Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice

[Rogue Nine]

Killing for self-preservation is still killing. It's not pacifistic. In other words, it proves that the too-often made statement that Islam is a religion of peace is a lie. But I don't think we really needed any convincing of THAT after the Six-Day War.

I can play semantic games too. Muslim leaders say their religion is one of peace, not pacifism. Total pacifism is a ridiculous concept to aspire to and I doubt that Muslim leaders are advocating such a stance. One can promote and encourage peace without promoting complete pacifism.

 

What's your point, Rogue? Killing for self-preservation is still killing. Not a peaceful act. Take a good look at pacifism.

Again, religion of peace # pacifism.

[Litofsky]

Democracies are an impossibility on a national level, or, hell, even a state level. There's too many people, who, besides which, have no real knowledge to be making these decisions and don't have all the information anyway. Yes, there is a difference, but it's mostly because setting up a true Democracy over a nation of 300,000,000 people would be like trying to have a Town Council in New York City with 1/10th of the city coming.

 

America, in particular, has an incredibly disgusting voter turn-outs. The news stations praise the 'highest voter turn-outs in history.' It's about 40%, if I'm not mistaken. That is sickening. Here is a list that shows turn-out compared to the total population. Note that America is almost at the bottom of the list, with 54%. To that, I say "Despicable."

 

Voting, even if you believe that your vote does not count, is not something to forget, but to honor. Again, I'd continue it, but it's for a separate thread.

 

You cannot have War to gain Peace. Now, you can have War to gain Safety or to not fight a war later in your own territory, but fighting a war for peace is like setting your computer on fire because you've got a bad RAM stick. Once you go to War, the Peace is broken until the War stops.

 

To continue this discussion, you will need to define "War" and "Peace," Corinthian. Would you mind doing so?

[Corinthian]

What's the difference between being Peaceful and being Pacifistic, Rogue? Do tell.

 

Alright, Litofsky.

 

War is an armed conflict between two independent national governments. There's also Civil War, which is an armed conflict between two independent political factions within the same nation. Dictionary.com describes it as so: 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

 

Peace is a period in which the nation in question is not in any form of War. Dictionary.com describes it as 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

[Litofsky]

War is an armed conflict between two independent national governments. There's also Civil War, which is an armed conflict between two independent political factions within the same nation. Dictionary.com describes it as so: 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

 

Peace is a period in which the nation in question is not in any form of War. Dictionary.com describes it as 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

 

That's fine, being Dictionary.com's definition. Is it your definition, however? If we're going to have a little debate about if War is Peace, then I'll need your definition.

 

Mine are:

 

Peace- A time period in which there is no war, and 'consumer goods' usually reach a high-point in their production. People generally think that this time is better, but when we examine the benefits from war, we might have to reconsider that.

 

War- A time in which two or more countries are engaged in battle against each other, whether it be a Cold War or an Actual War. It is interesting to note that some wars have brought out the better side of countries.

 

Of course, with more facts, my personal definitions are subject to change.

[Rogue Nine]

What's the difference between being Peaceful and being Pacifistic, Rogue? Do tell.

Pacifism is opposing violence or war of any kind, something Islam clearly does not believe in. Peace on, the other hand, is encouraged in the Qur'an. Again, I quote (emphasis mine):

 

002.193 And fight with them until there is no persecution' date=' and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then [b']there should be no hostility[/b] except against the oppressors.

Peace and self-preservation can co-exist. Pacifism and self-preservation cannot. Pacifism is a pipe dream, and I don't think the leaders of Islam would allow themselves to believe in such an impossibility.

[Corinthian]

Well, we can at least agree on something, Rogue - Pacifism is stupid.

 

Litofsky, the first on each of these is my definition, the second being Dictionary's definition.

[Litofsky]

Well, we can at least agree on something, Rogue - Pacifism is stupid.

 

No, I don't think that Pacifism is stupid. I know that I wasn't included in that, but I have to get in. Pacifism, as an idea, isn't stupid. The foolish part is believing that the world will actually accept Pacifism. Attempting to spread it is not foolish in the least bit.

[Corinthian]

Attempting to spread Pacifism is akin to propaganda campaigns for nations to disarm. Any nation that accepts Pacifism effectively gets a giant "Kick Me!" sign stapled onto them.

[Rogue Nine]

Yes, which is why Islamic leaders do not promote pacifism, but peace instead.

[Totenkopf]

No, I don't think that Pacifism is stupid. I know that I wasn't included in that, but I have to get in. Pacifism, as an idea, isn't stupid. The foolish part is believing that the world will actually accept Pacifism. Attempting to spread it is not foolish in the least bit.

 

 

Raises a question: If it's not stupid to attempt to spread something that everyone is not going to accept, isn't it stupid to accept it.....knowing that doing so puts you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis those that won't?

[Corinthian]

Rogue, when was the last time an Islamic leader really promoted peace? There's so much war in that region you could drop a rock out of a plane at 30000 feet and you'd still hit a spot that had been a battlefield in the last 50 years.

