The power of books!

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, so you agree that burning a religous book will stop terrorism ?
What does it achieve?
You say it achieves acknowledgement that America is angry for what happened.......hasn't the war done that? All the innocent people those army's kill? Bombing the crap out of thier towns? Its basicly a slaughter by a big bully and his m8s

When countrys send armys to other countrys to hunt out terroism groups like Al-queda, it is easy to make mistakes.

I can also safely say some of them army men are totally rascist. Theres always a racist in an army.

You shouldn't think about our armys being like that entirely. You should just think that mistakes happen.

I'm not saying burning a book will slove the problems, what I am saying is that when a christian man burns a book, and it is made public (and it isn't just any book is it?) means he is simply symbolising "**** you islamic terrorists!"

I don't believe its an attack on a religion, it is an attack on islamic terrorism.

 

[DeletedUser]

When countrys send armys to other countrys to hunt out terroism groups like Al-queda, it is easy to make mistakes.

I can also safely say some of them army men are totally rascist. Theres always a racist in an army.

You shouldn't think about our armys being like that entirely. You should just think that mistakes happen.

I'm not saying burning a book will slove the problems, what I am saying is that when a christian man burns a book, and it is made public (and it isn't just any book is it?) means he is simply symbolising "**** you islamic terrorists!"

I don't believe its an attack on a religion, it is an attack on islamic terrorism.

I agree with the army statement, but those mistakes cost innocent lives.
And the ones that are racist and do what they do (guantanimo bay stuff n tht) give the rest of the army a bad name, thier discrimination against those prisoners was uncalled for, and for a wel established super power showed how times really hav'nt changed for them

Burning that book isn't just aimed at islamic terrorism, there are other people who follow it, people who are decent and civilised and don't go about there days planting bombs.
If they were to burn a bible they'd be frikin outrage.....they'd probaby go to war with another country over it !

like u I'm an atheist i jst dont beieve in a big man in the sky, but who am I to judge others for believeing? What have I achieved in my life that justify's me to be able to judge others. I dont believe anyone has the right to judge.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with the army statement, but those mistakes cost innocent lives.
And the ones that are racist and do what they do (guantanimo bay stuff n tht) give the rest of the army a bad name, thier discrimination against those prisoners was uncalled for, and for a wel established super power showed how times really hav'nt changed for them

Burning that book isn't just aimed at islamic terrorism, there are other people who follow it, people who are decent and civilised and don't go about there days planting bombs.
If they were to burn a bible they'd be frikin outrage.....they'd probaby go to war with another country over it !

like u I'm an atheist i jst dont beieve in a big man in the sky, but who am I to judge others for believeing? What have I achieved in my life that justify's me to be able to judge others. I dont believe anyone has the right to judge.

I am glad we agree with the army statement. As individuals, it is their fault people have suffered in them countrys, not the armys, and indeed, the countrys (Britain, America ect) who are at fault.

Perhaps the christain man has burned the Koran to say "**** you Islam" but why has he done this? Because there are country men dying in Afganistan, Iraq and perhaps soon to be Iran because of it.

He is attacking terrorism by attacking islam, in my opinion. Islam, as a religion it self, is by-product of said attack on the koran. If muslims wouldn't blow themseleves up, attack our countrys and innocent people themseleves, then perhaps innocent people in the muslim world wouldn't die, and religious books wouldn't be burned.

As a man once said on a programme I watched "Their our innocent people dying here!". Innocent people have died, retribution is afoot.

 

[DeletedUser]

Also, if there was no religion at all, then people wouldn't be blowing themseleves up in the name of their religion and also their wouldn't be people dying in the first place because of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am glad we agree with the army statement. As individuals, it is their fault people have suffered in them countrys, not the armys, and indeed, the countrys (Britain, America ect) who are at fault.

Perhaps the christain man has burned the Koran to say "**** you Islam" but why has he done this? Because there are country men dying in Afganistan, Iraq and perhaps soon to be Iran because of it.

He is attacking terrorism by attacking islam, in my opinion. Islam, as a religion it self, is by-product of said attack on the koran. If muslims wouldn't blow themseleves up, attack our countrys and innocent people themseleves, then perhaps innocent people in the muslim world wouldn't die, and religious books wouldn't be burned.

