Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

Don't forget the main site: http://jihadwatch.org/ and Spencer's book.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

No, it's against their religion.

State of Emergency in France

Sadaams defense lawyers killed

Australian Terror Plot foiled

What scares me is the trend. What are the consequences of this trend?

Hell on earth if we let it continue.

Saddam needs lawyers? puhleease. his fate was sealed the day he was captured, regardless of his legal representation. in the mean time the fanatics have some fun with their target practice

By killing Saddams lawyers muslims prove that they are stupid, since it's a proof that they don't understand what they want, they just keep on terrorising.
When they can't keep that trial in Iraq, they are going to take Saddam to EU and he is not going to get death sentence.
So killing lawyers is working against their desire.

Idiots i say.

Or maybe its working as planned.....maybe they wanted to keep him alive to bust him out later on so he can lead them in more terrorist attacks! : O!!!

 

[The Linuxator]

WE ARE DOOMED THE ISLAMISMISNESTISIMICHISIM ARE COMING, RUN B!TCH RUN!!!!! :disgust:

 

[The Linuxator]

I am getting tired of uninformed ppl posting about others relegion from what they see on TV.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please show me examples of where the Sharia dictates that believers must destroy infadels and what country follows that Sharia. Almost all modern islamic countries do not follow Sharia, which is usually limited to non-secular states. S-A, a Wahabbi based country is one of the last true followers of the Sharia and even they don't follow all of the laws.

Try here to get educated

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/

It's funny when people don't read thier own links...

Some Quranic exegetes state that Qur'an 2:256 has been abrogated by the following verses:

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)

Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)[7]

The Qur'anic passage la ikraha fi d-dini ("there is no compulsion in religion") is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith. There is much to commend this interpretation. As it is understood here, the statement represents a principle which has gained a recognition of international dimensions: the principle of religious tolerance. Historically also the alleged meaning of la ikraha fi d-dini appears to be warranted. "The People of the Book", i.e., the members of the older revealed religions, particularly the Jews and the Christians, were in principle never compelled to accept Islam. They were obliged, while residing in territory under Islamic domination (dar al-Islam), only to recognize the supremacy of Muslims and, at the same time, as an external indication of this recognition, to pay a separate tax. In all other matters they could maintain their inherited beliefs and perform their practices as usual. They even were allowed to establish their own internal administration.

To be sure, however, the situation was different for members of the pre-Islamic pagan Arab society. After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam; stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam - unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.

However, one-fourth to one-third of the Islamic population passionately demands the immediate introduction of the Sharia and is prepared, in some places, to enforce it with the help of terrorism and revolutions. In each Islamic country, fundamentalists and liberals wrestle over the Sharia. In Syria, these differences led to a civil war in 1982 -- one in which the army brutally defeated the uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey was already rid of the Sharia by 1926, emerging as a secular state. But in other countries a re-Islamisation is underway -- especially in Morocco, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, where the Sharia or the Qur´an have been legally introduced as fundamental law. Until now, the enforcement rulings have not been enacted in detail, nor have they been abandoned. The establishing of the Sharia and its enforcement is subject to a continual developmental process in all Islamic countries.

Next time try reading and understanding before you tell someone else to while provding a link which backs up everything you just attempted to refute. Islam is a religion that has very specific mention of the death penalty for apostacy and athiests. It also provides complete acceptance of slavery and even proclaims it as a requirement in some situations. Until Islam can reinterpret it's scripture and water down the meaning of them it will NOT be a religion of peace. There are very few religions that have so much proclaimed violence in them that still exist. Christianity and the Jews were very successful in elimating abhorent and evil behavior that had been mandated in thier scriptures and holy writtings through both later writtings and a general reinterpretation of meaning. Neither of these events have occured in Islam and infact over the last 50 years there has been a reversing of western influence that had "civilized" Islam into recognition of basic human rights.

