What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

If you look back in the thread on January 8 and 11 you clearly talked about "age of ideologies" not "age of aggressive ideologies".

You forgot the Iraq war 2003 so soon?

Saying Islamism is the practice of Islam is like saying Iron Guardism/Legionarism was/is nothing but the practice of Christianity!

Imperialist, do yo really believe that 2003 war against Irak was to spread neoliberalism? US politicians said so? Or some analists? Irak war was about WMD and safe heaven for terrorists (motvations), and for remove Saddam from power, to allow its petroleum to reach Western market (it was under embargo).

About age of ideologies or agressive ideologies, I came later with this nuance because I saw that many don't understand what I really mean.

About legionarism, is a very long discution. Is not about to practice Christianity, it was a mistico-nationalist melange, with right wing influence. No connection with Christianity, or to practice it. Christianity don't said anything abot assasination or Death Squads. And yes, legionarism is a ideology.

Google the following:
Crusades
Conquistador
Christianity and Colonialism
They were carried out in the name of the Church, were sanctioned by the Church and caused seas of blood to be shed in the name of the Church. We still suffer the outcomes.
Oh, and while you are at it, Google "Pastor Terry Jones"
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on January 17, 2011 09:36 am

The war was about many things but there was an ideological justification for it too.

Bush said it clearly: Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition -- declared at our founding; affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. (May 1, 2003)

That justification actually started being emphasized more and more as the WMD claim faded. The clashes with the insurgents became a war between Western values and moderate Islam vs Islamists.

Google the following:
Crusades
Conquistador
Christianity and Colonialism
They were carried out in the name of the Church, were sanctioned by the Church and caused seas of blood to be shed in the name of the Church. We still suffer the outcomes.
Oh, and while you are at it, Google "Pastor Terry Jones"
Radu

Yeah, well, text-book examples! But except the "pastor", all these were in the past and we "evolved", didn't we? We, as in "we, Christians" - which, in itself, is a very vague term...
Oh, don't forget KKK, also in the past, but a little closer to present!

I missed your point, Radu. I said that Christianity don't said about assasination or Death Squads, and is true. What Crusades and Conqistadors made, many crimes were in the name of the church, and church approved, but later rejected and apologise. Church was ruled by men, Pope was a man, and he made mistakes. But no Christian text said about assasination, by contrary.
And about all, you can wear a cross, speak about God, and kill happily, this don't mean you are Christian. (OOT, look at Becali, he realy looks like a Christian?).

The topic it started with discution about 1848, revolutions, Marx's Kapital, and there were opinions and comparations with today's situation. I said the age of ideologies, as potential factor to ignite a revolution, as agressive factor in state relationship, was over in 1991. It started in 1879. Next wars will be about wealth, religion, ethnicism, tribe, nationalism, resources, but no ideological reasons.

Sorry, I mean 1789.
War's reasons will be the same as thousands of years before 1789.

Well, I took the liberty to make some changes to your text:

I said that Islam don't said about assasination or Death Squads, and is true. What Fedayeen and Taliban made, many crimes were in the name of Islam, and Islam approved, but later rejected and apologise. Islam was ruled by men, Mullah was a man, and he made mistakes. But no Muslim text said about assasination, by contrary.

You will find that everything you said about Christianity applies just as much Islam.

As for ideology... I doubt that there will be no other ideologies.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on January 17, 2011 06:26 pm

Sorry, Radu, but you're wrong. Please, don't change my words, because I'm responsible for them. The Holly book for Christianity is the Bible. In the Bible, there are very few sentences and words there're the God's words. There are the 10 Comanders, the words of Jesus, and rest are paraboles and everybody can extract what it learnes from them.
The Holly Book for Islam is Quran. Quran was revealed by the Phrophet, Muhhamad. And it is full of rules of behavior. God give the rules, what to do, how to act, how to pray. And tell me what means "to spread Islam to the infidels with sword" or "call to jihad". These teachings were ok in 7th century, but to aplyy them by rule in 21th century is a mistake. Islam don't adapted himself.
As a prouf that Christianity adapted (in many parts), look at one of Moses teachings. He said when you see a lepper (infected man), stone him to go away. It was a cruel, but curative metod, to prevent disease. In 21 century, you do the same?

The point I was trying to make was that you seem to be very forgiving when it comes to the atrocities committed in name of the Christian God, but do not wish to extend the same courtesy to those committed in the name of Allah. The truth is that atrocities are atrocities, and are to be condemned irrespective of who commits them. There is no "good crime". It should make no difference whether a bomb is strapped to a chest or to a jet fighter.

I will not get into debates about "Bible vs Koran", but in your summation you were wrong about both. Avoid indoctrination sites, they only teach you to hate your neighbour.

Radu

That is your opinion, Radu, I respect it, even I don't agree with it.

Back to the topic:

http://bogatu.voceabasarabiei.net/?p=745

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/01...-mistralul.html

The Quran is not full of explicit rules. That's why there is a huge deal of "jurisprudence", sheiks issuing contradictory fatwas, different interpretations and so on. God didn't issue a fatwa against football in the Quran for example.

The Quran is not full of explicit rules. That's why there is a huge deal of "jurisprudence", sheiks issuing contradictory fatwas, different interpretations and so on. God didn't issue a fatwa against football in the Quran for example.

The Law of Islam is based on Quran and Hadith (which describes the examples and words of Muhammad) and its application depends on precedents. The Law is seen as given by God once and for all through the Prophet and it concerns all the aspects of human life. The Old Testament also has such a Law (the Prophet being Moses instead of Muhammad), but Christianity (and I refer here and below to the original, authentic, Christianity) abrogated its material aspects giving it a purely spiritual interpretation, and replaced it with the Canon Law, which is a set of rules issued from Church Synods and prone to change in questions originated in the non-dogmatic part of the creed. Both Christianity and Islam approve Holy War, though in either of cases there are differences of interpretation concerning who/which is the authority entitled to proclaim it, which are the necessary conditions for its proclamation etc. A Holy War could be offensive or defensive and it is not bad in itself, like any war it helps solving social issues insoluble with other means, and its goal is finally to pacify by unifying in the corresponding dialectical step. The fact that some people who declare themselves "Muslims" or "Christians" deny or consider a shameful thing of the past the fact that their religion sanctions Holy War means that they are uprooted and religion has become a purely abstraction for them.

This post has been edited by Amicus_Plato on January 24, 2011 05:27 pm

????
What is that? The first teachings or what they decided, let's say, at the First Niceea Council, that shall be kept and interpreted from them?!

The 11-th commandment:
"Thou shalt not operate with terms you do not fully understand"...
How'bout this?

????
What is that? The first teachings or what they decided, let's say, at the First Niceea Council, that shall be kept and interpreted from them?!

But this is how the things are in the world. What would be the alternative, anyone to interpret the Scripture after his own mind and to have thousands of charlatans proclaiming themselves "prophets" and "enlightened" and thousands of sects constituting their communities fighting each other? The same as in case of a State where there is a single Legislative body which gives laws and people should obey, the same in religion, there is a a single body which decides (in case of Christianity, the Church) and believers should either obey or fight to impose their interpretation as the imperative for all. The strength of any community consists in its unity, in disunity there is death.

This post has been edited by Amicus_Plato on January 24, 2011 06:57 pm