutal because apparently it is all they understand or respect.
I think we need to quit fighting this war they have been waging on us since 1979 with the "PC Gloves" on. I am tired of losing American and British lives needlessly. We have the weapons that would decimate their numbers significantly and quickly. When Insurgents or terrorists are using a neighborhood to hide or supply themselves and the residents dont report them, flatten it like a parking lot. Sooner or later the other neighborhoods will catch on. If they are crossing borders and we know where they are like the Vietnamese did in Cambodia, flatten their safe havens, wherever they may be.
Like Richard Nixon Said: "It's Time To **** Or Get Off The Pot." Since the radicals aren't going to cease their war with us, getting off the pot won't end it, so we must kill every damned one of them possible.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
That wasn't run by all Christians, just by the Catholic Church. It was some 500 or 600 years ago, wasn't it?
The point is that Christianism is no different from Islam when it comes to doing attrocities in the name of the religion of choice. Doesn't matter if we were psychotic idiots 400 years ago (well, some are even today) now the Islam supporters are.
I agree with the PC thing. PC will eventually kill us if we listen to the PC idiots and don't start to treat them like they treat us. Every Islamic background person should be either monitored or preferably sent to some country that has sharia active.
-
Hello Tronsky,
(Incidentally, is Tronski or Tronsky? Your avatar has "i" but you sign your posts with a "y", I'm never sure which one to go with)
Originally posted by -tronski-
Oh please - you're no better than the morons on foxnews adding up the fifty ways to spell mohammed to make a point about how Islam are racking up the babies, while dullard westerners are too busy playing Xbox, and having abortions to stop Johnny Jihad from (as South Park elequently put it) Damnit, they took our jaorbs! Its hardly like you warned in a hundred years, Britain are going to be overun by Manchester United fans! I'm very sure the next time you ring Auntie Beryl from watford she'll be *****ing and moaning about the darkies down the road (not like that nice paki chap who owns the curry shop on the high street)....it must be quite the high times for the National Front and their kind...
...
Yes, I hadn't realised the hate flowed so very freely from me....damn this free will, oh whoes me...if only someone could take it away from me and just tell me what to think and do!
Against my better judgment, I'll reply.
Actually, I'm not sure of the chronology, but it was news media (papers specifically) in Europe that first noted the trend and then The Times picked it up (which is where I first read it) recently the BBC also covered it. American media actually picked it up from Europe, not the other way round.
In any event, while the stats can certainly be spun, the stats themselves are incontrovertible; British birth rates are below replacement level, marriage is dying out, and abortions and divorce are both increasing [if you want, I can provide hard stats for all of these assertions]. In other words, the family, which is the primary building block for society, is dying amongst the indigenous population. Demographically, the groups marrying, staying married, and having children are immigrants, and the largest religious group in that mix would be Muslims.
Please understand what I am saying here, some people may certainly find this alarming because they are Xenophobic and/or Racist, in other words, like your Auntie Beryl "they don't like darkies" of any kind. That kind of mindset is wrong, and unbiblical, and un-Christian. It's somewhat depressing that after several years with my life as an open book, that I'd have to say this, but I am not one of those people. The first congregation I worked with was mostly Asian, and my current congregation has whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks whom in many senses I am closer to (because of our union in Christ) than my own family. One of my elders is Mexican-American, and one of my dearest brothers here in Fayetteville is black. One of the reasons I look forward to heaven, is because all of the petty walls of separation between the races will forever be destroyed and the congregation their will sing praises to Christ saying "For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation". I have preeached against racism, and have invited another friend of mine Pastor Kevin Smith to preach on the power of the Gospel to reconcile men of all races (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8405155351) (which sermon I would heartily recommend to you.)
My concern is not people of other races, and as you may have noticed, I do not spend my time on the board "attacking" other religions or saying that Hinduism, Judaism, Zorastrianism, Buddhism, etc. are a serious threat to the world. While I disagree with their truth claims, and while I am aware that some religions oppress Christians in the contries in which they are dominant (Hindus in India for instance) I do not claim that Hinduism as a religion has a plan for world dominance or that coexistance with these other religions is impossible. Islam is singular in that respect, and my concern is with the ideology of Islam as it found and practiced in its purest forms. Unlike other religions, Islam does have an agenda to eliminate all competing ideologies and establish a one world Caliphate and to either subjugate the Kuffars (you and I for instance.)
While men may claim that there are Christian terrorist organizations and point to the Serbs and the IRA (the LRA is not even remotely Christian it is a cult centered around its leader) even if these organization were Christian, neither the Serbs nor the IRA have a manifesto to dominate the world or establish Christianity outside the Christian world, the IRA doesn't even call itself a Christian organization. This is in direct contradistinction to groups like the Taliban, Hamas, Abu Sayaaf, Jammat Islamiya, Al Qaeda, and the various Muslim Brotherhood linked Islamic terror organizations. They do all hold the same essential confession: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes." and deny that there can be peace until the Caliphate is established and the whole world is ruled by Sharia law. Democracy is not possible for it is as one popular English language Imam put it "Kuffarocracy." That is why am I so concerned about the establishment of an Islamic Britain. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with ideology.
One final thought, if Christianity really were just as "violent" as Islam, then in the first 300 years after the resurrection of Christ, you would see considerable violence perpetrated by Christians - wars of religious conquest, bloody insurrections, etc. But in fact, throughout the first 300 years of Christian history it is the Christians who were being martyred not martyring others. There were no wars of conquest or spreading of the faith by the sword.
Contrast that with just the first 100 years of Islamic history, presumably when you has some of the most "authentic" Islam (especially during the lifetime of the prophet) and you have a history of constant bloodshed, assasination, conquest, raiding, and the expansion of the Dar-el-Islam not via preaching, but by the sword. Although I haven't yet read it, and thus can't endorse its content, and as much as it irritates Europeans, and other future Dhimmis,the title of Robert Spencer's newest book has it right (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Peace-Christianity-Islam-Isnt/dp/1596985151/ref=sr_1_4/002-8710424-4484844?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183676305&sr=8-4)
- SEAGOON
-
Game, set and match. I've missed these little talks with you Hortlund. Thanks for playing.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Game, set and match. I've missed these little talks with you Hortlund. Thanks for playing.
You claim IRA killed people because of the religion of the victims. I called BS.
If you enjoyed the conversation, then fine. I didnt. You were offensive and rude and you failed to provide any sort of argument to back up your position. It made the entire discussion completely pointless.
-
Yes ... just keep on ignoring my arguments and those of other people in this thread. By every post you make yourself look more ridiculous, which suits me just fine.
-
One might wonder though, why the IRA stopped killing people after the deal reached over northern ireland...since there are still protestants living there you know.
And you call me ignorant? :rofl