Again, you are applying the Sharia to *all* Muslims, which is completely incorrect. Eve nthe few countries that you mentioned only contain a small portion of Muslims. Even the Muslims in those countries do not always follow Sharia. So, lets say 1% of all Muslims follow Sharia and only 1% of those are violent, that leaves .01% are violent. That leaves 100,000 Islamic fundamentalist violent people. That number could be 1mm, and even then it is only .1% of the total population, even if it is 1% it is only 10mm out of 1bn.

Christianity has it's own fundamentalists. Neo Nazis, NeoCons, Evangelicals (Rapture anybody?)...etc.

*EVERY* religion has it's own sect of fundamentalist morons. It just so happens the USA is being lead by one such person and he is beating Islam with a stick, stirring up the bee hive.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Chinadefender
You may also ask : Are US Neo-con Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

Not with the lace cuffed, hanky to nose liberal ones! The ones who always want to militarily train all supplicants to run fast and with the tail between the legs.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please show me examples of where the Sharia dictates that believers must destroy infadels and what country follows that Sharia. Almost all modern islamic countries do not follow Sharia, which is usually limited to non-secular states. S-A, a Wahabbi based country is one of the last true followers of the Sharia and even they don't follow all of the laws.

Try here to get educated

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/

It's funny when people don't read thier own links...

Some Quranic exegetes state that Qur'an 2:256 has been abrogated by the following verses:

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)

Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)[7]

The Qur'anic passage la ikraha fi d-dini ("there is no compulsion in religion") is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith. There is much to commend this interpretation. As it is understood here, the statement represents a principle which has gained a recognition of international dimensions: the principle of religious tolerance. Historically also the alleged meaning of la ikraha fi d-dini appears to be warranted. "The People of the Book", i.e., the members of the older revealed religions, particularly the Jews and the Christians, were in principle never compelled to accept Islam. They were obliged, while residing in territory under Islamic domination (dar al-Islam), only to recognize the supremacy of Muslims and, at the same time, as an external indication of this recognition, to pay a separate tax. In all other matters they could maintain their inherited beliefs and perform their practices as usual. They even were allowed to establish their own internal administration.

To be sure, however, the situation was different for members of the pre-Islamic pagan Arab society. After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam; stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam - unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.

However, one-fourth to one-third of the Islamic population passionately demands the immediate introduction of the Sharia and is prepared, in some places, to enforce it with the help of terrorism and revolutions. In each Islamic country, fundamentalists and liberals wrestle over the Sharia. In Syria, these differences led to a civil war in 1982 -- one in which the army brutally defeated the uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey was already rid of the Sharia by 1926, emerging as a secular state. But in other countries a re-Islamisation is underway -- especially in Morocco, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, where the Sharia or the Qur´an have been legally introduced as fundamental law. Until now, the enforcement rulings have not been enacted in detail, nor have they been abandoned. The establishing of the Sharia and its enforcement is subject to a continual developmental process in all Islamic countries.

Next time try reading and understanding before you tell someone else to while provding a link which backs up everything you just attempted to refute. Islam is a religion that has very specific mention of the death penalty for apostacy and athiests. It also provides complete acceptance of slavery and even proclaims it as a requirement in some situations. Until Islam can reinterpret it's scripture and water down the meaning of them it will NOT be a religion of peace. There are very few religions that have so much proclaimed violence in them that still exist. Christianity and the Jews were very successful in elimating abhorent and evil behavior that had been mandated in thier scriptures and holy writtings through both later writtings and a general reinterpretation of meaning. Neither of these events have occured in Islam and infact over the last 50 years there has been a reversing of western influence that had "civilized" Islam into recognition of basic human rights.

Again, you are applying the Sharia to *all* Muslims, which is completely incorrect. Eve nthe few countries that you mentioned only contain a small portion of Muslims. Even the Muslims in those countries do not always follow Sharia. So, lets say 1% of all Muslims follow Sharia and only 1% of those are violent, that leaves .01% are violent. That leaves 100,000 Islamic fundamentalist violent people. That number could be 1mm, and even then it is only .1% of the total population, even if it is 1% it is only 10mm out of 1bn.

