Iraqi doctor

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 1:06:32 PM7/2/07
to
Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to Iraq
to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who seem to
target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow himself up
in the hope of killing innocent civilians.

Give me Christianity any day.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Matthew Vernon

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 2:42:21 AM7/3/07
to
"Kendall K. Down" <webm...@diggingsonline.com> writes:

> Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to Iraq
> to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who seem to
> target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow himself up
> in the hope of killing innocent civilians.
>
> Give me Christianity any day.

You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.

Matthew

--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/

Phil Saunders

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 3:03:56 AM7/3/07
to
"Matthew Vernon" <mat...@debian.org> wrote in message
news:7jzm2e0...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk...

> "Kendall K. Down" <webm...@diggingsonline.com> writes:
>
>> Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to
>> Iraq
>> to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who seem to
>> target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow himself
>> up
>> in the hope of killing innocent civilians.
>>
>> Give me Christianity any day.
>
> You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
> guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.
>
> Matthew

No he is dealing with now. But if you wish to compare the atrocities of the
past with today Im sure we can oblige and show that Islam and the Protestant
faith are in no way similar.

Phil

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 3:25:48 AM7/3/07
to
"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wxmii.5569$oa7...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

They are in their involvement with wars and killing their enemies, thus we
see neither faith has obeyed Christ's command to ~love their enemies~ or his
command not to ~Kill~.
As Jesus stated .......~By their fruits shall ye know them~

Matthew 7:19 "18 A *Good tree *Cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

Jeff...

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 4:37:01 AM7/3/07
to
On 2007-07-03, Phil Saunders <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
>> guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.
>>
> No he is dealing with now. But if you wish to compare the atrocities of the
> past with today Im sure we can oblige and show that Islam and the Protestant
> faith are in no way similar.

But now is only now due to very recent changes in emphasis, changes that
seem to be happening in religious groups other than Christianity too.
Can we really credit this to Christianity being divine or are other
factors present?

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

Matthew Vernon

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 4:50:27 AM7/3/07
to
"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> writes:

> > You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
> > guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.
>

> No he is dealing with now. But if you wish to compare the atrocities of the

How about the murder of Barnett Slepian in 1998, or Dr John Britton in
1994? That's hardly the dim and distant past...

Michael J Davis

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 6:19:40 AM7/3/07
to
In message <7j4pklz...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk>, Matthew Vernon
<mat...@debian.org> writes

>"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> > You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
>> > guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.
>>
>> No he is dealing with now. But if you wish to compare the atrocities of the
>
>How about the murder of Barnett Slepian in 1998, or Dr John Britton in
>1994? That's hardly the dim and distant past...

Sick people do sick things. I agree with Jeff's quote concerning the
fruits.

However one sick member of the congregation doesn't mean that the whole
body is sick.

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 7:27:55 AM7/3/07
to
"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kf6LoXJ8...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...

> In message <7j4pklz...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk>, Matthew Vernon
> <mat...@debian.org> writes
>>"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>
>>> > You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
>>> > guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.
>>>
>>> No he is dealing with now. But if you wish to compare the atrocities of
>>> the
>>
>>How about the murder of Barnett Slepian in 1998, or Dr John Britton in
>>1994? That's hardly the dim and distant past...
>
> Sick people do sick things. I agree with Jeff's quote concerning the
> fruits.
>
> However one sick member of the congregation doesn't mean that the whole
> body is sick.

But when the head becomes screwy and goes haywire, the whole body suffers.

Jeff...

Gordon Hudson

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 9:22:03 AM7/3/07
to
"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Kf6LoXJ8...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In message <7j4pklz...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk>, Matthew Vernon
> <mat...@debian.org> writes
>>"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>
>>> > You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
>>> > guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.
>>>
>>> No he is dealing with now. But if you wish to compare the atrocities of
>>> the
>>
>>How about the murder of Barnett Slepian in 1998, or Dr John Britton in
>>1994? That's hardly the dim and distant past...
>
> Sick people do sick things. I agree with Jeff's quote concerning the
> fruits.
>
> However one sick member of the congregation doesn't mean that the whole
> body is sick.

It is the sick who need a doctor.

Phil Saunders

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 9:34:05 AM7/3/07
to
"Richard Corfield" <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf8k2ld.f89....@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org...

> On 2007-07-03, Phil Saunders <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
>>> guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.
>>>
>> No he is dealing with now. But if you wish to compare the atrocities of
>> the
>> past with today Im sure we can oblige and show that Islam and the
>> Protestant
>> faith are in no way similar.
>
> But now is only now due to very recent changes in emphasis, changes that
> seem to be happening in religious groups other than Christianity too.
> Can we really credit this to Christianity being divine or are other
> factors present?
>
> - Richard

No, now is always now ;-)

Phil

Phil Saunders

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 9:34:43 AM7/3/07
to
"Matthew Vernon" <mat...@debian.org> wrote in message
news:7j4pklz...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk...

9/11, 7/7

go compare

Phil

nobody

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 10:13:58 AM7/3/07
to
On 2 Jul, 18:06, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:

> Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to Iraq
> to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who seem to
> target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow himself up
> in the hope of killing innocent civilians.
>

Reported 15th March 2006; In Isahaqi Iraq the US forces killed 11
people mostly women and children by flattening a house do you know the
name of even one of them.

Reported 1st July 2006 In southern Baghdad in their home town of
Mahmoudiya the US soldiers killed a family of four. In this they where
accused of raping a women killing her child and two other adults.

Reported on 18th October 2006; US Soldiers raped a 14 year old girl
and killing her in the end also killing her parents and sister.


> Give me Christianity any day.
>

The people mentioned above were innocent.

Extremism is not a religion it is a way thinking and this thinking
exists in people no matter what religion they follow or whether they
don't follow at all.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 3:39:41 PM7/3/07
to
In message <7jzm2e0...@rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk>
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:

> You're inviting comparisons with the Inquisition, the Crusades, that
> guy who murdered doctors working at an abortion clinic, ... here.

Yes, there have been a few nutcases in Christianity, like the chap who
murdered doctors - well, one doctor, if I recall correctly. The Crusades
were attempts to turn back the tide of Muslim invasion and conquest, a
reaction rather than an initiative. The Inquisition was deplorable but at
least its victims were carefully selected and there was attempt at
persuading them to recant before the stake.

