Has the 100 year Jihad (war) begun ... ???

[SirRumpole]

You have developed your own private religion, you have said before you not only believe in an after life, but also think your actions in this life affect your next life.

If I think that, why should it concern you ?

I'm not telling you how to live your life.

 

[Value Collector]

Sensible people don't believe what either religion or atheism preach as neither has proved their case.



.

Atheism doesn't preach anything, it has no doctrines or dogma.

You can't "believe in" atheism, you are either an atheist or your not. You either believe a god or gods exist, or you don't, if you don't believe in gods your an atheist, thats all it is, there is nothing to preach.

Atheism has no case to prove, Atheism is the default position, it's up to a theist to prove his position to me before I can move from the default position of non belief to a position of belief.

I didn't choose to be an atheist, I was born one, I am only an atheist because no one has ever been able to prove any gods exist, once they can, I would cease being an atheist, I wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

 

[Value Collector]

If I think that, why should it concern you ?

I'm not telling you how to live your life.

I am not attacking you for your beliefs, you have the right to hold them, I was just pointing out that you do have a religion, because in the response to Julia you said you don't, but you do.

As I said, I am just clarifying a single point.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am not attacking you for your beliefs, you have the right to hold them, I was just pointing out that you do have a religion, because in the response to Julia you said you don't, but you do.

As I said, I am just clarifying a single point.

You have a wide definition of religion. I'd say I have more of a belief system, like the belief that there is no God as you have.

 

[Value Collector]

You have a wide definition of religion. I'd say I have more of a belief system, like the belief that there is no God as you have.

Its not that wide, you clearly fit the first part perfectly.

1, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.


2, a particular system of faith and worship.

 

[SirRumpole]

Its not that wide, you clearly fit the first part perfectly.

1, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.


2, a particular system of faith and worship.

Despite your semantic contrivances, if my belief system is a religion, it's a pretty innocuous one. If you replaced all other religions with mine, would you say the world would be a better place ?

I make no claims that I can talk to God, or that I know what He wants. I won't ask anyone to come to my church or give me any money, just to live their lives as though they will get some reward or punishment in future lives and leave it to their conscience to determine their actions.

It may not be your idea of heaven on earth, but its better than what we've got.

 

[Value Collector]

Despite your semantic contrivances, if my belief system is a religion, it's a pretty innocuous one. If you replaced all other religions with mine, would you say the world would be a better place ?

I make no claims that I can talk to God, or that I know what He wants. I won't ask anyone to come to my church or give me any money, just to live their lives as though they will get some reward or punishment in future lives and leave it to their conscience to determine their actions.

It may not be your idea of heaven on earth, but its better than what we've got.

I have answered this for you before, yes In general I prefer deists over theists any day.

Your private form of deism does seem rather benign, ofcourse I would rather you base your beliefs on evidence, but I am not going to come to your house with a gun for choosing to believe what you do. however, both you and I could find our selves in the gallows in certain parts of the world for not accepting the authority of various theocratic systems.

 

[trainspotter]

I have answered this for you before, yes In general I prefer deists over theists any day.

I prefer it when the carpet matches the curtains myself.

 

[SirRumpole]

however, both you and I could find our selves in the gallows in certain parts of the world for not accepting the authority of various theocratic systems.

Or be shot for not knowing quotes from a holy book.

Oh yes I'm well aware of the dangers of extremism but imo we should be condeming the bad parts of religion, not the whole lot.

I think it's easier to make religious people see that their doctrine has some flaws that they can modify for the modern world (like not keeping slaves), than it is to convince them to throw it away in its entirety.

I've mentioned before that religion is a social club to a lot of people. Why try and talk people out of going to their club and enjoying themselves if it keeps them from hanging around in pubs getting drunk and assaulting people ?

I'm more worried about the increasing boganisation of our society by the constant drip of alcohol and gambling promotions than I am about people congregating in churches and singing hymns. There are a lot worse things that they could be doing and I see no need to villify them for that.

 

[Calliope]

I prefer it when the carpet matches the curtains myself.

I can't imagine what deists and theists have to do with this thread, but i suppose that VC and SR love to argue over trivia. I seem to recall that they argued for days on the merits or otherwise of halal labelling.

 

[SirRumpole]

I can't imagine what deists and theists have to do with this thread, but i suppose that VC and SR love to argue over trivia. I seem to recall that they argued for days on the merits or otherwise of halal labelling.

Keeps us off the streets

 

[So_Cynical]

How do you know that?

Both his actions and words were consistent with that of an Islamic terrorist. Unless we have information to the contrary why would we think anything differently.

Just because he was not acting on behalf in an organized team of terrorist within Australia does not mean that he was not an Islamic terrorist. The Islamic state have encouraged Muslims worldwide to commit acts of terrorism on their own without great planning or organisation against Westernised countries, this can be achieved through a single person such as this man actions.

I don't think someone acting on their own can genuinely be called a terrorist, he didn't even have an IS flag, a bomb or decent weapon...what he did have was a proven criminal history and clear signs of delusion and mental illness.

This whole thing is a bit of a beat up...the guy is a nut pure and simple.

---------------

True news sums up my view pretty well.
~
[video=youtube_share;aZ8ZYAvWTxo]http://youtu.be/aZ8ZYAvWTxo[/video]

 

[Calliope]

This whole thing is a bit of a beat up...the guy is a nut pure and simple.

