Opinion Paris

Remove this Banner Ad

When it comes down to it humans don't need religion to hurt each other. Any set of beliefs, religious or not, can be used to justify acts of cruelty, as long as people believe strongly enough in them. The problem is that there are very few things that people feel as strongly about as they do about their religion.

And coming from an extended family featuring two different faiths I've come to believe that religion doesn't get in the way of people living in harmony together, unless people let it.
 
Sanders said:
A couple of things, firstly your obsessions with Belfast alone says plenty.

Secondly you produce a chart that shows a tiny, tiny amount of casualties over a 30-40 year conflict to disprove claims that it wasn't very much?What next, pointing a to glass of water to prove water is not wet? Setting fire to something to prove naked flame isn't hot? Point proven

Now what were these religious differences you claimed they were fighting about?
Click to expand...

My original point on Northern Ireland earlier in the thread was that Christians do kill Christians after someone said they don't.
"My obsessions with Belfast" I'm not sure what you are on about there.

The chart I produced is of the thousands killed, not casualties as you wrongly state. The casualties from the conflict were huge.

If you can't work out that the IRA/ Sinn Fein are Catholic and The Orange Men/UDA/Loyalists are Protestant, and the ingrained indoctrinated sectarianism hatred that goes along with that are inextricably linked, I can't help you. Maybe Google Ian Paisley what he preached and what he stood for, or The Shankill Butchers.

My wife and her family are from Northern Ireland. We spent a year there together on a working holiday when we were first married in the 90's, I don't need lectures on the political/religious turmoil of that area from you.:D
 
Doctor B said:
My original point on Northern Ireland earlier in the thread was that Christians do kill Christians after someone said they don't.
"My obsessions with Belfast" I'm not sure what you are on about there.
Click to expand...

You do seem very confused. You wrongly tried to portray it as another religious conflict, when any high school drop out knows it is not.

The chart I produced is of the thousands killed, not casualties as you wrongly state. The casualties from the conflict were huge.
Click to expand...

Maths not your strong suit then?

over a nearly 40 year conflict there were less than 3,000 casualties in total. Let that sink in for a moment. Even your little pic shows that. That is **** all.

To put it into context the number of terrorist deaths from ISIL in the last 2 weeks is around 35% of the total number of deaths attributed to the IRA in nearly 40 years.

The problem the Irish have is that this tiny little conflict is one of the only things that make them interesting or noteworthy so they like to inflate it into something bigger as a badge of honour. Like you're doing now.


If you can't work out that the IRA/ Sinn Fein are Catholic and The Orange Men/UDA/Loyalists are Protestant, and the ingrained indoctrinated sectarianism hatred that goes along with that are inextricably linked, I can't help you. Maybe Google Ian Paisley what he preached and what he stood for, or The Shankill Butchers.
Click to expand...

No you can't help me or anyone else for that matter with that sort of simplistic, 2 dimensional drivel. It might fly down the pub, but you didn't answer my question:

What religious differences were they fighting over? It was your claim, you said they were, so what were they?

Just because 2 sides of a conflict have different religious belief doesn't mean they are fighting a theological war.


My wife and her family are from Northern Ireland. We spent a year there together on a working holiday when we were first married in the 90's, I don't need lectures on the political/religious turmoil of that area from you.:D
Click to expand...

seriously, that's what you are holding out in place of a reasoned argument? Whether it's true or not (who knows/cares) it's not an argument.

you would do well to seek some assistance.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

fabs33 said:
When it comes down to it humans don't need religion to hurt each other. Any set of beliefs, religious or not, can be used to justify acts of cruelty, as long as people believe strongly enough in them. The problem is that there are very few things that people feel as strongly about as they do about their religion.

And coming from an extended family featuring two different faiths I've come to believe that religion doesn't get in the way of people living in harmony together, unless people let it.
Click to expand...

Religion is a dividing line in many conflicts but it is not the driving motivation, cause of reason.

With the exception of the more modern extreme fundamentalists, it's just as often about oppression, social & wealth imbalance and privilege, your usual revolutionary fires. One party is in charge and has all the goodies, and other groups don't have any. They fight, someone eventually wins, there is brutality but there is rarely a modern thrust towards theology.

it's mostly about haves and have nots.
 
Mike Smyth said:
There's alot of good people that follow religions despite the corruption. It floors me though that someone can still believe in a corrupt organization like the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
I can't recall catholics ever open firing on people in a secluded area knowing there would be no way out.
 
Mike Smyth said:
There's alot of good people that follow religions despite the corruption. It floors me though that someone can still believe in a corrupt organization like the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

This may sound like atheist speak but some of the biggest religions in the world at the moment have all coincidently been created and centred around 'fear'. Fear disguised as faith was one of the best ways to control the masses back in the time of ruthless empires.
 
Sanders said:
You do seem very confused. You wrongly tried to portray it as another religious conflict, when any high school drop out knows it is not.

No you can't help me or anyone else for that matter with that sort of simplistic, 2 dimensional drivel. It might fly down the pub, but you didn't answer my question:

What religious differences were they fighting over? It was your claim, you said they were, so what were they?

Just because 2 sides of a conflict have different religious belief doesn't mean they are fighting a theological war.
Click to expand...