As a man once said on a programme I watched "Their our innocent people dying here!". Innocent people have died, retribution is afoot.

I see what your saying, but let me put it in a diffrent setting..

You said that he is attacking terrorism by attacking islam

So if a group of 'Goths' or 'Ned's' (I mean no offence here just using it as example) go and blow up some shop....say a Walmart/Asda, does that mean that them said 'goths' or 'ned's' who were not there at the time, don't even know those other group of 'goths or 'neds', dont even stay in the same part of the country as them should be punished?

Also, if there was no religion at all, then people wouldn't be blowing themseleves up in the name of their religion and also their wouldn't be people dying in the first place because of it.

That is very true, however there will aways be religion. People need that acceptance in thier live's to be a part of something, to believe in something, for those who are religous its what they value in life.

 

[DeletedUser]

Moves like this from the American nation will only serve to twist the impression of the American people on the Muslim world and allow the terrorists to clearly point out to Muslims that Americans are waging a war against Muslims in general.

The clever man will not be fooled, but those in countries where there have already been deaths due to occupation by Western forces (usually unintentional losses due to collateral damage I might add), burning the equivalent of the Bible to Muslims, will only seem to prove that Americans are against Islam in general. That will only help the terrorists, and it will harm modern society.

Atheists shouldn't question the significance of this book. The Quran is said to be written by God himself, in the eyes of Muslims. You may not agree with it, but this is not from an atheists viewpoint. This is from the viewpoint of the Islamic world. And in their eyes, you are burning the book that God has ordained as his own words.

I think I would encourage people to read its English translation first, and then comment about it (echoing Tony Blair's words). I've read parts of the Bible, despite not being Christian, and it was an interesting read in my opinion. There is no harm in reading a Quran either (you don't suddenly become a Muslim if you read it just to see) ... just wash your hands before touching it to observe respect for the book ofc.

 

[DeletedUser]

I see what your saying, but let me put it in a diffrent setting..

You said that he is attacking terrorism by attacking islam

So if a group of 'Goths' or 'Ned's' (I mean no offence here just using it as example) go and blow up some shop....say a Walmart/Asda, does that mean that them said 'goths' or 'ned's' who were not there at the time, don't even know those other group of 'goths or 'neds', dont even stay in the same part of the country as them should be punished?

I understood the context of your argument and i'll propose another scenario:

In England, normally, a teenage "group calling themseleves "emos" normally hate other teenagers that they normally asscioate by calling them "chavs". Now if said group of emos attacked a Asda/Walmart in the name of "lolz we attack chavs in walmart, sorry those not chav kthxbi" then no that would be not allowed.

Because then in the real context of Islamic peoples attacking the world trade centre for example (9/11) or bombing parts on London and killing 53 people (7/7) then that is the same. Sure it is symbolising "please convert to Islam now whilst you has chance" which is the entire point of these terrorist attacks, then no. Symbolising, has a line. When your blowing yourseleves up for your beliefs, then you have crossed that line, and that is wrong.

When somebody is burning a book in context to their religion, the terrorists, that isn't crossing a line. Nobody really gets hurt.

To sum up my point, there is a line. And also, different symbolisms. "Do not burn our countrys flags" ; "Do not build a religious momument to a religion where people crashed planes into buildings where said site is next to said proposed building in the name of said religious buildings religious status" ; "People have blown themseleves up, killed my fellow countrymen, and have killed innocents. They attacked us first, so fuuuuu to your religious book".

 

[DeletedUser]

Moves like this from the American nation will only serve to twist the impression of the American people on the Muslim world and allow the terrorists to clearly point out to Muslims that Americans are waging a war against Muslims in general.

The clever man will not be fooled, but those in countries where there have already been deaths due to occupation by Western forces (usually unintentional losses due to collateral damage I might add), burning the equivalent of the Bible to Muslims, will only seem to prove that Americans are against Islam in general. That will only help the terrorists, and it will harm modern society.

Atheists shouldn't question the significance of this book. The Quran is said to be written by God himself, in the eyes of Muslims. You may not agree with it, but this is not from an atheists viewpoint. This is from the viewpoint of the Islamic world. And in their eyes, you are burning the book that God has ordained as his own words.

