Weedol

If it was as simple as killing the Taleban scum, it would be a different issue. However there are significant civilian casualties and refugee displacement because of the presence of foreign troops fighting the Taleban the wrong way. It's feeding resentment and playing directly into the hands of the Taleban. Why I consider the UK an enemy? On the basis of the colonial history of the British Empire only. I am deeply suspicious of the UK and consider its intentions fundamentally malevolent. I know Bahadur but no I'm not that person you have in mind.

Yes but don't take it personally because the Army is a rough culture without manners or refinement. A thick skin is needed but you shouldn't try to develop it artificially by being complicit in war crimes against civilians. I am only trying to help you.

The paras and the marines are expert combat troops with a MUCH higher level of combat training than army basic. They are trained to use a variety of weapons apart from standard army issue, and have been familiarised with weapons the enemy might use such as AK-47. I think you will find the majority of people will find it unsatisfactory to have either a dishonourable discharge or training time in a 'nice' Army detention centre such as Colchester for going AWOL. Let me be perfectly frank with you here: I find your suggestion of going and killing Afghans (or trying to) just for the sake of acquiring some skill and experience in combat repellent. You don't see a problem with it because you're too full of ego. I believe your attitude here on SA reflects a psychological conflict raging within yourself. My interest in the UK armed forces is from the standpoint of 'Know Thy Enemy' not 'Join Thy Enemy', and I've never applied nor been rejected by any armed forces.

This was your pathetic PM: You're an Idiot who thinks you can just join the army for training then take a walk to avoid combat engagements as it suits you. The truth hurts does it? So what. It's hard to believe there are people as stupid as you. Who said I was in the armed forces? I wasn't. You can check all the rules and regulations for joining the army online, as I have done. Look up Colchester correction centre for AWOL offenders too. However, none of this concerns you as you won't apply and even if you did they wouldn't accept you. Keep dreaming loser.

The armed forces are not for everyone, particularly people who tend to take things personally when someone points out they're wrong. It's not for me to get in the way of your grandstanding here or to point out the obvious but you're wrong on the facts. It's that simple. If you speak to an officer like that you will be in for a rough ride, whether in the TA or regulars. If you're serious about it, you need to tone down the ego. If you fail to call-up as an enlisted TA soldier when you're required to, you will be deemed AWOL. After that, you will either be dishonourably discharged or charged by a court martial (locked up in military prison and with a criminal record). Either way it's not a happy outlook. Another thing: don't expect 6 weeks of basic training to turn you into a killing machine or anything. Knowing how to use an SA80 assault rifle is only useful if you're serving in the British armed forces as only the British armed forces use this weapon. If you want to be an all-round tough guy, a 'fighter' you should apply for Parachute Regiment, RAF Regiment, Royal Marine Commandos or similar.

Nope, nope and nope. Oh boy...

Check your facts. If you join the TA you're gonna get called up for service in a warzone. Currently most soldiers territorial and regular have done not one but several tours of duty in the middle east, running consecutively with very little break in between. If you join the regulars you may not leave until your time is up. If you join the TA you may not leave after being called up for a tour of duty.

The real problem of terrorism results from the Wahhabi/Salafi ideology, which was nurtured by the British first for the purpose of undermining the Ottoman Empire and upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East, and later for assuring imperial control over Saudi oil by installing the backward, ignorant, ignoble Saudi regime. It's a big mistake to consider that Muslims generally conform to and accept the Wahhabi cult and their terrorist offshoots of Taleban, Lashkar-e Tayba, etc. Make no mistake, Wahhabis are real bastards and they terrorise non-Muslims (a group they themselves belong to) and Sunnis and Shias and Sufis of all denominations. But they have a real enemy in the form of Shia Islam. If you keep demonising Islam on the basis of Wahhabi terrorism you're falling into the Wahhabi trap by validating their interpretation of the religion AND allowing those disbelievers to represent it.

You can even learn from Clint Eastwood movies (he's the best), but I wouldn't recommend this as a training tool for the general public. It all depends on the individual. For some people, a certain type of martial arts training could be useful, but the sort of training method and intensity required to benefit is still quite rare. My thoughts on the matter are more or less the same as Steve Morris's.

Some people can pull the trigger, some can't. Some people just aren't cut out for fighting. Training doesn't filter out those who can't/won't pull the trigger, and in any case training in any magical martial art is no substitute for actual combat experience. Sorry if the truth hurts, but that's real life.

Nah, .44 Magnum is the business.. Clint Eastwood is the man. Campaign for the right to have sidearms from .44 Magnum to 9mm Beretta, Desert Eagle, whatever.. Pearl-handled Derringer and white wine for the ladies of course LOL

Would be cool to have a .44 Magnum like Clint Eastwood. 'Do you feel lucky? Well do ya, chav?'