Christianity has it's own fundamentalists. Neo Nazis, NeoCons, Evangelicals (Rapture anybody?)...etc.

*EVERY* religion has it's own sect of fundamentalist morons. It just so happens the USA is being lead by one such person and he is beating Islam with a stick, stirring up the bee hive.

Yeah, every religion has it's extremeist nutcases. Fortunately, Christianity has them under control and doesn't let them go out in public. If you knew anything at all about christian extremists, you would know that Bush is a moderate and keeps his worship in church on Sunday. You would also know that he made every effort to ignore the ME until they attacked us on 9/11. Oh! You do know all of that and would rahter not hear it! Thats different. We can disrespect that!

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please show me examples of where the Sharia dictates that believers must destroy infadels and what country follows that Sharia. Almost all modern islamic countries do not follow Sharia, which is usually limited to non-secular states. S-A, a Wahabbi based country is one of the last true followers of the Sharia and even they don't follow all of the laws.

Try here to get educated

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/

It's funny when people don't read thier own links...

Some Quranic exegetes state that Qur'an 2:256 has been abrogated by the following verses:

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)

Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)[7]

The Qur'anic passage la ikraha fi d-dini ("there is no compulsion in religion") is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith. There is much to commend this interpretation. As it is understood here, the statement represents a principle which has gained a recognition of international dimensions: the principle of religious tolerance. Historically also the alleged meaning of la ikraha fi d-dini appears to be warranted. "The People of the Book", i.e., the members of the older revealed religions, particularly the Jews and the Christians, were in principle never compelled to accept Islam. They were obliged, while residing in territory under Islamic domination (dar al-Islam), only to recognize the supremacy of Muslims and, at the same time, as an external indication of this recognition, to pay a separate tax. In all other matters they could maintain their inherited beliefs and perform their practices as usual. They even were allowed to establish their own internal administration.

To be sure, however, the situation was different for members of the pre-Islamic pagan Arab society. After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam; stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam - unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.

However, one-fourth to one-third of the Islamic population passionately demands the immediate introduction of the Sharia and is prepared, in some places, to enforce it with the help of terrorism and revolutions. In each Islamic country, fundamentalists and liberals wrestle over the Sharia. In Syria, these differences led to a civil war in 1982 -- one in which the army brutally defeated the uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey was already rid of the Sharia by 1926, emerging as a secular state. But in other countries a re-Islamisation is underway -- especially in Morocco, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, where the Sharia or the Qur´an have been legally introduced as fundamental law. Until now, the enforcement rulings have not been enacted in detail, nor have they been abandoned. The establishing of the Sharia and its enforcement is subject to a continual developmental process in all Islamic countries.

Next time try reading and understanding before you tell someone else to while provding a link which backs up everything you just attempted to refute. Islam is a religion that has very specific mention of the death penalty for apostacy and athiests. It also provides complete acceptance of slavery and even proclaims it as a requirement in some situations. Until Islam can reinterpret it's scripture and water down the meaning of them it will NOT be a religion of peace. There are very few religions that have so much proclaimed violence in them that still exist. Christianity and the Jews were very successful in elimating abhorent and evil behavior that had been mandated in thier scriptures and holy writtings through both later writtings and a general reinterpretation of meaning. Neither of these events have occured in Islam and infact over the last 50 years there has been a reversing of western influence that had "civilized" Islam into recognition of basic human rights.

Again, you are applying the Sharia to *all* Muslims, which is completely incorrect. Eve nthe few countries that you mentioned only contain a small portion of Muslims. Even the Muslims in those countries do not always follow Sharia. So, lets say 1% of all Muslims follow Sharia and only 1% of those are violent, that leaves .01% are violent. That leaves 100,000 Islamic fundamentalist violent people. That number could be 1mm, and even then it is only .1% of the total population, even if it is 1% it is only 10mm out of 1bn.

Christianity has it's own fundamentalists. Neo Nazis, NeoCons, Evangelicals (Rapture anybody?)...etc.

*EVERY* religion has it's own sect of fundamentalist morons. It just so happens the USA is being lead by one such person and he is beating Islam with a stick, stirring up the bee hive.