I think I would encourage people to read its English translation first, and then comment about it (echoing Tony Blair's words). I've read parts of the Bible, despite not being Christian, and it was an interesting read in my opinion. There is no harm in reading a Quran either (you don't suddenly become a Muslim if you read it just to see) ... just wash your hands before touching it to observe respect for the book ofc.

The Quran (thanks for correcting my spelling) was not written by God. It was written by Allah. Aplogises if I am wrong, but Allah was a man instructed by God to create the Islamic faith for all muslims to follow.

Whilst I agree that burning a book will not fool "the clever man", your are indeed pointing out a "line". Has the christian man in this case, crossed the line? Perhaps, but that is opinion, not fact. I have said this before and will say it again, opinion cannot be disputed. It is a persons opinion.

So if said mans opinion that the islamic faith has caused so much suffering, then so be it. But as I have stated, Islamic people have burned our countrys flag, and the religion itself, its followers, are responsible for the acts of 9/11 and 7/7.

Perhaps burning the Quran will allow terrorists to use propaganda against the whole islamic religion, but in the case that something like that does happen, does it not show how much of a hateful religion islam has become?

The old dispustes of Islam, Christainity ect, have just become modernised over the years. Religion, in my opinion, should be dispusted, and removed. If their was no religion, their would be no more of this bs.

 

[DeletedUser]

I understood the context of your argument and i'll propose another scenario:

In England, normally, a teenage "group calling themseleves "emos" normally hate other teenagers that they normally asscioate by calling them "chavs". Now if said group of emos attacked a Asda/Walmart in the name of "lolz we attack chavs in walmart, sorry those not chav kthxbi" then no that would be not allowed.

Because then in the real context of Islamic peoples attacking the world trade centre for example (9/11) or bombing parts on London and killing 53 people (7/7) then that is the same. Sure it is symbolising "please convert to Islam now whilst you has chance" which is the entire point of these terrorist attacks, then no. Symbolising, has a line. When your blowing yourseleves up for your beliefs, then you have crossed that line, and that is wrong.

When somebody is burning a book in context to their religion, the terrorists, that isn't crossing a line. Nobody really gets hurt.

To sum up my point, there is a line. And also, different symbolisms. "Do not burn our countrys flags" ; "Do not build a religious momument to a religion where people crashed planes into buildings where said site is next to said proposed building in the name of said religious buildings religious status" ; "People have blown themseleves up, killed my fellow countrymen, and have killed innocents. They attacked us first, so fuuuuu to your religious book".

But the same goes from thier side also, we have killed thier countrymen, there innocents, and technically I don't see how you can justify saying they attacked first. I believe those attacks were retalliations(I'l need to do some googling for tht as not sure). Thats like saying if I go now and kill my neighbour, then my other neighbour comes and kills me then he should be 'let off' because I killed someone. The justice system does'nt work like that, so whay is it allowed on a massive scale?

Perhaps burning the Quran will allow terrorists to use propaganda against the whole islamic religion, but in the case that something like that does happen, does it not show how much of a hateful religion islam has become?

Isn't burning the quran(ha I spelt it wrong also) showing how much of hatefull relgion Christianity is? As it is a Christian man burning it........

 

[DeletedUser]

But the same goes from thier side also, we have killed thier countrymen, there innocents, and technically I don't see how you can justify saying they attacked first. I believe those attacks were retalliations(I'l need to do some googling for tht as not sure). Thats like saying if I go now and kill my neighbour, then my other neighbour comes and kills me then he should be 'let off' because I killed someone. The justice system does'nt work like that, so whay is it allowed on a massive scale?

Incorrect.

The 9/11 and 7/7 attacks instigated our involvements in Afganistan with our army. The 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were to symbolise "fuuu for not being a supporter and believing in Islam"

 

[DeletedUser]

Isn't burning the quran(ha I spelt it wrong also) showing how much of hatefull relgion Christianity is? As it is a Christian man burning it........

I supose you could say that. Infact you could, as Boxxy stated earlier in this thread a man attacking somewhere or another in the name of Christianity.

This thus backs up the fact religion causes war. You could state mumbo-jumbo that all religions sprout peace ect. If followers of said religions truely believed that, their wouldn't be any attacks.