It's called a parallel system of law but I think that's a bit sensationalist. If it depends on the consent of both parties in a civil case to submit to the decision of an Islamic tribunal, it can't be a dual system of law as such but rather a variation of mediation or arbitration in which the regulatory endowments are modeled loosely around sharia. From the perspective of Islamic law it's illegal (there is no 'choice' or 'consent' where sharia law applies under an Islamic ruler), and from the perspective of English constitutional jurisprudence it seems to offend against the principle of the rule of law. There is only the rule of law if the law is the same for all citizens.

You cannot arrogate to yourself the right to dictate to me what is 'Islamic' and what is not 'Islamic'. Your definition of Islam is extremely narrow and you completely missed the point of my remark about the esoteric meaning of the Qur'an. What you consider to be Islam is undoubtedly different from mine, but I don't find this discussion interesting as we might as well ask 'Is there any such thing as Indian food?' considering that chillies came to India from Portugal. 'Is there any such thing as Islamic science' is like a first-year undergraduate's essay topic. The interpretation of the Qur'an by western secular academies has no bearing on the Islamic science of exegesis of the Qur'an. If I say 'Islamic science' I am naturally referring to a sectarian system. As a non-Chinese Taoist or a non-Jew what gives you the right to suggest that exegesis of the I Ching and Torah respectively are not within the compass of those sectarian traditions? Indoctrination is the factor you're overlooking. That first year undergraduate essay has no right or wrong answer, but a sectarian academy certainly adopts a position on such questions. The Academy of the Church of Indian Food would only give you marks for saying yes, there is such a thing as Indian food. I'm busy with other things right now, but will check the link later. To be honest I'm not short of materials on this subject matter, but it's not my main area of interest.

Astrology is a different matter. The Qur'an does not exist in isolation but belongs to a religious tradition that goes back to the Prophet Abraham. Also, it's a mistake to interpret the Qur'an from a narrow exoteric perspective, as its interpretation is a science in itself. Islam does not encompass only the Qur'an but the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt as well.

You are right insofar as the root of kimia refers to the black soil around the Nile. However the English word alchemy derives from the Arabic al-kimia i.e. contact with the Islamic world not from the Coptic origins of the term. I won't strike Prometheus from that list because the Egyptian deity Thoth - who was believed to have been the bringer of knowledge to mankind - was the prototype of the Greek Titan Prometheus who was believed to have brought the secret of fire to mankind. Even though the Greeks themselves associated Thoth with Hermes, his role was more or less the same as Prometheus and it seems most likely that the tradition of Prometheus comes from Thoth as well. The view of the court of Harun ar-Rashid according to the scholar Abu Ma'shar was that there were three Hermetic archetypes: 1 before the Flood to whom the development of the sciences were attributed; 2 the sage Hermes Trismegistus described by al-Fadl who was the occupier of one of 7 Iraqi astronomical observatories built by Dahhaq ibn Qay who later became king of Egypt; 3) the sage associated with Corpus Hermeticum. Abu Ma'shar, ibn Juljul and ibn Abi Usaybi'ah associate this final Hermes with Pythagoras - either his teacher or his student. Harun ar-Rashid was open to Greek science and philosophy and at that early period in history there was no perception that this conflicted with Islam. Al-Mamun patronised the study of Persian, Indian and Greek sciences during his rule, and Hermes Trismegistus was - under the influence of Iranian astrologers - domesticated into Islam a generation before Plato or Aristotle. Hermeticism is an established tradition within esoteric Shi'ite Islam. The connection is the Persian Hermeticist Jabir ibn Hayyan ('Geber') who was a student of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (as). The belief in the transmigration of souls propounded by the followers of Abu al-Khattab exemplify the Hermetic influece - a belief that continued in a modified form among the Ismailis perhaps due to contact with Mesopotamian Sabians. The Rasail of the Brethren of Purity (10th century) also owes a great deal to Hermeticism (especially in the 52nd risalah) although most of it belongs to the falsafah tradition. The Brethren considered Hermes a Prophet, on the basis of the Sabians' identification of Hermes with Idris-Enoch.

Alchemy derived from al-kimia is an Islamic science that is a result of an attempt to follow the stipulation of the Qur'an to seek knowledge, applied systematically to the tradition of Hermes-Harran-Prometheus-Thoth that early Islam came into contact with. The Europeans such as Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa copied it almost exactly from the works written by Islamic alchemists.

The man is indulging in wild uninformed conjecture. Alchemy and other Islamic sciences are complex subjects that require dedicated study and access to the authentic doctrines. I have painstakingly scanned many books on this subject. These Youtube videos are a joke.