I don't think he is a pure and simple nut. He was an Islamic jihadist nut. I know that you, like many posters, are desperately trying to to separate his terrorism from the Islamic faith. Why? It's a futile exercise. What happened to your cynicism? Has it been replaced by naivety?

 

[DB008]

I don't think someone acting on their own can genuinely be called a terrorist, he didn't even have an IS flag, a bomb or decent weapon...what he did have was a proven criminal history and clear signs of delusion and mental illness.

This whole thing is a bit of a beat up...the guy is a nut pure and simple.

Flag being held by Lindt Chocolat Cafe hostages is not an Islamic State flag

The flag shown being held by hostages against the window of Lindt Chocolat Cafe is not an Islamic State flag, but is an Islamic flag that has been co-opted by jihadist groups.

However, Greg Barton, a terrorism expert from Melbourne's Monash University, said that "getting hold of an [Islamic State] flag would be quite difficult, and people will make do with what they have got".

That means it doesn't help confirm or rule out that the hostage-takers' affiliation is with Islamic State or any other group.

The flag appears to be a Shahada flag, which represents a general expression of faith in Islam, but has been co-opted by various jihadist groups.

That means it doesn't help confirm or rule out that the hostage-takers' affiliation is with Islamic State or any other group.

The translation of the flag is: "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

The Shahada is the testament of Islamic faith, which is one of the five pillars of Islam.

A translation by Fairfax Media has established that the script on the flag is very precise, classical Arabic. Mass-produced flags typically skip over the more complex grammatical notation - such as short vowel signs - because they are hard to reproduce.

This one is very precise in detail, suggesting it is not mass-produced.

Monash University senior politics lecturer Ben MacQueen, whose work focuses on the Middle East, said the Shahadah - which is what the white writing on the flag appeared to be - was the testimony or core statement of belief in Islam.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/flag-being-held-by-lindt-chocolat-cafe-hostages-is-not-an-islamic-state-flag-20141215-1279s0.html

 

[DB008]

I don't think he is a pure and simple nut. He was an Islamic jihadist nut. I know that you, like many posters, are desperately trying to to separate his terrorism from the Islamic faith. Why? It's a futile exercise. What happened to your cynicism? Has it been replaced by naivety?

Why?

Because, for some reason in our modern society, we are not allowed to call a spade a spade.

If you do, you are a bigot or a racist.

It's a simple as that.

 

[bellenuit]

I don't think someone acting on their own can genuinely be called a terrorist, he didn't even have an IS flag, a bomb or decent weapon...what he did have was a proven criminal history and clear signs of delusion and mental illness.

Didn't he request an IS flag? Also, his weapon was decent enough to kill 2 people and would possibly have killed more had the police not stormed the building.

You don't need to even have a weapon to terrorise. People can be terrorised by what you might be assumed to have when they don't know. Also, didn't those who brought down the plane over Pennsylvania (?) just have box cutters, as did the others who flew into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.

I think we are back to what has been stated here many times. The extremists tell you what their motivations and intentions are, but we (usually the left) simply do not want to know. Anything and everything is assumed, but not what they say.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think he is a pure and simple nut. He was an Islamic jihadist nut. I know that you, like many posters, are desperately trying to to separate his terrorism from the Islamic faith. Why? It's a futile exercise. What happened to your cynicism? Has it been replaced by naivety?

He was clearly influenced by Islamist dogma, so in that sense he was an Islamic terrorist. Fortunately he wasn't particularly clever or organised so he wasn't very effective. A number of hostages escaped so clearly he didn't have a cohesive plan and it seemed he acted alone.

The situation he generated could have been worse, but it was bad enough for those who were killed.

The disturbing and unanswered question is "how many more like him" ?

 

[Julia]

I don't think someone acting on their own can genuinely be called a terrorist,

Why on earth not?
Is there some specific number whereby individuals acting out of religious fanaticism can be described as terrorists in your definition???

he didn't even have an IS flag, a bomb or decent weapon...what he did have was a proven criminal history and clear signs of delusion and mental illness.

This whole thing is a bit of a beat up...the guy is a nut pure and simple.

So now you're a psychiatrist, what's more, able to diagnose mental illness in someone you've never met and know almost nothing about.

There have been numerous interviews, mostly on ABC Radio with psychiatrists and psychologists testifying to the hostage taker being entirely unlikely to have been afflicted by any form of mental illness.

Rather that - like most terrorists - he was driven by his fanatical obsession with his version of Islam.

 

[So_Cynical]

Didn't he request an IS flag? Also, his weapon was decent enough to kill 2 people and would possibly have killed more had the police not stormed the building.

Killed 2 people hey, how do you know?

 

[IFocus]

Didn't he request an IS flag? Also, his weapon was decent enough to kill 2 people and would possibly have killed more had the police not stormed the building.

.

He was an Iranian Shia

The nut case IS mob are super extreme Sunni

Sunnis would even spit on his dead body even if he was a suicide bomber.

Sounds like he just totally lost the plot.

BTW nut case white men in Australia by far and away have have killed more people that Islam jihadist will ever do.

White men committing domestic violence slaughter will kill more people / children of our own than jihadist will ever do in Australia

Most of you will not even blink as these news items cross the TV screens each night.