Why we disagree

[Bulgaroctonus]

My perspective to this is it depends on the religious nature of the ppl. Moslems are more religious ppl than others. Also they dont questions their mullahs. This makes them easy prey who wants to use them as proxies.

Its same with VHP[religious] [cannt compare to islamic terrorists] who gets angry easier than say me [normal hindus, not so religious]. But they did what i cannot even envisage bringing down that mosque.

So i think its easy to indoctrinate a religious person, but even more easy to indoctrinate a moslem [most terrorists are islamic terrorists].

I'm glad you understand some of my point. Indoctrination is a key part of controlling people, something Islam does very well. Of course, a Muslim would never want to understand their religion as just another system of control.

[Monk]

I am addressing the role of religion in human society. Millions of people are motivated and guided by religious principles, so its unwise to ignore the role of religion, even if I am not religious. I think from that perspective, my musings are not completely without value.

You can't delve into the role of religion without addressing theology first, therefore your attempt is folly.

Not destruction of the earth, but preservation of one's nation. It is essential that a society be disciplined and militaristic in order to survive. If you want, I can cite historical examples.

I will cite one excellent example in history where this was proved wrong, battle of kadish between King Rameses II and the Hittites. There are other examples, this one is the best. Attempting to have peace at gunpoint or through a militaristic society is folly. But this does not follow that Military is not required, that would be foolish.

Yes, the Israelis are powerful and admirable in their ability to wage war. This reinforces my point about militarism and discipline. If it wasn't for their prowess as warriors, the Israelis would probably all be dead.

listen old boy, you are only seeing a snapshot of history in your life, you haven't ssen upto the end of time to make this assumption.

But remember the long and illustrious history that Islamic warriors have had. After the Prophet died in 632 AD, Muslim armies swept out of the Middle East. They succeeded in defeating two war-weary empires, the Persians and Byzantines, even annexing the former.

By 732, just a hundred years later, the Muslims were fighting the Franks at Poitiers, in central France. This military advance is second only to the Mongols. At that time, the Caliphate stretched from the Hindu Kush to the Pyrenees.

Later, the Muslims built three great Empires: the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals. For a century, the Ottomans were the terror of Europe and they scored the Muslim world's greatest victory over Christendom, the capture of Constantinople in 1453 (bringing to an end another great empire, Rome).

Hahahahahaha, I am sure that the arabs will love you for the reverence in which you hold them but you might want to know that the same arabs also turned on eachother after the prophet's death. They weakened themselves by infighting and have never learned to coexist. Therefore your ideas about Islam isn't exactly correct.

Even today, Al Qaeda has drawn the Americans into a bloody situation in Iraq. and let us not forget the motivation behind 9/11, a very successful and ingenius attack.

What exactly is the analogue here, I am missing it. What does a militarised society have to do with AQ?

I can only comment on religion from a scientific and pyschological viewpoint, having no genuine experiences that can be called 'religious.' I am interested in what religion means to you, this would add to my analysis.

My views on religion i have already made it known on one of the religion threads on the World affairs Board pub, sub forum. You can read that, it would be too arduous a task to type all that here again.

[Monk]

Bulgar I am still waiting for your response to my post above.

[Bulgaroctonus]

Bulgar I am still waiting for your response to my post above.

I'll think about it.