Speaking of dodgy translations, here's a typical one (of a quatrain from Divan-e Hafez) I came across recently: În gol ze bar hamnafsî mîâyad Shâdî bedelam azu basî mîâyad Paîwasta az ân ruî konam hamdamîash Kaz rang-e dîm buye kasî mîâyad Translated weirdly as: This rose, which from the Friend may come, Produces a joy that often from Him in my heart may come. Ever and anon, therefore, I consider it as a companion of Him, So that from the colour of its appearance the scent of Someone may come Mistranslation (or misleading translation depending on how much you care about accuracy) by Mohammad 'Ali Forughi, Mohammad Qazvini and Dr. Qasem Ghani.

Of all the people who stood as presidential candidates, Ahmadinejad has the most youthful. His very support base is from the youth. The whole appeal of Ahmadinejad to the young voters is his long history of involvement in student politics and student movements. He comes from student activism. I think you will find that it's not necessary to remember the 1979 Revolution to realise what it meant. Shah's days are completely finito. In my experience, real Iranians (the ones who live in Iran) are culturally conservative. Arabic, Qur'an, Islam, Persian classical poetry are all taught in schools as compulsory parts of the curriculum. Shi'ite Islam is an integral part of the modern Iranian identity. This does not stem from 1979 but goes all the way back to Shah Ismail I. In the post-Qajar period of the 20th century, the political landscape of Iran was turbulent due to two world wars and the deeply unpopular Pahlavis. The Qajars were absolute monarchists, and when the light faded on their dynasty and in reaction to their totalitarianism, there was a constitutional reform movement at the beginning of the 20th century. The reformists wanted a written constitution and some limited representation of the people, but also to give Islamic law supremacy over the elected majlises and the Shah, and this was enshrined in the 1906 Constitution. They also wanted to give the Shi'ite clergy primacy over both the majlis and the Shah. When this was not observed, there were mass popular uprisings and the majlis was destroyed twice. That's how deeply entrenched Islam is in the Iranian psyche. Since the Safavid period, the Iranian people have rejected incursions of western liberalism, culture and politics. Regarding the 'holocaust', the problem is that this has worked perfectly to suit the agenda of Zionism and has been used to justify the colonisation of a significant part of the Middle East. Ahmadinejad has not denied the holocaust but has suggested that it needs to be re-examined critically. This is a process that has never taken place. It's not an unreasonable demand, and when he makes it it's with the mandate of over 40 million Iranians.

Mekhane'ch Jannat is absolutely right. The excellent 'Manufacturing Consent' documentary can be seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730 On the remarks by Amardeep, I fundamentally disagree. There was a cessation of rioting in Tehran following Ayatollah Khamenei's speech accompanied by appropriate actions to enforce order where absolutely necessary, and violent elements comprised a very small minority of troublemakers, some of whom have been apprehended and have given insightful information as to who was behind them. In case people think it's all propaganda, there was a lot of video and camera evidence showing organised groups attempting to storm a base held by security forces with the intention of seizing munitions. These violent people were very much in a minority. A really tiny number. I believe this article is a fair analysis of the situation regarding the political conditions in Iran right now: http://www.understandingiran.com/2009/06/i...to-another.html

I'm beginning to think this forum is obsessed with Bahadur. I am not him. Iranians love and respect the Supreme Leader - Iran is not a dictatorship. The protests were by and large peaceful, but when a tiny minority of 2000 or 3000 turned violent (some of these were armed) and began targeting public property and members of the public, the government stepped in to disperse the protests. The Shah was deposed because of his abuse of the clergy and the Islamic sentiments of the people. The IRI is the very opposite of the Shah's regime.

An alliance of the UK, USA and Israel is obviously involved in a plot to cause the destabilisation of Iran, and using the election as a pretext to do so. Check these links: http://www.infowars.com/bbc-caught-in-mass...ran-propaganda/ http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proo...an-via-twitter/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=13833 The information coming through on the BBC and other press outlets has been heavily distorted. There is absolutely no mass movement against the foundations of wilayat-e faqih or the constitution of the Islamic Republic. None of the presidential candidates stand for the dissolution of the Islamic Republic, and all of them have held prominent positions in the government of the Islamic Republic (2 former Presidents and 1 prime minister i.e. Moussavi). It's also interesting the way that before the elections, the BBC and Reuters reported that Ahmadinejad had more than a double lead in the polls over the next candidate, but they later turned partisan in the post-election period.

Inja yek kitabkhaneh-ye tassawuf-e zaban-e farsi qarar dashteh shod: http://www.sufism.ws

Every translation I've read has clear and obvious errors. Penguin Classics translations of middle eastern literature are really awful in my opinion, of everything from Rumi to Attar.