Do Muslim Terrorists and their Homicidal Maniacs make you distrust the religion and feel anger towards all religions?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think we know how you "feel" and what you "believe". It's what you "promote"(without stating it) that is a major contention. Islam is not the problem, look at history, it wasn't too long ago that Christians were doing the same thing.

How long ago was it? The Crusades don't really count. Funamentilist muslims today are killing people in the name of their religion.

Do you think that Islam can have the same type of reformation that Christianity had?

I think we've had this conversation before. The Crusades certainly do count and why can't Muslims have a Reformation?

The "Christian" church of today is not the same church that was involved in the crusades. Over the years the Christian faith has looked inwards and questioned and reevaulated its role in the lives of its believers and in the world.

The religion of Islam has not had that "reformation" and there are many obstacles to it going through that change.

One example.

Hashem Aghajari

The simple act of questioning the relgious rulers brought a death sentence upon him. It is still under trial and may not be carried out.

Centuries ago the in the "Christian" church the same thing could and did happen. It would not happen today. It does in Islam.

Take a bible into SA and start preaching from it on the street corner. Let me know a few months before you do though, I would like to take out a life insurance policy on you.

What you say of Christianity and Today is true, howevere, as you know, it was not true at one time. What makes you think that Tomorrow Muslims may not be saying the same thing?

 

[etech]

What you say of Christianity and Today is true, howevere, as you know, it was not true at one time. What makes you think that Tomorrow Muslims may not be saying the same thing?

They might, but there is a view that much of the terrorism today is based on certain groups of Islam wishing to return to a "pure" Islam and as I pointed out, there are strong impediments to that change happening quickly if at all.

I sincerly hope it does. If it doesn't it seems there will be continuing bloodshed throughout the world.

This article sums it up rather well.

It's a long road ahead for the reformation of Islam

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think we know how you "feel" and what you "believe". It's what you "promote"(without stating it) that is a major contention. Islam is not the problem, look at history, it wasn't too long ago that Christians were doing the same thing.

How long ago was it? The Crusades don't really count. Funamentilist muslims today are killing people in the name of their religion.

Do you think that Islam can have the same type of reformation that Christianity had?

I think we've had this conversation before. The Crusades certainly do count and why can't Muslims have a Reformation?

The "Christian" church of today is not the same church that was involved in the crusades. Over the years the Christian faith has looked inwards and questioned and reevaulated its role in the lives of its believers and in the world.

The religion of Islam has not had that "reformation" and there are many obstacles to it going through that change.

One example.

Hashem Aghajari

The simple act of questioning the relgious rulers brought a death sentence upon him. It is still under trial and may not be carried out.

Centuries ago the in the "Christian" church the same thing could and did happen. It would not happen today. It does in Islam.

Take a bible into SA and start preaching from it on the street corner. Let me know a few months before you do though, I would like to take out a life insurance policy on you.

What you say of Christianity and Today is true, howevere, as you know, it was not true at one time. What makes you think that Tomorrow Muslims may not be saying the same thing?

So because it has happened before makes it acceptable and understandable today?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think we know how you "feel" and what you "believe". It's what you "promote"(without stating it) that is a major contention. Islam is not the problem, look at history, it wasn't too long ago that Christians were doing the same thing.

How long ago was it? The Crusades don't really count. Funamentilist muslims today are killing people in the name of their religion.

Do you think that Islam can have the same type of reformation that Christianity had?

I think we've had this conversation before. The Crusades certainly do count and why can't Muslims have a Reformation?

The "Christian" church of today is not the same church that was involved in the crusades. Over the years the Christian faith has looked inwards and questioned and reevaulated its role in the lives of its believers and in the world.

The religion of Islam has not had that "reformation" and there are many obstacles to it going through that change.

One example.

Hashem Aghajari

The simple act of questioning the relgious rulers brought a death sentence upon him. It is still under trial and may not be carried out.

Centuries ago the in the "Christian" church the same thing could and did happen. It would not happen today. It does in Islam.

Take a bible into SA and start preaching from it on the street corner. Let me know a few months before you do though, I would like to take out a life insurance policy on you.

What you say of Christianity and Today is true, howevere, as you know, it was not true at one time. What makes you think that Tomorrow Muslims may not be saying the same thing?

So because it has happened before makes it acceptable and understandable today?

Acceptable, no. Understandable, yes. What's your solution?