Yeah, every religion has it's extremeist nutcases. Fortunately, Christianity has them under control and doesn't let them go out in public. If you knew anything at all about christian extremists, you would know that Bush is a moderate and keeps his worship in church on Sunday. You would also know that he made every effort to ignore the ME until they attacked us on 9/11. Oh! You do know all of that and would rahter not hear it! Thats different. We can disrespect that!

I remember GWB clearly talking about starting a crusade am I the only one that thinks that moderate Chrisitans don't like starting random crusades just for the hell of it ?

 

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Christianity has it's own fundamentalists. Neo Nazis, NeoCons, Evangelicals (Rapture anybody?)...etc.

*EVERY* religion has it's own sect of fundamentalist morons. It just so happens the USA is being lead by one such person and he is beating Islam with a stick, stirring up the bee hive.

Let me know when neo-nazis, etc start flying planes into buildings and committing the suicide bombing de Jour. Oh look, 56 dead in Jordan and Oklahoma City was over 10 years ago.

It's convenient to blame Bush for all the Islamic aggression we see these days, but after he leaves office and it not only continues, it intensifies, are you willing to STFU?

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: dwell


It's convenient to blame Bush for all the Islamic aggression we see these days, but after he leaves office and it not only continues, it intensifies, are you willing to STFU?

LOL, do you really think they will hold their own people accountable? They never do, if that happens they will probably blame it on a Zionist conspiracy or something.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Christianity has it's own fundamentalists. Neo Nazis, NeoCons, Evangelicals (Rapture anybody?)...etc.

*EVERY* religion has it's own sect of fundamentalist morons. It just so happens the USA is being lead by one such person and he is beating Islam with a stick, stirring up the bee hive.

Let me know when neo-nazis, etc start flying planes into buildings and committing the suicide bombing de Jour. Oh look, 56 dead in Jordan and Oklahoma City was over 10 years ago.

It's convenient to blame Bush for all the Islamic aggression we see these days, but after he leaves office and it not only continues, it intensifies, are you willing to STFU?

No, you just see them starting wars of aggression over and over. You get the "axis of evil" and other crusadish type behavior. You get a war that was based off of faulty and contrived intelligence for reasons that are still uknown to the general populace. You get Neo-Nazis starting riots so that they can say "see, look at those people, those blacks who are evil"

No, Christians are *much* more subtle about how they commit their wars. Usually it is economically these days (US, france, europe in general). Christians are damn good at flaming the fans of discontent, watching said discontent, and then pointing the finger and saying the same things the Neo-Nazi's said in Ohio.

Christians impose their values, interrupt Muslim lives, and then point the finger somewhere else once the extremists say "Hey, look at them attacking our countries and trying to destroy our lives". Then, we turn around and blame *ALL* muslims by using obscure texts and laws that 99% of Muslims don't even follow.

Furthermore, one only has to look at how fundamentalist Christians are waging war inside this country. Genome science, abortion, evolution&ID debates, forced morality...etc. Christians are good at waging war on their own sects also. Look at how Evangelicals believe they are the *only* people going to heaven.

let me ask you. What motiviation does a President have for 90% of his people when he and his religion belives that the other 10% are the only *true* followers of God? Does that sound like a moderate to you?

I am a Christian and I am ashamed of what our religion is doing. There are Muslims ashamed at what some of their people are doing. I gues some people seem to forget that the news was reporting riots against Zarqawi after the latest string of attacks.

Of course, those were only Christians rallying/rioting. Because all Muslims support A-Q and Zarqawi. We all know that 100% of all Muslims follow the extremists and want to kill all Christians, right?

 

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Of course, those were only Christians rallying/rioting. Because all Muslims support A-Q and Zarqawi. We all know that 100% of all Muslims follow the extremists and want to kill all Christians, right?