Its not hard to realise the IRA were fighting against the British and the Irish who wanted to stay with the British. The religious breakdown centred around the populations ethnic make up which just gave it a religious overtone but it wasn't the centre of the argument.
 
adelaidecrows said:
Its not hard to realise the IRA were fighting against the British and the Irish who wanted to stay with the British. The religious breakdown centred around the populations ethnic make up which just gave it a religious overtone but it wasn't the centre of the argument.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It was sectarianism pure and simple. Catholics couldn't get jobs, they couldn't get mortgages, buy houses etc. They were locked out of society, politics and economic prosperity. So they wanted to break away from the rule of the establishment. But they are a minority. The unionists had all the goodies and a big majority and they think/thought things are just fine. the current system favours them so they like it, the other guys dislike it for the same reason. the British would give NI away in a heartbeat and the Republic of Ireland doesn't want them.

It's a sectarian conflict about what most sectarian conflicts are about: economics and politics. and it's a very dull, very uninteresting affair. if not for dumb assed Americans thinking IRA terrorists were freedom fighters it wouldn't have gotten 1/10 the publicity it has.

A very dull affair and not one worth talking about any further :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sanders said:
The problem the Irish have is that this tiny little conflict is one of the only things that make them interesting or noteworthy so they like to inflate it into something bigger as a badge of honour.
Click to expand...

Disgraceful. Post your racist garbage elsewhere, troll.

"The problem the Sanders have, is that his tiny little penis is one of the only things that make him interesting or noteworthy so they like to inflate it into something bigger as a badge of honour"
 
You guys give them way too much credit by calling it a terrorist attack.. even more so by calling it an act of war

but by doing so you get the enemy that the media and the fear-mongers so desperately need..


Mike Smyth said:
I don't think there is an answer to be honest. However, it would be great to see moderate Muslims (I don't believe they exist) come out en masse in a show of solidarity agaibst these barbarians.
Click to expand...

Always knew you were a moron but it's nice to have that confirmed
 
the universal said:
What silence? There are countless recent articles of Muslims condemning these attacks. Or is it just easier for you to whine?
Click to expand...

You mean like Dr. Ibrahim Abu Mohammed [Grand Mufti of Australia] who recently refused to speak in English at his news conference??
Yeah, that will help people understand.
 
Riiiight.. so if you're going down that angle, Bicks (the angle of someone high up in the order of the church being dodgy as **** - although without any context to what you're talking about, not speaking English doesn't seem like a massive issue) what does George Pell and his cover up of church peadophilia say about Australian Catholics?


EDIT: - So I just googled the mufti's name, and after his wiki page and facebook page, the first article is him warning young Muslims against 'Youtube and Google Sheik' i.e, radicalisation over the internet

Secondly, him condemning the attacks in France,

and Thirdly, an article from Andrew Bolt saying he should be sacked..


So why exactly have you picked this guy out?
 
imrs.php


Not moderate enough, Mike Smyth ?

‘We are Tunisians. We are against terror’

‘ISIS doesn’t represent Islam’

‘We are Muslims. We are against terror’.
 
You might not think it's an issue, most Australians do, Australia is an English speaking country and if the Grand Mufti wants to reach mainstream Australia surely speaking in this country's recognised language should be a given. This is Australia he lives in now not Egypt, do you think it's too much to ask refugees entering Australia from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan etc to learn English as a requisite for settlement, surely this well help with their assimilation into Australian society??

And the discussion is on the "Paris" terrorist attack by ISIS supporters not to deflect it to the wrongdoings of the Catholic Church or any other religious entities.
 
radiojake said:
The guy can speak English - What are you referring to in regards to him not speaking English at a press conference - What press conference, and what was it about?
Click to expand...

After the recent Parramatta attack he delivered his press conference in Arabic and he has done the same on numerous occasions communicating through interpreters , you know he can speak English, I know he can speak English, most Australians wouldn't.......He has lived in Australia for 18 years by the way. Surely you must be aware of this?? If not google is your friend as above...;)

The same gentleman calls for better communication and dialog with the Australian community yet refuses to speak in a language mainstream Australia understands let alone the majority of English speaking Muslim youth in Australia today who he is supposed to be targeting?
 
Mike Smyth said:
There's alot of good people that follow religions despite the corruption. It floors me though that someone can still believe in a corrupt organization like the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

Or indeed an omnipresent spirit in the sky.

I was indoctrinated into that same Catholic Church as a kid. Fortunately at 13yo, I walked in the door at St David's. With my family and instead of sitting down I continued to walk out the door on the opposite site and have not been back in since. That was the day I saw the light regarding all religions. It just doesn't stack up to logical thought.
I did however take out of it, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass and have managed to abide by this rule.
 
radiojake said:
You guys give them way too much credit by calling it a terrorist attack.. even more so by calling it an act of war

but by doing so you get the enemy that the media and the fear-mongers so desperately need..




Always knew you were a moron but it's nice to have that confirmed
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the Paris thing the other day still. Because that was certainly a terrorist act and it went off with 100% effectiveness. It was faultless as it was ****ed. I also believe it will give great encouragement to others of that persuasion to follow. I think France may seem a soft target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top