[Web Rider]

Raises a question: If it's not stupid to attempt to spread something that everyone is not going to accept, isn't it stupid to accept it.....knowing that doing so puts you at a disadvantage vis-a-vis those that won't?

 

I think the qualifier in his statement should be "that the whole world is not going to accept." There will always be a few people who won't accept certain ideas(willingly).

[Totenkopf]

Actually, Web, doesn't even have to be the whole world. If only 75% of world accepts pacifism, they are at a potential disadvantage re the 25% who reject it.

[Web Rider]

Actually, Web, doesn't even have to be the whole world. If only 75% of world accepts pacifism, they are at a potential disadvantage re the 25% who reject it.

 

that depends on the remaining 25%. Are they pro-aggressive war? Are they just the kind of "I wanna keep my guns just in case."? Yeah, the 75% of the world that has accepted pacifism might be at a disadvantage to the rest, but that depends on how coordinated the 25% are.

 

If the "25%" are very scattered, then it's not going to be a group of warmongers who are working with each other to destroy the other 75%.

 

After a while, you have to wonder how many of that 75% the 25% is willing to kill before it just gives up.

[Rogue Nine]

Rogue, when was the last time an Islamic leader really promoted peace? There's so much war in that region you could drop a rock out of a plane at 30000 feet and you'd still hit a spot that had been a battlefield in the last 50 years.

 

I don't know, you tell me. You brought it up.

[Corinthian]

Exactly! The odds of you hitting a spot that hasn't drunk deeply of human blood are about as good as the odds of me nailing the dartboard while facing in the wrong direction while drunk.

[Rogue Nine]

I'm talking about this quote of yours in particular.

 

they seem like a whole horde of hypocrites. They call themselves a religion of peace while members are blowing up the sides of streets doing their best to kill American soldiers.

Emphasis mine. Please provide where you see Muslims calling Islam a religion of peace.

[Corinthian]

Very well.

 

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=43552&d=21&m=4&y=2004

 

http://www.al-islami.com/islam/religion_of_peace.php

 

http://www.mediamonitors.net/muhammadali1.html

 

http://www.al-islam.org/begin/intro/rizvi.html

 

http://www.religionofpeace.com/

 

I confess I didn't find nearly as much as I would have expected, though, although I didn't look very hard.

[Rogue Nine]

Find what?

 

And that article seems consistent with the Qur'an's teachings. Nowhere does he advocate pacifism.

[Totenkopf]

Emphasis mine. Please provide where you see Muslims calling Islam a religion of peace

 

Check these links (google more if you like)

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm

http://www.mediamonitors.net/muhammadali1.html

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm

http://www.al-islami.com/islam/religion_of_peace.php

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/sam-shamoun-vs-nadir-ahmed-is-islam.html

http://www.pakistanlink.com/religion/2001/1102.html

 

@WR--considered that tack, but decided if the other 75% rejected violence, how long would it take the 25% (mind you, that's not 25% of the world's population, merely 25% of the world's nations) to conquer the world (or destroy it) if they so chose?

[Corinthian]

Yeah, I found one link and decided that wasn't enough so I dug up four more. Edited in, by the way.

[Web Rider]

@WR--considered that tack, but decided if the other 75% rejected violence, how long would it take the 25% (mind you, that's not 25% of the world's population, merely 25% of the world's nations) to conquer the world (or destroy it) if they so chose?

 

Again, that depends on who they are. Assuming they are all the guys who LOVE violence and rampant killing, know how to do it, have the equipment to do it, I'd say it would be fairly easy.

 

of course considering that they'd just killed some 4.5+ billion people who were all pacifists, and likly some people who were just in the line of fire, so if we consider that only 1 billion of the world's population is left, and all of them like killing, then it depends on if they're allied together or not.

 

It stands to reason they wouldn't be, and given the kinds of arsenals they have access too, assuming we think they're people with this kind of access, I doubt many of them would be around for much longer.

 

of course, if we're only talking nations, it depends on which nations we're talking about. China is 25% of the population and only one nation. 25 African nations could wage war on a whole lot of nothing, and if they did, it would likly be on themselves.

[Corinthian]

If we all converted to Pacifism, it wouldn't matter if we got invaded by a half-dozen Spear-Wielding Tribals - we're pacifists. So no fighting back. We just get stabbed.

[Web Rider]

If we all converted to Pacifism, it wouldn't matter if we got invaded by a half-dozen Spear-Wielding Tribals - we're pacifists. So no fighting back. We just get stabbed.

 

Oh quite true. Though, technically because we're pacifists, and we don't believe in fighting back, and "passive resistance" is a form of fighting back, we'd probably just become good little worker drones.

[Totenkopf]

But if the other 75% truly embraced pacifism (as if), they'd be vulnerable to anyone that didn't......whether it took 10 years or 10000. Of course, we're basically talking absolute pacifism here anyway. I suspect that the 75% of nations spouting pacifism probably still would have a survival instinct that overrode their stated ideals.