I'm not defending any of the above, mind you, but there is no comparison
that I can see between those unfortunate happenings and a doctor - or a
bunch of doctors, as it now appears - who prefer killing to healing. It's
not as if Iraq or Pakistan or wherever is so over-supplied with doctors that
there is no need for their skills. And if you are going to sacrifice your
life, why not do it by going out to somewhere where you will live in
discomfort, receive a poor salary and little thanks, but accomplish a whole
lot of good?

Christian missionaries have been doing it for centuries.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 3:49:46 PM7/3/07
to
In message <1183472038.6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
nobody <when...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Reported on 18th October 2006; US Soldiers raped a 14 year old girl
> and killing her in the end also killing her parents and sister.

1. Those soldiers are condemned by every civilised - not to say Christian -
person in Britain, America, and everywhere else. (The Muslim terrorists are
praised by many Muslims, both in Britain and elsewhere.)

2. Show me a church where such behaviour is preached as right and good, or
where the perpetrators of such deeds are promised Paradise. (I need hardly
point out that we can show you mosques where the behaviour that started this
thread is praised and the terrorists are promised Paradise.)

3. The soldiers are presently - if it's the case to which I think you are
referring - on trial for their behaviour.



> Extremism is not a religion it is a way thinking and this thinking
> exists in people no matter what religion they follow or whether they
> don't follow at all.

The soldiers to which you referred, both above and in the examples I
snipped, were not motivated by their religion. (See my point 2 above.) Their
behaviour was not religious extremism, it was wickedness pure and simple.

The terrorists who tried to attack Britain were motivated by their religion,
as are the terrorists in Iraq, al-Qaida, the terrorists in the Yemen and so
on. You may deplore it - and I am sure you do - but there is a substantial
number of Muslims who believe that their religion justifies the murder of
innocent civilians. (Wasn't it 46% or something like that of young Muslims
in Britain who, when polled recently, regarded the London Tube bombers as
martyrs?)

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 3:41:54 PM7/3/07
to
In message <468a4ddc$0$644$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>
"Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is the sick who need a doctor.

Could be - but my wife has decided that she is not going to have a Muslim
doctor in future. Can't say I blame her. Think of the way they treat their
own women and then think of how they feel about western women.

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 8:31:16 AM7/4/07
to
On 2007-07-02, Kendall K. Down <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to Iraq
> to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who seem to
> target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow himself up
> in the hope of killing innocent civilians.

Some people I feel for are the nurses and doctors who are treating one
of the bombers for burns. They must presumably act in all professionalism
and indeed act out of 'love' in the "love thy neighbour" sense - towards
someone who has just tried to kill many innocents. A strong test of
turning the other cheek.

nobody

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 8:22:15 AM7/4/07
to
On 3 Jul, 20:49, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
> In message <1183472038.685404.305...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>

Yes some soldiers are on trial for their behaviour but those are the
ones that got caught.

And yes their may be some mosques that would advocate such idiotic
behaviour; but I have not been to one them so far.

They are promised paradise?

Yes they may be promised by the person who is influencing them to
carry out such attacks but Islam does not promise you paradise.

Islam says if you kill yourself on this earth then you will be killing
yourself in very same manner in hell, over and over again.


Muslims are motivated by their religion?

Where does it say that you could kill yourself (commit suicide) and
then go to paradise. Where has Islam promoted this.


The poll you show saying 46% of British Muslims believe such people
are martyrs. Did they ask every Muslim in the nation? No

And just because some Muslims believe they are martyrs doesn't make
them martyrs. There are many Muslims that don't really have much
knowledge of Islam and this could be put the same for Christianity.

And these people with little knowledge of their own were asked where
does Islam say they are martyrs? then they would have no answer other
than saying well so and so said they are martyrs so they must be

You say Some Muslim praise such actions?

Yes you are correct, there are some who have little knowledge who
believe that just as above, this may be the case they have not done
the research themselves and are believing the words of someone else
who may also have been mislead.

But

On the other hand; it won't be hard to find someone of a Christian
background who would believe all Muslims should be killed etc.

What about the BNP. I am sure you will find many people of a Christian
background their, but it doesn't mean they are preaching or even
presenting the views of Christianity.

The western soldiers where not motivated by religion?

You may be right that they are motivated by their religion.

But...

When Bush says it was god who told him to go to Iraq.
When Blair says he prayed to god over Iraq before making his
decision.

And then you say these wars have nothing to do with religion.

Terrorism is terrorism even if democratic countries unlawfully invades
another country and call it some sort of operation freedom.

I know Islam and Christianity do not promote such acts, but its people
who are using this as a justification for their actions.

In the modern day Islam is under the microscope and it seems like the
bad actions of a few Muslims are magnified and presented like it's the
actual teaching of Islam.

nobody

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 8:48:04 AM7/4/07
to
On 3 Jul, 20:41, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
> In message <468a4ddc$0$644$5a6ae...@news.aaisp.net.uk>

> "Gordon Hudson" <hostro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is the sick who need a doctor.
>
> Could be - but my wife has decided that she is not going to have a Muslim
> doctor in future. Can't say I blame her.


I dont blame her either. And it is her choice.

And the wrong actions of those few has made her suspicious of the
others even though they may be innocent.


>Think of the way they treat their
> own women and then think of how they feel about western women.
>


What?????

You say they like it is the teaching of Islam.

I thought you who had some knowledge of Islam would have at least
presented a balanced view.


So what do you mean when you say the way they treat their own women.?

Frederick Williams

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 10:42:28 AM7/4/07
to
Richard Corfield wrote:
>
> On 2007-07-02, Kendall K. Down <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to Iraq
> > to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who seem to
> > target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow himself up
> > in the hope of killing innocent civilians.
>
> Some people I feel for are the nurses and doctors who are treating one
> of the bombers for burns. They must presumably act in all professionalism
> and indeed act out of 'love' in the "love thy neighbour" sense - towards
> someone who has just tried to kill many innocents. A strong test of
> turning the other cheek.

How bizarre to see the words "nurses" and "professionalism" in
neighbouring sentences.

