Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (1878)	6/27/2007 4:55:54 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Kumar, I'm late to the debate, but religious ideologies are primarily geopolitical power game activities overlaid superstitious ideas. Some religions aren't directed towards geopolitical conquest as part of their intrinsic, plainly stated, ideology, such as Buddhism, but some are. We all know which is the main one which is out to rule the world, with sword rather than pen. When Salman Rushdie wields a pen, a particular religion wields a head-hacking knife. When Van Gogh makes a movie about a religion's geopolitical ambitions and social repression, the message which was staked to his chest with a knife was far more in the physical rather than intellectual realm. <AQ, Taliban, Hammas, Fatah, LeT etc > Those gangs are combination deals, seeking geopolitical power for financial gain and general megalomania, but they have a common driving force which is NOT pen-related. Their motivation is NOT to establish Buddhism. It's to establish something else. One would need to discuss the ideology behind their activities, namely the Koran. When the Pope tried to discuss, using words, not sharp-edged steel, or explosive devices, the means by which competing ideologies are promoted [referring to one in particular], those who disagreed didn't use words in intellectual discussion, they used the usual rabid threats of violence, which they carry out when they get a chance. Which confirmed exactly his point. 50 years ago, the main geopolitical theme discussed were the ideologies of freedom and capitalism, individualism and private property versus communism, totalitarianism, the individual a mere state chattel, all property public, no freedom to think [in as much as thinking requires discussion with other people]. That battle was won by the statists, not freedom. Around the world, people are mere state chattels, state serfs, with "at their pleasure" temporary possession of property. Nobody owns a citizenship which they can sell. We are little more than cattle, which rhymes with chattel and the spelling is even similar. Now, the main physical battle is between superstitious megalomaniac ideology and socialist semi-capitalist public-private hybrids. Buddhists are not the problem. Mqurice

To: kumar who wrote (1878)	7/6/2007 10:20:54 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4152

You take shots at AQ, Taliban, Hammas, Fatah, LeT etc, I dont have a problem. Its the political world. You take shots at Islam or Judaism or any other faith in generic terms, I do have a problem, and will not allow it on this thread. Kumar, one of the problems dealing with the ME situation is that Islam IS a political machine. I don't see how you can discuss affairs in the ME without touching on Islamic reform and how to bring it about, or the final goals of Islam.