When Islamic nutjobs (be it 1% or the Muslim population or 99%) keep killing upwards to 100 *innocent* people a week (I'd say that's about the average these days), you really have to start questioning Islam in whole. What the f*** are Islamic leaders doing to condemn this behavior, or discourage even it? We get a half-assed fatwa every not and again which boils down to saying, "Islam does not support violence against innocent people." Not good enough. Not even close. WTF are they doing when a "fraction" of their people are dragging their religion into the ground? When Catholic priests were molesting little boys did the Vatican sit there with their heads up their asses ignoring the problem?

Yes, all religion can lead towards hatred. Christianity can and is used as a weapon of hate. Even so, call me when the Jerry Falwell drives a U-Haul packed with explosives into a shopping mall or the Pope starts starts telling young Catholics to martyr themselves and while they're at it kill as many non-Catholics as possible in the name of Jesus.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Of course, those were only Christians rallying/rioting. Because all Muslims support A-Q and Zarqawi. We all know that 100% of all Muslims follow the extremists and want to kill all Christians, right?

When Islamic nutjobs (be it 1% or the Muslim population or 99%) keep killing upwards to 100 *innocent* people a week (I'd say that's about the average these days), you really have to start questioning Islam in whole. What the f*** are Islamic leaders doing to condemn this behavior, or discourage even it? We get a half-assed fatwa every not and again which boils down to saying, "Islam does not support violence against innocent people." Not good enough. Not even close. WTF are they doing when a "fraction" of their people are dragging their religion into the ground? When Catholic priests were molesting little boys did the Vatican sit there with their heads up their asses ignoring the problem?

Yes, all religion can lead towards hatred. Christianity can and is used as a weapon of hate. Even so, call me when the Jerry Falwell drives a U-Haul packed with explosives into a shopping mall or the Pope starts starts telling young Catholics to martyr themselves and while they're at it kill as many non-Catholics as possible in the name of Jesus.

Many Islamic scholars have spoken out against these people.

When was the last time Franklin Graham was spoken out against? His father has never directly challenged him on his crap, but Bush keeps Billy as a trusted advisor.

As far as the Vatican, they kept a lid on it for decades and then moved the priests around so they could molest dozens more.

Lets not forget our "war" that we launced in Iraq is responsible for thousands of deaths, just by our actions, not by those that are caused by our actions. Those 20k or so people would still be alive had we not invaded Iraq and made it the focal point of the whole terrorist war.

Which brings me to another point. How nice it is that Bush decided, and openly admitted, that Iraq should be the focal point. Its nice we started this crap in somebody else's back yard.

 

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Many Islamic scholars have spoken out against these people.

Like I said, with half-asses fatwas that can be interpreted in any way.

Lets not forget our "war" that we launced in Iraq is responsible for thousands of deaths, just by our actions, not by those that are caused by our actions. Those 20k or so people would still be alive had we not invaded Iraq and made it the focal point of the whole terrorist war.

Difference being, if I live in Iraq I know there's a war going on in my backyard and there's a chance I am going to die violently. If I live in London, I really don't think getting on the tube is going to lead to a violent death. I am not saying the war in Iraq is just, but I don't think any of the dead Iraqi civilians were as suprised to die as those in NYC, Spain, London, Bali, and Jordon.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Many Islamic scholars have spoken out against these people.

Like I said, with half-asses fatwas that can be interpreted in any way.

Lets not forget our "war" that we launced in Iraq is responsible for thousands of deaths, just by our actions, not by those that are caused by our actions. Those 20k or so people would still be alive had we not invaded Iraq and made it the focal point of the whole terrorist war.

Difference being, if I live in Iraq I know there's a war going on in my backyard and there's a chance I am going to die violently. If I live in London, I really don't think getting on the tube is going to lead to a violent death. I am not saying the war in Iraq is just, but I don't think any of the dead Iraqi civilians were as suprised to die as those in NYC, Spain, London, Bali, and Jordon.

Phew, ya I totally agree, knowing I am going to die soon in an illegal war makes me feel so much better than getting a surprise death. I'd rather be scared all day and all night because at anytime I might die than living happily and then suddenly dying, yup, being scared and then dying is much better than being happy and comfortable then dying someday by surprise.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Condor


Yeah, every religion has it's extremeist nutcases. Fortunately, Christianity has them under control and doesn't let them go out in public. If you knew anything at all about christian extremists, you would know that Bush is a moderate and keeps his worship in church on Sunday. You would also know that he made every effort to ignore the ME until they attacked us on 9/11. Oh! You do know all of that and would rahter not hear it! Thats different. We can disrespect that!

George Bush ignored the Middle East because George Bush is ignorant of the Middle East. His decision to ignore the Middle East at the beginning of his first term was based on fear of his own ignorance, an all encompassing hatred of everything "Clinton" so virulent that he ignored intelligence briefings from the outgoing administrtation that warned of terrorist attacks as the most important immediate threat to the USA, and his personal knowledge that he would screw up the Middle East if he intervened. Well, at least he war right about one thing.

And the "Middle East" didn't attack us. IN PARTICULAR, IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US. Al Qaida attacked us. Then George W. Bushfabricated evidence and used 9/11 as an excuse to attack the Iraqi people in the same fashion that Osama bin Laden used whatever excuses his warped mind could cook up and attacked the American people -- only Iraq's 9/11 has been going on continually for over two years and seven months.

How anyone can still justify attacking Iraq after all we know now is simply beyond me.

And stop this Bush is a " moderate Christian" nonsense. He isn't moderate and he is "Christian" in name only. He's closer to anti-Christ than Christian, IMO.

Is Iraq Bush's idea of "Turn the other cheek"? Are Bush's economic policies which have increased hunger and poverty in America his idea of Christianity?

Tell that to America's growing legions of poor. Tell that to the people of Iraq -- those who are still able to hear you.

Does this sound like a moderate "Christian"? Unfortunately the answer is yes -- but only if you're talking about a "Christian" from the 11th century. :roll:

"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it."

And this little ditty,

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that I couldn't do my job."

Please, put down the Kool-Aid and WTFU. Bush is as at least as radical as bin Laden and possibly much more so by one standard -- bin Laden's fanaticism brought down the WTC, Bush's fanatacism brought down an entire nation and quite possibly the entire Middle East.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Again, you are applying the Sharia to *all* Muslims, which is completely incorrect. Eve nthe few countries that you mentioned only contain a small portion of Muslims. Even the Muslims in those countries do not always follow Sharia. So, lets say 1% of all Muslims follow Sharia and only 1% of those are violent, that leaves .01% are violent. That leaves 100,000 Islamic fundamentalist violent people. That number could be 1mm, and even then it is only .1% of the total population, even if it is 1% it is only 10mm out of 1bn.

So Saudi, Iran, Pakistan have low numbers of Muslims? Yea I think that speaks volumes about your credibility.

Secondly you didn't even bother to read what you quoted, yet a second time.

However, one-fourth to one-third of the Islamic population passionately demands the immediate introduction of the Sharia and is prepared, in some places, to enforce it with the help of terrorism and revolutions.

So using your number if 1% are violent then there are no less than 2.5 million violent muslims. That is NOT an insignificant number. It's also imperitive to understand that once the violent teachings take control of the countries they begin to breed an entire generation of violent muslims. Something we are already encountering.

 

[LegendKiller]

2.5 million out of a billion isn't a large %, that is only .25% of the total number. Furthermore, Pakastan and Saudi doesn't totally follow Sharia, especially considering their regime's help (albiet somewhat limited in some cases) with the war against A-Q.

Iran, a more strict regime, isn't even all that strict about the Sharia. I know many Iranians through my business connections and most are good people and don't even go anywhere near Sharia.

Your attempt to undermine my logic by saying I am not credible is laughable. Your logic itself is flawed and somewhat extemist in applying a set of laws that most Muslims don't follow to the *whole* Muslim population.

I doubt 25-33% of the Muslim population in the US want or will follow Sharia, or in most other countries.

Your extremism is both amusing and alarming. You yourself are acting no better than A-Q fanatics in branding all Christians (Muslims) fanatics bent on destroying Muslims (Christians).

You, and many like you, are nothing more than opposite sides of the same coin.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: Chinadefender
You may also ask : Are US Neo-con Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

I don't have any great liking for neo-cons, but I certainly haven't seen any of my countrymen run into a crowded Middle Eastern hotel and or restaurant and blow themselves up maiming hundreds of people around there and at the same time killing many innocent civilians.

instead they are more civilized and drop bombs fro planes. Western civilization is clearly superior :roll:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Christianity has it's own fundamentalists. Neo Nazis, NeoCons, Evangelicals (Rapture anybody?)...etc.

*EVERY* religion has it's own sect of fundamentalist morons. It just so happens the USA is being lead by one such person and he is beating Islam with a stick, stirring up the bee hive.

Let me know when neo-nazis, etc start flying planes into buildings and committing the suicide bombing de Jour. Oh look, 56 dead in Jordan and Oklahoma City was over 10 years ago.

It's convenient to blame Bush for all the Islamic aggression we see these days, but after he leaves office and it not only continues, it intensifies, are you willing to STFU?

let me know when arab countries start methodically exterminating undesireables.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

All countries where freedom fighters attack the country, they have have been mistreated or been involved indirectly.

Heh, "freedom fighters" indeed.

The arrogant cheese sniffers of France overlooked this problem. Surprised? Not me. The French have always been hostile to foreigners, whether they be Americans, or in this case, Arabs.

So hostile that they open their borders to them?

Immigration rules and laws are one thing. Hearts and minds are another.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Muslims get along fine with countries that doesn't bother them, for example Israel and America starting the whole thing in mideast, etc etc. Like take Canada for example, they did nothing to Muslims and Canada is filled with Muslims, and we all get along with everyone in the community. I have yet to be personally attacked by where I am from or what religion I am, but on the forum Americans in general attack any muslim. I've had discussions about Islam with a lot of people who were just interested, they weren't out to attack us or anything they just wanted to learn.

In my university they have a whole section dedicated for Muslims to go pray and meet, like in Ramadan we all break the fast together there and anyone is invited. We have yet to be targetted by anyone...they have no reason to.

I have friends from ALL over the place, mostly white friends who are athiest and we all get along.

With Muslims, its a ''if you don't bother them, they won't bother you.'' thing imo.

All countries where freedom fighters attack the country, they have have been mistreated or been involved indirectly.

If there has been incidencts in Canada, they havn't affected me personally or I haven't heard of them. A couple of Muslim friends of mine moved to Canada because they were attacked by Americans for simply being Muslims. One of them got jailed for a month, the police kept harassing him and he said if they don't leave him alone he'll hire a lawyer and sue them, and they imprisoned him for that.

Amazing. I didn't know that Belgium
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4019737.stm
http://non-tibi-spiro.blogspot.com/2005/08/theo-van-gogh-worked-for-muslim-tv.html

and France (check today's news)

have been so inhospitable to the Muslims.

In a strange twist, which I'm sure you can explain, attacks on America happened every year under the Clinton administration and only once under the Bush administration and that was a direct result of Clintons do-nothing-and-it-will-go-away-attitude.

So, those that stand up to the radicals are not being attacked and those that do nothing are being attacked. Even Britain has been attacked since the people overwhelmingly have said we should do nothing.

Oh well. Keep spinning. Something will stick.

 

[LegendKiller]

Muslims angry over suicide bombings


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/jordan.blasts/index.html


Hmmm, I guess all Muslims are extremists.

 

[bauerbrazil]

Another good question is...

Are americans capable of co-existing with the rest of the World?

 

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Phew, ya I totally agree, knowing I am going to die soon in an illegal war makes me feel so much better than getting a surprise death. I'd rather be scared all day and all night because at anytime I might die than living happily and then suddenly dying, yup, being scared and then dying is much better than being happy and comfortable then dying someday by surprise.

Good. Let me know when the US declares "illegal war" an Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Egypt to match the attacks on NYC, Spain, London, Bali, and Jordan.