--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid,"
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 11:35:41 AM7/4/07
to
On 2007-07-04, Frederick Williams <"Frederick Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Some people I feel for are the nurses and doctors who are treating one
>> of the bombers for burns. They must presumably act in all professionalism
>> and indeed act out of 'love' in the "love thy neighbour" sense - towards
>> someone who has just tried to kill many innocents. A strong test of
>> turning the other cheek.
>
> How bizarre to see the words "nurses" and "professionalism" in
> neighbouring sentences.
>

Why?

Prai Jei

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 1:46:47 PM7/4/07
to
Kendall K. Down (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<bf6530fc4...@diggingsonline.com>:

> Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to
> Iraq to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who
> seem to target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow
> himself up in the hope of killing innocent civilians.
>
> Give me Christianity any day.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>

Do doctors still have to take the Hypocritic (sp) Oath?
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 6:22:28 PM7/4/07
to
Richard Corfield wrote:

> On 2007-07-04, Frederick Williams <"Frederick Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some people I feel for are the nurses and doctors who are treating one
>>> of the bombers for burns. They must presumably act in all professionalism
>>> and indeed act out of 'love' in the "love thy neighbour" sense - towards
>>> someone who has just tried to kill many innocents. A strong test of
>>> turning the other cheek.
>>
>> How bizarre to see the words "nurses" and "professionalism" in
>> neighbouring sentences.
>
> Why?

Because Frederick, in addition to being an interesting chap with
interesting things to say, is also partial to a bit of light trolling
to pass the time.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 12:47:27 PM7/4/07
to
In message <1183551735.1...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
nobody <when...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Yes some soldiers are on trial for their behaviour but those are the
> ones that got caught.

As is always the way. I need hardly say that I wish they could all be


caught.

> And yes their may be some mosques that would advocate such idiotic
> behaviour; but I have not been to one them so far.

I wouldn't expect that you had.



> They are promised paradise?
> Yes they may be promised by the person who is influencing them to
> carry out such attacks but Islam does not promise you paradise.
> Islam says if you kill yourself on this earth then you will be killing
> yourself in very same manner in hell, over and over again.

If the teaching was that clear, how is it that so many are apparently
unaware of it? There seems no lack of suicide bombers in Iraq (many of whom
come from outside the country and are of the Sunni persuasion - one expects
slightly more extreme behaviour from Shiites).



> Muslims are motivated by their religion?

It may be a perversion of their religion, but when chaps yell "Allahu akbar"
as they set off their suicide belts, they clearly aren't doing it for the
sake of their mothers.

> The poll you show saying 46% of British Muslims believe such people
> are martyrs. Did they ask every Muslim in the nation? No

Polls never do: they take a representative sample and the techniques for
doing so are well known and credible. There is always a margin of error in
such polls (and I won't swear to 46%, but it was some horrifyingly high
figure) but the figure was well within such a margin.



> And just because some Muslims believe they are martyrs doesn't make
> them martyrs. There are many Muslims that don't really have much
> knowledge of Islam and this could be put the same for Christianity.

That is very true but still, even among the nominal Christians, there are
not many who would regard terrorism as religious behaviour.

> On the other hand; it won't be hard to find someone of a Christian
> background who would believe all Muslims should be killed etc.

Hmmmm. I doubt that.

> What about the BNP. I am sure you will find many people of a Christian
> background their, but it doesn't mean they are preaching or even
> presenting the views of Christianity.

Yes, the BNP does mouth off about Christianity, but no Christian church
endorses them and I would actually be very surprised if the BNP people
actually attended church.



> The western soldiers where not motivated by religion?
> You may be right that they are motivated by their religion.

Er - there is a "not" missing in that second line.



> But...
> When Bush says it was god who told him to go to Iraq.
> When Blair says he prayed to god over Iraq before making his
> decision.

I still maintain that the western powers were not motivated by religion.
They did not attack either Iraq or Afghanistan because those countries were
Muslim, they are not attempting to impose Christianity on either country,
Christianity was not under threat from Iraq or Afghanistan. The wars are
solely political and, indeed, are responses to actions by those countries:
Afghanistan gave shelter and aid to Osama bin Laden in his attack on New
York, Iraq invaded Kuwait and maintained defiance of the terms of the peace
treaty that ended the first Gulf War.

> Terrorism is terrorism even if democratic countries unlawfully invades
> another country and call it some sort of operation freedom.

Certainly.



> I know Islam and Christianity do not promote such acts, but its people
> who are using this as a justification for their actions.

I am not aware of any statement by the west that "xyz is contrary to the
principles of Christianity and therefore we will attack the Muslims", but I
have heard of plenty of statements to the effect that "xyz is contrary to
the principles of Islam and therefore we will attack the west."

> In the modern day Islam is under the microscope and it seems like the
> bad actions of a few Muslims are magnified and presented like it's the
> actual teaching of Islam.

Certainly - and good for you for standing up for your religion. It's just a
shame that a few of your imams have done their best to make it feared and
hated.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 12:33:12 PM7/4/07
to
In message <1183553284.2...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
nobody <when...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> And the wrong actions of those few has made her suspicious of the
> others even though they may be innocent.

That is the unfortunate fact. Mind you, although only a few Muslim men go
out and make bombs, a good many more regard all western women as slags
because they do not cover their hair. Cultural understanding and tolerance
cuts both ways, you know: we understand and tolerate you, you understand and
tolerate us.



> >Think of the way they treat their
> > own women and then think of how they feel about western women.

> What?????
> You say they like it is the teaching of Islam.
> I thought you who had some knowledge of Islam would have at least
> presented a balanced view.

> So what do you mean when you say the way they treat their own women?

Well, let's take that bastion of Islam - Saudi Arabia. Women are not allowed
to drive cars, they are not allowed to have male professors but have to
watch a live TV of the professor, their testimony is discounted in law
courts, and in that heat they have to go around draped from head to toe in
black.

I must admit that latter point really annoys me. When I visit Egypt I see
Muslim men walking around with bare heads and shirts made of very light
material. They are clearly enjoying the breeze. Beside them is a wife or
sister (or even, I suspect, girl-friend) swathed in yards of heavy black
material with only their hands and faces - and sometimes only their hands -
exposed to the breeze.

Or how about the time I visited Egypt during Ramadan and got into
conversation with a girl who, with two male colleagues, was manning a stall
selling papyrus in the exclusive 5* hotel in which we were staying. She
complained of being hungry and I pointed out that as it was well and truly
dark she could break her fast. She shrugged and explained that their
employer had provided a certain amount of food but the male colleagues, who
*naturally* ate first, had eaten the lot. (Even if it was proper for them to
eat first, they knew that she was there and should have left sufficient for
her.)

That's how women are treated: second-class citizens and unpaid servants.

Just out of interest, does your mother sit down and eat with your father and
you?

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 2:11:56 AM7/5/07
to
On 2007-07-04, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> How bizarre to see the words "nurses" and "professionalism" in
>>> neighbouring sentences.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because Frederick, in addition to being an interesting chap with
> interesting things to say, is also partial to a bit of light trolling
> to pass the time.

I wondered. I also wondered if there was a reason he'd like to share
with us.

- Richard

Tony Gillam

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 2:14:47 AM7/5/07
to
Kendall K. Down <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
> Well, let's take that bastion of Islam - Saudi Arabia. Women are not
> allowed to drive cars, they are not allowed to have male professors
> but have to watch a live TV of the professor, their testimony is
> discounted in law courts, and in that heat they have to go around
> draped from head to toe in black.
>
> I must admit that latter point really annoys me. When I visit Egypt I
> see Muslim men walking around with bare heads and shirts made of very
> light material. They are clearly enjoying the breeze. Beside them is
> a wife or sister (or even, I suspect, girl-friend) swathed in yards
> of heavy black material with only their hands and faces - and
> sometimes only their hands - exposed to the breeze.
>
When I was in Cairo at the end of June a couple of years ago, I saw
women wearing both knitted gloves and socks in addition to the all
enveloping gown. I don't know how they cope with the heat.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 3:06:59 AM7/5/07
to
On 2007-07-04, Kendall K. Down <webm...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
> If the teaching was that clear, how is it that so many are apparently
> unaware of it? There seems no lack of suicide bombers in Iraq (many of whom
> come from outside the country and are of the Sunni persuasion - one expects
> slightly more extreme behaviour from Shiites).

I've just read the top few percent of an article posted to
talk.religion.buddhism in response to the regular Muslim spam that is
posted there. The poster lists the atrocities carried out in the name of
Islam over the last 3 months. The article runs to about 1500 lines
though many of the listings take two lines because of how the article is
wrapped.

There are a lot of Iraq ones in there, but even if you count that as
a special case there are a lot of non-Iraq ones in there. The poster,
perhaps just quoting external data, perhaps because of where he was
posting, lists a number of attacks against Buddhists in places like
Thailand where I didn't know there was trouble.

How would this list compare with lists about other religions'
activities? If this list is a lot longer than the others, then can we ask
why that is so? Even if we filter out the Iraqi problems as resistance
fighting or group tensions out of control, though a lot of those were
Muslim on Muslim violence.

A Muslim friend of mine had a book on his desk that glorifies Muslim
conquest. It was 'interesting' to read bits of it.

We can see that Islam can be a beautiful religion with strong devotion
and perhaps some good ideas in there. There are also a lot of Islamic
people who are very nice people. We can ask though if there truly is an
unusually high amount of violence associated with Islam why that is so.

Is it a problem with that generally applies to religions that teach that
their's is the only way and have an end goal of the whole world believing
that one religion? Christianity goes for the love-them-to-conversion
approach now.

Peter Tan

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 4:24:38 AM7/5/07
to
On 5 Jul, 14:14, "Tony Gillam" <tony.gil...@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>
> When I was in Cairo at the end of June a couple of years ago, I saw
> women wearing both knitted gloves and socks in addition to the all
> enveloping gown. I don't know how they cope with the heat.

Yes, I was in Langkawi (Malaysia) last month. I saw some Arab men at
breakfast with tee shirts and shorts. Arab women (presumably they are
women!) were in black with socks and gloves and needed to gingerly
lift the veil covering the mouth to eat. Same attire at the beach. It
is so inconsistent. Don't the Arab women sense it? Surely it can't be
only my wife who got indignant on their behalf! Why aren't the men in
their long white robes and headdresses if the women have to maintain
all black? What's the point of going to a beach resort when you need
to be all draped up?

Peter

Peter Tan

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 4:32:28 AM7/5/07
to
On 5 Jul, 15:06, Richard Corfield <Richard.Corfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are a lot of Iraq ones in there, but even if you count that as
> a special case there are a lot of non-Iraq ones in there. The poster,
> perhaps just quoting external data, perhaps because of where he was
> posting, lists a number of attacks against Buddhists in places like
> Thailand where I didn't know there was trouble.
>
Oh yes, a lot of trouble there now, although the Muslims in southern
Thailand think they have been attacked by the Buddhist majority. There
was a news item recently with Buddhist monks declaring a hunger strike
until Thailand declares Buddhism a state religion. I gather Thailand,
for various reasons, is reluctant to disrupt the status quo where
there is no state religion. Interesting therefore that there can be
aggression in the context of a supposedly non-proselytising religion.

Cheers,
Peter

Phil Saunders

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 6:54:39 AM7/5/07
to
"nobody" <when...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183472038.6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> On 2 Jul, 18:06, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
> wrote:


> The people mentioned above were innocent.

Were they? How do you know that? Did Allah tell you that? Were you there?
Did you know those people?

It is perfectly possible that a victim may be such and still not be
innocent. Not everyone who gets killed, raped, maimed or beaten is a nice
person who it should never have happened to iyswim.

> Extremism is not a religion it is a way thinking and this thinking
> exists in people no matter what religion they follow or whether they
> don't follow at all.

It exists in people of many kinds, where it leads them is what differs and
it is that about which they are extreme that therefore matters most.

Im an extremist Christians pacifist, so I wont be killing anyone no matter
how extreme I get.

regards

Phil

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 7:29:41 AM7/5/07
to
On 2007-07-05, Peter Tan <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
> Oh yes, a lot of trouble there now, although the Muslims in southern
> Thailand think they have been attacked by the Buddhist majority. There
> was a news item recently with Buddhist monks declaring a hunger strike
> until Thailand declares Buddhism a state religion. I gather Thailand,
> for various reasons, is reluctant to disrupt the status quo where
> there is no state religion. Interesting therefore that there can be
> aggression in the context of a supposedly non-proselytising religion.

A possibility is that the nature of the individual is more significant
than the nature of the religion and there are enough cases of bad
individuals in every religion. I'd think a "Generally Nice Person" will
concentrate on the good aspects, though as you say Buddhism is meant to
be a tool for good.

A few monks going on hunger strike shouldn't cause too much problem
though should it? We have people in this country who'd want to see us
become a non-secular state but it doesn't stop us.

Frederick Williams

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 1:07:35 PM7/5/07
to
Richard Corfield wrote:
>
> On 2007-07-04, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How bizarre to see the words "nurses" and "professionalism" in
> >>> neighbouring sentences.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because Frederick, in addition to being an interesting chap with
> > interesting things to say, is also partial to a bit of light trolling
> > to pass the time.
>
> I wondered. I also wondered if there was a reason he'd like to share
> with us.

Since Gareth, whose replies are always authoritative (at least in his
own eyes) has answered, there is no need for me to do so. But if you
insist... my last four stays in hospital were all made unpleasant by
nurses (to be sure they were also made unpleasant by the illnesses and
their treatment but one expects that). One shouldn't criticize members
of a group without making it clear whether one's comments apply to the
whole group or not. Mine do not apply to the whole group, but a _large_
proportion of the nurses(*) that I have dealt with were either
incompetent or malicious or both.

I don't intend to go into details here but I could e-mail you, if you
wish.

(* And others.)

Ian

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 1:14:46 PM7/5/07
to
On 2 Jul, 18:06, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
> Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to Iraq
> to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who seem to
> target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow himself up
> in the hope of killing innocent civilians.
>
> Give me Christianity any day.

That would be the christianity of the president and prime minister who
were happy to order the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi
civilians, would it? Let's face it - in the war of terror, christians
have killed orders of magnitude more muslims than vice versa.

Ian

Ian

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 1:16:28 PM7/5/07
to
On 3 Jul, 20:41, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
> In message <468a4ddc$0$644$5a6ae...@news.aaisp.net.uk>

> "Gordon Hudson" <hostro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is the sick who need a doctor.
>
> Could be - but my wife has decided that she is not going to have a Muslim
> doctor in future. Can't say I blame her. Think of the way they treat their
> own women and then think of how they feel about western women.

It is quite absurd to talk about the way "they" treat "their" women,
as if "they" were all the same.

Ian

Ian

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 1:17:23 PM7/5/07
to
On 4 Jul, 17:33, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
> In message <1183553284.214017.269...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>

> nobody <whena...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > And the wrong actions of those few has made her suspicious of the
> > others even though they may be innocent.
>
> That is the unfortunate fact. Mind you, although only a few Muslim men go
> out and make bombs, a good many more regard all western women as slags
> because they do not cover their hair. Cultural understanding and tolerance
> cuts both ways, you know: we understand and tolerate you, you understand and
> tolerate us.

And you still call for gay people to be executed, do you?

Ian

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 3:38:41 PM7/5/07
to
Frederick Williams wrote:

> Richard Corfield wrote:
>>
>> On 2007-07-04, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How bizarre to see the words "nurses" and "professionalism" in
>>>>> neighbouring sentences.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because Frederick, in addition to being an interesting chap with
>>> interesting things to say, is also partial to a bit of light trolling
>>> to pass the time.
>>
>> I wondered. I also wondered if there was a reason he'd like to share
>> with us.
>
> Since Gareth, whose replies are always authoritative (at least in his
> own eyes) has answered, there is no need for me to do so.

Just in case Frederick or anyone else actually believes the above:
no, I don't consider what I write to be "always authoritative".

> One shouldn't criticize members
> of a group without making it clear whether one's comments apply to the
> whole group or not.

And yet you did. "How bizarre to see the words 'nurses' and


'professionalism' in neighbouring sentences".

--

Frederick Williams

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 3:51:52 PM7/5/07
to
Prai Jei wrote:
>
> Kendall K. Down (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> <bf6530fc4...@diggingsonline.com>:
>
> > Interesting that a Muslim doctor from Iraq wasn't willing to go out to
> > Iraq to work for his people because of the danger from terrorists, who
> > seem to target the professional classes. However he was prepared to blow
> > himself up in the hope of killing innocent civilians.
> >
> > Give me Christianity any day.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Kendall K. Down
> >
>
> Do doctors still have to take the Hypocritic (sp) Oath?

Not in the UK. See
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/duties_of_a_doctor.asp
and http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/index.asp.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 2:02:46 AM7/5/07
to
In message <f6glvd$lbr$2...@aioe.org>
Prai Jei <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Do doctors still have to take the Hypocritic (sp) Oath?

Hippocratic - after Hippocrates, a prominent physician in ancient Greece.

I have a feeling it was abolished a few years ago: a backwards step, in my
opinion.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 5:12:33 PM7/5/07
to
In message <slrnf8p64j.f89....@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org>
Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are a lot of Iraq ones in there, but even if you count that as
> a special case there are a lot of non-Iraq ones in there. The poster,
> perhaps just quoting external data, perhaps because of where he was
> posting, lists a number of attacks against Buddhists in places like
> Thailand where I didn't know there was trouble.

Unfortunately it seems that wherever there are Muslims, there is trouble.
(This used not to be the case. Muslim employees were highly regarded in
India when I was a lad, as more honest and reliable than their Hindu
counterparts.) Don't forget the Muslim attacks on Christian villages in
Indonesia last year, when Imams were calling for jihad (so much for all that
rubbish about 'jihad' just meaning internal struggle) and thousands of
Muslims were catching the ferry to the largely Christian island in order to
gain merit by killing a few Christians.



> Is it a problem with that generally applies to religions that teach that
> their's is the only way and have an end goal of the whole world believing
> that one religion? Christianity goes for the love-them-to-conversion
> approach now.

A few exceptions notwithstanding, Christianity has always gone for the
love=>conversion route. I don't think it has anything to do with believing
that your religion is the only way, nor even with the desire to have the
whole world believe the same as you. It has more to do with a history of
violent conquest and a glorification of conflict.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 5:20:22 PM7/5/07
to
In message <1183655788.9...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Ian <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> It is quite absurd to talk about the way "they" treat "their" women,
> as if "they" were all the same.

