Please explain how those wars in Iraq etc. were motivated by religion?Originally Posted by sidmouth
Oh right, so the invasion of Iraq was perfectly justified was it, as was the ensuing years of war? And the fact that the US and European troops bent over backwards to avoid killing too many more than 100,000 civilians is acceptable because it saved us all from those Iraqi 'weapons of mass destruction', right?So you wouldn't describe US policy towards countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc as violent or aggressive? I have one word for you - hypocrite.
What does the motivation matter? We were talking about a genetic pre-disposition to violence and aggression, as per your bizarre claim that Muslims have been artificially selected to become more violent and aggressive and are therefore according to you (but with no evidence given) demonstrably more aggressive and violent than non-Muslims.
Is religious motivation less valid than other motives for going to war, such as ideological or expansionist motivations?
I shall look forward to your reply when I return to the forum next year. I suggest you put your party clothes on and go out and see in the New Year too instead of posting your bigotted claptrap here all night long. Adios.
Definitely not a cat in hells chance of it being released for public consumption.
"The whole point of the liberal revolution that gave rise to the 1960’s was to free us from somebody else’s dogma, but now the same people…are striving to impose on others a secularized religion…" Richard Bernstein
"As for evidence that they are genetically selected for violent traits, the evidence is that they commit far more violent acts. One could claim environmental factors instead. But environmental factors lead to selection."
Are you talking about races or religions? Muslim terrorism arose with US-Israel presence in Middle East, and previously was not known. But UK, France and Holland were invading Muslim lands as colonies. Are you saying Muslims are genetically selected to become Muslims? by Muslim environment? That is misusing the idea of selection. And the races include Nigerian, Indonesian, Arabic Turkic and Afghan. US Dollar Democracy is also a religion, like Nazism and Communism which terrified many.
Islam has spread by violence, conquest and terror ever since it started. You mention colonialism, what about the Middle East and North Africa, once Christian lands, which the Muslims colonised? Have they ever decolonised them?
Then Muslims had been bred for violence before Islam raised its ugly head? So Islam is not the problem? It's paganism that organises masonic breeding studs for master race warriors?
You feel that Muslim Libya is colonised by ...Libyans.. Indonesians..re-incarnated masons? And the imperial colonial power rules from 14 Al Qaeda Street, Hyderabad, Pakistan? Why do you make me ask questions?
Last edited by chimera; 01-01-2012 at 02:00 AM.
Roman Catholicism was spread by violence, conquest and terror. How do you think the whole of the Americas south of the Rio Grande, and a lot of states north of it, got to be predominantly RC? Not only did they spread Roman Catholicism, but they exterminated those who resisted. In India the 'conversion' of Goa included such peaceful and loving means as crucifixion and burning at the stake after a lot of gratuitous torture. The RCs didn't suffer dissent lightly and burnt their way across many countries (including Arabic Spain) as they brought God's love to his children.
The Christians have never decolonised the Americas nor Australia nor New Zealand nor many smaller territories.
Incidentally, periodic wars aside, the most successful human beings have been those who can provide food for their families. Hunter gatherers and agrarian farmers have a higher success rate than non-productive warriors. It has been the periods of peace when human beings have been at their most successful and when men have had larger families that they have fed. A young girl in eighteenth century England would rather marry a successful plough boy than a wayward soldier. It's the same the world over. Would you rather marry a private in the rifles or a bloke with a plumbing business? I know who is more likely to be fitter and tougher, but I also know who will be bringing home the bacon and living in the nicer house.
It is success at farming that has given India and China their large populations, not Pyrrhic victories in distant wars.
Most of the world's Muslims are more concerned with feeding their families than blowing people up. There are lots of statistics that show the total terrorist population is less than one tenth of a per cent (that would be high in itself) of the total Muslim population.
Last edited by Aardvark; 01-02-2012 at 07:19 AM.
The concept of breeding for violence IS intrinsic to Islamic beliefs int he concept that 'martyrs' will be 'rewarded' by being gifted virgins to impregnate.
The idea is there that those of a violent bent should be allowed to spread their genes on a massive scale.
Indeed all militaristic societies that practise polygamy DO apply a very crude form of selective breeding by rewarding their 'Big Men' with wives. The Zulu society operated similarly - young men kept away from the women and forced to fight, while older successful men hog all the women.
"The whole point of the liberal revolution that gave rise to the 1960’s was to free us from somebody else’s dogma, but now the same people…are striving to impose on others a secularized religion…" Richard Bernstein
..after death. That doesn't count.
..but the reality is different. Land and the ability to produce from it have been critical for centuries. The people who cleared the natives from land in the USA didn't end up with squaws, but plots of farmland. A warrior cannot feed himself and there is not a limitless supply of farmers to kill in exchange for their crops. Cavalry needed oats and grass to feed their animals - it was usually paid for. If the warriors could not farm the land themselves then they used slaves - which is a different issue - to produce their crops for them. Islam doesn't condemn slavery, which again is a different issue.The idea is there that those of a violent bent should be allowed to spread their genes on a massive scale.
Most societies are not 'militaristic'. Most militaristic societies are not Muslim. Not all societies rewarded men with wives. I don't think you'll find much of that going on in the last century. The purpose of arranged marriages was to secure farming and land rights and to ensure there were enough people to plough the fields and scatter. Even during the wars of the last century farming was a 'reserved' occupation or women were conscripted to work in the fields (Germans used slave labour during WWII). Whilst there might well be Muslim terrorists, it is a truism to state that growing of crops has a higher priority than blowing people up. Today there will be a couple of suicide bombs in Baghdad or some other place, but the bulk of Muslim males of working age will either go to work or try to get work. Note the terrorism in the ME is as a result of Arabs, Christian and Muslim, being deprived of the land they need to produce crops. The Palestinian refugees fled their land in 1948 and their deepest desire, and that of their descendants, is to have land they can call their own.Indeed all militaristic societies that practise polygamy DO apply a very crude form of selective breeding by rewarding their 'Big Men' with wives. The Zulu society operated similarly - young men kept away from the women and forced to fight, while older successful men hog all the women.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks