IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Flame Bait
There is one thing I don't recall (but I could have missed) anyone mentioning.

Islam, in some aspects, appears to be on a crazy train towards major war with everyone not Islamic.

Just suppose, for a brief exciting minute, the U.S. states, in no uncertain terms that the next attack on the U.S. in the name of Islam will get the response that Mecca and Medina (don't want to leave any impression of softness) are going to go nuclear in a very un-respectful way.

And we do not kid, i.e., one terrorist action in the name of Islam and we actually do it.

I'm not advocating such we do or threaten such a thing. However, it does leave one teetering on the knife edge of just how far we (the U.S. and Brits...
anyone else I'd trust no further than I can spit a rat (see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)) are willing to go.

Anyone want to argue pro or con? I could argue both.
Gerard Allwein
New Wouldn't necessarily be too effective on the Wahhabis
[link|http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/13580.html|EB] article on Wahhabism, and [link|http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/neareast/ne14a.html#Wahhabi|this] article from a long history of the near east:

Al-Wahhab directed his greatest anger, though, at the Ottoman sultan who claimed to be Islam's caliph, denouncing the Porte for its "ungodly inclination toward the filthy devices of the Frankish infidels." By the time of his death his followers dominated the central Arabian desert. Now they began to raid the nearest Ottoman provinces and in 1801 they sacked Kerbela, the holy Shiite city in Iraq. In 1804, after some initial reverses, they took Medina from the sharif of Mecca; to the horror of most Moslems, they destroyed the tomb of Mohammed, since they regarded even that as a potential site for saint worship. In 1806 they took Mecca and read public prayers in the name of the Saudi chief instead of the sultan. This alarmed the Ottomans so much that they called upon Mohammed Ali, the new governor of Egypt, to drive the Wahhabis out of the holy cities. Egyptian troops invaded Arabia, and after a long and bitter struggle, they finally triumphed in 1818. The Wahhabi leader at this time, Abdullah ibn Saud, was beheaded in Constantinople; Mohammed's tomb was rebuilt, and foreigners dominated most of Arabia for some 20 years. Nevertheless, defeat in battle did not destroy the Wahhabi movement. It outlived the Ottoman empire, and in modern Saudi Arabia Wahhabi Islam is still applied to every condition of human life. It also gained some appeal among pious Moslems in India and the rest of the Middle East, though it never turned into a full-blown fundamentalist movement there.


The Wahhabi (of which bin Laden is one, IIRC) see the importance of Islam in the Koran and their teachings about Allah. AFAIK, they couldn't care less about the important Islamic cities like Mecca and Medina.

"But they want the US out of the holy Islamic lands" you might say. The history of Wahhabism doesn't seem to indicate that the cities are important - it's the actions of the people that matter. In short, bin Laden's demand can probably be viewed as having nothing to do with Islam but more to do with his political views.

My $0.02. Remember, I'm not a historian either... :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Wouldn't necessarily be too effective on the Wahhabis
That makes sense, thanx for the reference.
Gerard Allwein
New No group has ever faced the Idiocy of Corp-Religion before.
'Ours' - or (any of) theirs. There are no Sun Tzu epistles on how a group yoked like Oxen towards either mass suicide or Total Victory\ufffd -- proceeds towards the ineviable.

This cuts across Locke or any other pastiche for the social contract and calls into view the proposition that most states.. provide for a certain tolerance of any Cockamamie 'personal belief', thus mollifying the many amongst all States as want: God to rule; fuck homo-sap - he is unworthy.

No idea how one invents tactics, let alone strategy for the unprecedented. We'll wing it as 'we' must; and those nukes are, like the kid's first dollar - already burning a hole in our pocket. It's so EZ too... <ctrl> {alt}


<delete>
New I'm for it now
as retaliation for the destruction of the ancient Buddhas. Respect begets respect, disdain begets disdain. I don't give a flying donut about their baby rattle religious symbols.

Of course, advocating such an act of aggression would be most un-buddha-like. So in practice I wouldn't do it. But that doesn't mean that the destruction of of the crown jewels of islam wouldn't please me very much.

Confused? You betcha.
New I think I have a similar opinion
Decency prevents me from actually doing it, but would I feel bad if someone else did it? Nope.

I've been reading a book on Islam. The goal of the book is to explain Islam in a modern light and present it as a decent philosophy for today's world. But the more I read, the more disgusted I am with it. When the author makes what he believes is a good point about it, I'm left with feeling that only an Islamic mind set could see that as a good point.

This religion runs the risk of becoming a rampant Hilterism...that is if it hasn't already.
Gerard Allwein
     Flame Bait - (gtall) - (5)
         Wouldn't necessarily be too effective on the Wahhabis - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Re: Wouldn't necessarily be too effective on the Wahhabis - (gtall)
         No group has ever faced the Idiocy of Corp-Religion before. - (Ashton)
         I'm for it now - (tuberculosis) - (1)
             I think I have a similar opinion - (gtall)

Like going to ELIZA for therapy...
116 ms