The majority of Muslims treat their women as second-class citizens, to the
extent that their testimony is only worth a quarter that of a man in court.

nobody is correct to point out that this is mainly cultural rather than
religious, however the religion should be doing more to stand up for the
weak and oppressed (including women). Islam should seek to transform the
culture, just as Christianity has transformed Western culture.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 5:14:17 PM7/5/07
to
In message <slrnf8plh5.f89....@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org>
Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:

> A possibility is that the nature of the individual is more significant
> than the nature of the religion and there are enough cases of bad
> individuals in every religion.

This is certainly true, but some religions do actively encourage
peacefulness - Buddhism and Quakers spring to mind - while others appear to
actively encourage violence - and unfortunately Islam is the leading example
at the present.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 5:17:57 PM7/5/07
to
In message <1183655686....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Ian <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> That would be the christianity of the president and prime minister who
> were happy to order the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi
> civilians, would it?

No, it would be the Christianity of doctors like Dr Theodore Penell, who
went out to the north-west frontier and, at frequent peril of his life,
sought to bring health and healing to the Pathans.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 5:05:32 PM7/5/07
to
In message <1183623878....@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Peter Tan <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I was in Langkawi (Malaysia) last month. I saw some Arab men at
> breakfast with tee shirts and shorts. Arab women (presumably they are
> women!) were in black with socks and gloves and needed to gingerly
> lift the veil covering the mouth to eat. Same attire at the beach. It
> is so inconsistent. Don't the Arab women sense it?

I'm sure at least some of them do - but as the least squeak of protest will
have the man whipping out his knife to cut her throat (honour killing, you
know), it is understandable that they just keep quiet.

> Why aren't the men in
> their long white robes and headdresses if the women have to maintain
> all black?

Put the men in black burqas and they'd soon change their minds about a few
things.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 5:16:34 PM7/5/07
to
In message <P54ji.11256$aJ3....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>
"Phil Saunders" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Were they? How do you know that? Did Allah tell you that? Were you there?
> Did you know those people?

To be fair to nobody, I think it is accepted by all parties that a lot of
innocent civilians are killed in Iraq. Whether the Americans manage to kill
more than the so-called insurgents do is, in my opinion, a moot point.

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 5:06:17 PM7/5/07
to
In message <1183655843....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Ian <ian.g...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> And you still call for gay people to be executed, do you?

But only for what they do, not for what they are.

Frederick Williams

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 10:01:16 AM7/6/07
to
Richard Corfield wrote:
>
> ... We have people in this country who'd want to see us

> become a non-secular state but it doesn't stop us.

What do you mean? The UK is a non-secular state.

Quasin

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 9:50:58 AM7/6/07
to
Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message <f6glvd$lbr$2...@aioe.org>
> Prai Jei <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Do doctors still have to take the Hypocritic (sp) Oath?
>
> Hippocratic - after Hippocrates, a prominent physician in ancient Greece.
>
> I have a feeling it was abolished a few years ago: a backwards step, in my
> opinion.
>

Well, lots of doctors dislike taking an oath to ancient Greek Gods, and
promising to teach medicine only to sons of others doctors, and surgeons
taking an oath to never do surgery.

So it's widely been replaced with an oath or rule that reflects modern
theology and modern medical concerns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 11:55:51 AM7/6/07
to
On 2007-07-06, Frederick Williams <"Frederick Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> What do you mean? The UK is a non-secular state.
>

Apart from the teaching of Christianity in school we do a reasonably
good job of not being a religious country.

Philip Gardner

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 12:07:27 PM7/6/07
to
Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2007-07-06, Frederick Williams <"Frederick
> Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean? The UK is a non-secular state.
>>
>
> Apart from the teaching of Christianity in school we do a reasonably
> good job of not being a religious country.

I think Frederick is referring to the fact that the Church of England
is an Established Church (the other being the Church of Scotland),
that the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the C of E, that the Prime
Minister has a decisive role in the appointment of bishops, and so on.

As an Anglican Christian, I think it would be better to abolish all
this, on the grounds that it benefits nobody and hinders the spread of
the gospel by making it look as though the C of E is aligned with the
rich and powerful - as, alas, it has been historically.

Phil

Frederick Williams

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 1:15:01 PM7/6/07
to
Philip Gardner wrote:
>
> Richard Corfield wrote:
> > On 2007-07-06, Frederick Williams <"Frederick
> > Williams"@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> What do you mean? The UK is a non-secular state.
> >>
> >
> > Apart from the teaching of Christianity in school we do a reasonably
> > good job of not being a religious country.
>
> I think Frederick is referring to the fact that the Church of England
> is an Established Church (the other being the Church of Scotland),
> that the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the C of E, that the Prime
> Minister has a decisive role in the appointment of bishops, and so on.

Yes, thank you.

> As an Anglican Christian, I think it would be better to abolish all
> this, on the grounds that it benefits nobody and hinders the spread of
> the gospel by making it look as though the C of E is aligned with the
> rich and powerful - as, alas, it has been historically.

--

Quasin

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 1:22:41 PM7/6/07
to
nobody wrote:

> And yes their may be some mosques that would advocate such idiotic
> behaviour; but I have not been to one them so far.
>

Not "may be some mosques." Try "yes, there are some mosques that
advocate such idiotic behavior," and we can start discussing how to
reduce their tone or their influence, to reduce the idiocy of some teachers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7489128737211826486&hl=en

Prai Jei

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 2:08:29 PM7/6/07
to
Kendall K. Down (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<a8227ffd4...@diggingsonline.com>:

> In message <f6glvd$lbr$2...@aioe.org>
> Prai Jei <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Do doctors still have to take the Hypocritic (sp) Oath?
>
> Hippocratic - after Hippocrates, a prominent physician in ancient Greece.

Actually I was trying to make a bit of a pun on the name.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

nobody

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 2:13:57 PM7/6/07
to
On 4 Jul, 17:47, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
> In message <1183551735.142319.217...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
> nobody <whena...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Yes some soldiers are on trial for their behaviour but those are the
> > ones that got caught.
>
> As is always the way. I need hardly say that I wish they could all be
> caught.