 

[DeletedUser]

I supose you could say that. Infact you could, as Boxxy stated earlier in this thread a man attacking somewhere or another in the name of Christianity.

This thus backs up the fact religion causes war. You could state mumbo-jumbo that all religions sprout peace ect. If followers of said religions truely believed that, their wouldn't be any attacks.

Nah I agree, religion does not bring piece, war's have been happening for as ong as theres been records and wi continue to be the cause of most.

Ha I jst googled 'Why did they blow up the twin towers' My god some of the responses are poor.

But I found this one for 'what is the goal of islamic terrorists' His englsih isn't amazing but kinda put my point across....

Aaslam o Alikum: it is asked in question that what is the main goals of Islamic terrorists? i want to tell all that Islam is not the religion of terrorists it is the religion of peace. these are the people who have the wrong direction or they have guided to the wrong way. they are Muslims by name. and if they do not follow the islamic values then they are called MUNAFEQEEN. so i request that donot say them ISLAMIC TERRORISTS because every religion has the extremists and terrorists.

There is a great deal of injustice against Muslims, their countries conquered, their people killed, their children became orphans.
If an ordinary human has gone through all this, knowing that he made nothig but for being Muslim, or of whatever religion, he must then have the trigger for revenge, as a human nature. Religion was the trigger? No, religion has nothing to do with it, but those to be blamed are those who caused it from the beginning, those who found their benefit in harming other humans under the claim of religion, with underlying political amis of having authority over those peoples' natural wealth, like Petrol for e.g.

 

[DeletedUser]

That quote you found. He made a good point, "revenge".

I'm sure nobody, other than Bin Laden himself (Who is wanted for planning the 9/11 attacks) can explain the entire reasoning behind the attacks.

As for 7/7, is for reasons stated and possibly as a back-up attack behind the 9/11 attacks.

 

[DeletedUser]

Too true.......

We should get together and Tag team Bin Laden and ask him :icon_cool:

I feel we just can't get past our racist past's though, the IRA went around and bombed places, killed people. But we didn't get other countires involved to hate and get 'revenge' on the irish for it

 

[DeletedUser]

The IRA attacks on random British places were completely different to the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7.

The IRA motivation was to bomb the British public in so that Northern Ireland was no longer under English rule and returned to the Irish. Completely different to the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks.

If the IRA were a country, and had a large army, then you could consider there attacks "acts of war". I supose you could say the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were the same "acts of war", however, the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were attacks of propaganda, whilst the IRA attacks were attacks of "hey this was ours in the first place please get the hell out!"

 

[DeletedUser]

The IRA attacks on random British places were completely different to the attacks of 9/11 and 7/7.

The IRA motivation was to bomb the British public in so that Northern Ireland was no longer under English rule and returned to the Irish. Completely different to the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks.

If the IRA were a country, and had a large army, then you could consider there attacks "acts of war". I supose you could say the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were the same "acts of war", however, the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were attacks of propaganda, whilst the IRA attacks were attacks of "hey this was ours in the first place please get the hell out!"

I feel the same way about doing it to those mainly muslim country's though, and we technically started it, by trying to claim the 'holy land' as our own, the crusade and what not. which is probably the basis of there hatred for Christianity(at least for that small group of muslims who use religion as a basis for terrorism) We also tried to change them into Christians, missionarys and what not..........

 

[DeletedUser]

So are you stating the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were attacks on Christianity or attacks on innocent people?

 

[DeletedUser]

So are you stating the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were attacks on Christianity or attacks on innocent people?

Both, I think those not taught and easily infuenced are oblivious to not all 'white' people being Christian

 

[DeletedUser]

Both, I think those not taught and easily infuenced are oblivious to not all 'white' people being Christian

That is your opinion, but mine is, that it was an attack on the American peoples and the English, to join Islam.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is your opinion, but mine is, that it was an attack on the American peoples and the English, to join Islam.

Thats just it, in my own opinion.....

I can't and dont want to change others opinions, I can only view and air my own opinons and let them make there own minds up about said topic's.
But I stil respect others opinons even if its against mine, I don't think diffrently of people because of what they believe