>
> > And yes their may be some mosques that would advocate such idiotic
> > behaviour; but I have not been to one them so far.
>
> I wouldn't expect that you had.
>
> > They are promised paradise?
> > Yes they may be promised by the person who is influencing them to
> > carry out such attacks but Islam does not promise you paradise.
> > Islam says if you kill yourself on this earth then you will be killing
> > yourself in very same manner in hell, over and over again.
>
> If the teaching was that clear, how is it that so many are apparently
> unaware of it? There seems no lack of suicide bombers in Iraq (many of whom
> come from outside the country and are of the Sunni persuasion - one expects
> slightly more extreme behaviour from Shiites).

There are many differences within Christianity. Just the same there
are many differences in Islam.

And some do perhaps out of desperation and lack of knowledge.
Knowledge does not come to you must go and seek it.
>
> > Muslims are motivated by their religion?
>
> It may be a perversion of their religion, but when chaps yell "Allahu akbar"
> as they set off their suicide belts, they clearly aren't doing it for the
> sake of their mothers.
>

So show me verse in the Quran that states this is allowable.

Like I said before these people are doing this through lack of
knowledge and also in this without any basis are using religion as a
reason.

> > The poll you show saying 46% of British Muslims believe such people
> > are martyrs. Did they ask every Muslim in the nation? No
>
> Polls never do: they take a representative sample and the techniques for
> doing so are well known and credible. There is always a margin of error in
> such polls (and I won't swear to 46%, but it was some horrifyingly high
> figure) but the figure was well within such a margin.
>

But did they ask those people where does Islam say they are martyrs
for such specific action. Then what do you consider the pole would
show?€

> > And just because some Muslims believe they are martyrs doesn't make
> > them martyrs. There are many Muslims that don't really have much
> > knowledge of Islam and this could be put the same for Christianity.
>
> That is very true but still, even among the nominal Christians, there are
> not many who would regard terrorism as religious behaviour.
>
> > On the other hand; it won't be hard to find someone of a Christian
> > background who would believe all Muslims should be killed etc.
>
> Hmmmm. I doubt that.

That is your definition of a Christian, who obeys the laws and
teaching of Christianity, but when it comes to Islam you say anyone of
an Islamic name is a Muslim even f they hold view and ideas that have
nothing to do with Islam.

>
> > What about the BNP. I am sure you will find many people of a Christian
> > background their, but it doesn't mean they are preaching or even
> > presenting the views of Christianity.
>
> Yes, the BNP does mouth off about Christianity, but no Christian church
> endorses them and I would actually be very surprised if the BNP people
> actually attended church.

The just the same there are many people who do not attend mosques,
they may still hold extreme views.

>
> > The western soldiers where not motivated by religion?
> > You may be right that they are motivated by their religion.
>
> Er - there is a "not" missing in that second line.
>
> > But...
> > When Bush says it was god who told him to go to Iraq.
> > When Blair says he prayed to god over Iraq before making his
> > decision.
>
> I still maintain that the western powers were not motivated by religion.
> They did not attack either Iraq or Afghanistan because those countries were
> Muslim, they are not attempting to impose Christianity on either country,
> Christianity was not under threat from Iraq or Afghanistan. The wars are
> solely political and, indeed, are responses to actions by those countries:
> Afghanistan gave shelter and aid to Osama bin Laden in his attack on New
> York, Iraq invaded Kuwait and maintained defiance of the terms of the peace
> treaty that ended the first Gulf War.
>

What.

When Bush himself says god told me.
When Blair says I prayed to god over the decision

Then you still hold that these people had no religious motivation;
even though their very own words contradict you.

Afghanistan sheltered Osama yes. True and he seems to be the chief
suspect for 9/11

Iraq invaded Kuwait. Why are you trying to point out this happened
recently?

America has already bomb Iraq for this action. Also you are forgetting
the weapons used to invade Kuwait where western weapons which the west
happily gave to Saddam to invade Iran.

The real reason what was given that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction etc, which could strike within 45 minutes. And he had
continued to disobey UN sanctions.

The truth is Israel violated more UN sanctions then Saddam and they
have weapons of mass destruction.

> > Terrorism is terrorism even if democratic countries unlawfully invades
> > another country and call it some sort of operation freedom.
>
> Certainly.
>
> > I know Islam and Christianity do not promote such acts, but its people
> > who are using this as a justification for their actions.
>
> I am not aware of any statement by the west that "xyz is contrary to the
> principles of Christianity and therefore we will attack the Muslims", but I
> have heard of plenty of statements to the effect that "xyz is contrary to
> the principles of Islam and therefore we will attack the west."
>

Yes no Christian country has come out and said so and you don't have
to say out clearly this is the action plan, but rather the actual
actions, what you actually do shows what the internal plan is.

> > In the modern day Islam is under the microscope and it seems like the
> > bad actions of a few Muslims are magnified and presented like it's the
> > actual teaching of Islam.
>
> Certainly - and good for you for standing up for your religion. It's just a
> shame that a few of your imams have done their best to make it feared and
> hated.

And the fact is the media attention is on them and give them the
coverage they don't deserve who propagate views that are against not
only Islam but any religion of this world.

davey

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 5:32:27 PM7/6/07
to
On Jul 6, 7:13 pm, nobody <whena...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
> There are many differences within Christianity. Just the same there
> are many differences in Islam.

But there are no differences in the teaching of Christ, which defines
a true Christian.
Love your neighbour as yourself.
Love your enemy.
That is the whole law, no smokescreen or multiple interpretations.

peace to all
davey

nobody

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 5:35:48 PM7/6/07
to
On 4 Jul, 17:33, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:

> In message <1183553284.214017.269...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
> nobody <whena...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > And the wrong actions of those few has made her suspicious of the
> > others even though they may be innocent.
>
> That is the unfortunate fact. Mind you, although only a few Muslim men go
> out and make bombs, a good many more regard all western women as slags
> because they do not cover their hair. Cultural understanding and tolerance
> cuts both ways, you know: we understand and tolerate you, you understand and
> tolerate us.

What are you living in the same country I am. Or have you come in
contact with today's youth.

I know non Muslims as well as Muslims. And it's become part of the so
called gangster culture to refer to women as bitch etc. and there are
non Muslim who use absurd remarks against women not because they don't
cover their or they do just because it's their way of thinking.

A good teaching in Islam that perhaps does not get taught or
emphasised on enough is you don't hate the sinner but hate the sin;
because the person who is sinning perhaps one day will turn and become
righteous.

How many pictures do you have of Mary the mother of Jesus without her
head covered with a scarf, how many pictures do you have of her
wearing revealing clothing?


>
> > >Think of the way they treat their
> > > own women and then think of how they feel about western women.

> > What?????
> > You say they like it is the teaching of Islam.
> > I thought you who had some knowledge of Islam would have at least
> > presented a balanced view.
> > So what do you mean when you say the way they treat their own women?
>
> Well, let's take that bastion of Islam - Saudi Arabia. Women are not allowed
> to drive cars, they are not allowed to have male professors but have to
> watch a live TV of the professor, their testimony is discounted in law
> courts, and in that heat they have to go around draped from head to toe in
> black.
>
> I must admit that latter point really annoys me. When I visit Egypt I see
> Muslim men walking around with bare heads and shirts made of very light
> material. They are clearly enjoying the breeze. Beside them is a wife or
> sister (or even, I suspect, girl-friend) swathed in yards of heavy black
> material with only their hands and faces - and sometimes only their hands -
> exposed to the breeze.
>
> Or how about the time I visited Egypt during Ramadan and got into
> conversation with a girl who, with two male colleagues, was manning a stall
> selling papyrus in the exclusive 5* hotel in which we were staying. She
> complained of being hungry and I pointed out that as it was well and truly
> dark she could break her fast. She shrugged and explained that their
> employer had provided a certain amount of food but the male colleagues, who
> *naturally* ate first, had eaten the lot. (Even if it was proper for them to
> eat first, they knew that she was there and should have left sufficient for
> her.)
>
> That's how women are treated: second-class citizens and unpaid servants.
>

Majority of what you have said is part of culture in that part of the
world.

And the part of Ramadan the women not getting food was wrong in any
circumstance. Even here in this country after all the women's rights
in place, they are still violated at times. And just because of the
actions of a few we don't say that is the stance of Christianity.

> Just out of interest, does your mother sit down and eat with your father and
> you?
>

Yes.

The women in our family eat whenever they want to. This also includes
relatives and all other families that I have known. Sometimes with the
family and sometimes everyone eats at different times when they feel
the need.

nobody

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 5:41:35 PM7/6/07
to
On 5 Jul, 11:54, "Phil Saunders" <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "nobody" <whena...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1183472038.6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 2 Jul, 18:06, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
> > wrote:
> > The people mentioned above were innocent.

>
> Were they? How do you know that? Did Allah tell you that? Were you there?
> Did you know those people?
>
> It is perfectly possible that a victim may be such and still not be
> innocent. Not everyone who gets killed, raped, maimed or beaten is a nice
> person who it should never have happened to iyswim.

So you are telling me the 14 year old girl was guilty. so was her
sister was guilty and parents who where killed in their homes while
their daughter got raped by a number of soldiers were guilty.

are you telling the mother of a child you got raped was guilty, was
here child also guilty that why they were killed.


>
> > Extremism is not a religion it is a way thinking and this thinking
> > exists in people no matter what religion they follow or whether they
> > don't follow at all.
>
> It exists in people of many kinds, where it leads them is what differs and
> it is that about which they are extreme that therefore matters most.
>
> Im an extremist Christians pacifist, so I wont be killing anyone no matter
> how extreme I get.
>

nobody

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:53:15 PM7/6/07
to
On 5 Jul, 22:20, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
> In message <1183655788.956033.219...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>

> Ian <ian.gro...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > It is quite absurd to talk about the way "they" treat "their" women,
> > as if "they" were all the same.
>
> The majority of Muslims treat their women as second-class citizens, to the
> extent that their testimony is only worth a quarter that of a man in court.
>
> nobody is correct to point out that this is mainly cultural rather than
> religious, however the religion should be doing more to stand up for the
> weak and oppressed (including women). Islam should seek to transform the
> culture, just as Christianity has transformed Western culture.
>

Such culture changes do not happen over night.

Yes their are bad points to some Muslim cultures.

Western Culture?

Would you say excessive drinking is part of western culture?

Would you say sexual realtions outside marriage are part of the
culture?


No-ones culture is perfect.

Phil Saunders

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 5:23:11 AM7/7/07
to
"nobody" <when...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183758095.6...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On 5 Jul, 11:54, "Phil Saunders" <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> "nobody" <whena...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1183472038.6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 2 Jul, 18:06, "Kendall K. Down" <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > The people mentioned above were innocent.
>>
>> Were they? How do you know that? Did Allah tell you that? Were you there?
>> Did you know those people?
>>
>> It is perfectly possible that a victim may be such and still not be
>> innocent. Not everyone who gets killed, raped, maimed or beaten is a nice
>> person who it should never have happened to iyswim.
>
> So you are telling me the 14 year old girl was guilty. so was her
> sister was guilty and parents who where killed in their homes while
> their daughter got raped by a number of soldiers were guilty.

Im telling you nothing. I was asking you questions. You answered not one of
them.

> are you telling the mother of a child you got raped was guilty, was
> here child also guilty that why they were killed.

see above

You should try answering the questions. If what are saying is that nobody
deserves to get raped, maimed or murdered then I agree (but as a Muslim you
cant think that) but if you are saying that the people to whom it happens
are innocent then you need to define innocent for me because it isnt obvious
what you mean by that.

regards

Phil

David Aldred

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 6:11:40 AM7/7/07
to
Phil Saunders wrote:

> If what are saying is that nobody
> deserves to get raped, maimed or murdered then I agree

I do really think it would be better for our Islamic friend to stop posting
under the name 'nobody' - it's far too easy to misread Phil's intention
here.

--
David Aldred

Phil Saunders

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 10:51:55 AM7/7/07
to
"David Aldred" <n...@familyaldred.org.uk> wrote in message
news:wFJji.24236$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

lol I didnt even think of that - oops

Phil

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 2:16:54 AM7/7/07
to
In message <1183745637....@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
nobody <when...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> There are many differences within Christianity. Just the same there
> are many differences in Islam.

This is true, but nonetheless, how many Christian churches are currently
under siege by Christian governments because the people inside have been
stockpiling weapons, kidnapping those who disagreed with them and attempting
to enforce their ideas of Christian morality on those around them?

The last time anything like that happened was over 20 years ago at Waco in
Texas and it made world headlines. There were something like 80 people
involved. How many are in the Lal Masjid?



> So show me verse in the Quran that states this is allowable.

Fine, I agree w