 

[dahunan]

Economic Sanctions on all countries that allow these freaks to bastardize and sodomize their religion and use it as a Terrorist Tool

STARTING with Saudi Arabia

I would pull every single American Influence out of the country and then tell them to hand over every al-Qaeda member and close all madrasas and denounce wahabism or we will start bombing any suspected target and will assasinate any and every financier of Osama Bin Laden and his murderers

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Economic Sanctions on all countries that allow these freaks to bastardize and sodomize their religion and use it as a Terrorist Tool

STARTING with Saudi Arabia

I would pull every single American Influence out of the country and then tell them to hand over every al-Qaeda member and close all madrasas and denounce wahabism or we will start bombing any suspected target and will assasinate any and every financier of Osama Bin Laden and his murderers

This is not terrorism?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: dahunan
Economic Sanctions on all countries that allow these freaks to bastardize and sodomize their religion and use it as a Terrorist Tool

STARTING with Saudi Arabia

I would pull every single American Influence out of the country and then tell them to hand over every al-Qaeda member and close all madrasas and denounce wahabism or we will start bombing any suspected target and will assasinate any and every financier of Osama Bin Laden and his murderers

This is not terrorism?

I knew that would be the question...

How about only the economic part and a zero tolerance trade ban and work with all of NATO to stop buying any oil from Saudi Arabia and not threaten them with physical harm?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Edited because someone I respect asked me to.

 

[Alistar7]

not at all, those people are idiots who achieve nothing and thankfully in the minority. It's too bad they are such cowards though.

The US should just start using special ops and precision bombs to take them out, wherever they may hide. In a country like Iran I wouldn't even notify the govt. and give them a chance to warn them. They should consider themselves lucky we did not invade there as well, seems AL-Qaida has found a nice haven there to base operations.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
not at all, those people are idiots who achieve nothing and thankfully in the minority. It's too bad they are such cowards though.

The US should just start using special ops and precision bombs to take them out, wherever they may hide. In a country like Iran I wouldn't even notify the govt. and give them a chance to warn them. They should consider themselves lucky we did not invade there as well[/b], seems AL-Qaida has found a nice haven there to base operations.

Invade?

From previously...

Originally posted by: Fencer128
When the president comes on TV to announce a war on terror - reels off a lists of countries and then invades 2 on the list one after the other - what did you suppose some people were going to think?

came the reply...

Originally posted by: Alistar7

INVADES?

There was UN approval for Afghanistan. I know it's hard to remember, let me refresh your mind. The US is THE ONLY COUNTRY that ever asks for UN approval for war.

People can "think" what they want, reality is not going to change their minds.....

You see - it's easy to use such language.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

what is your point?

Did we invade Afghanistan? no.

So what are the 2 countires he has invaded?

same point....

 

[Alistar7]

Young Saudis Reflect on Fallout

JEDDAH, 19 May 2003 ? Disbelief and fear marked the local reaction to the terrorist attack in Riyadh last week. Many are now waking up to the fact that the terrorists are Saudis, and a process of soul-searching is beginning, particularly among younger Saudis.

Bandar, a 20-year-old student of medicine, told Arab News he was dismayed to see terrorism growing in the Kingdom. He said the media had to take some of the responsibility as it spread anti-American sentiments.

?They view US as the evil, they blame it for all our problems,? he said. ?When they show images of the victims in Palestine, they always blame the US. As a result, many people hate America and want Americans out of the country,? Bandar said


Wonder if that revelation made his head hurt...

you would think that knowing the majority of Al-Qaida being held at Guat. are in fact Saudi would have been a clue....

 

[Alistar7]

Suicide Bombing Kills 5 in N. Israel, the fifth anti-Israeli suicide bombing in three days.

you mean stuff like this?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
what is your point?

Did we invade Afghanistan? no.

So what are the 2 countires he has invaded?

same point....

My point is that we all sometimes use words outside of their precise definitions. Just as you did there. The difference is that usually we can see this in other's words and know what they're really trying to say - so then we don't need to jump on them for it. I don't suppose you really meant that the US illegally attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.

Andy

 

[Moonbeam]

MOAB sounds like an Islamic terrorist to me.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
what is your point?

Did we invade Afghanistan? no.

So what are the 2 countires he has invaded?

same point....

My point is that we all sometimes use words outside of their precise definitions. Just as you did there. The difference is that usually we can see this in other's words and know what they're really trying to say - so then we don't need to jump on them for it. I don't suppose you really meant that the US illegally attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.

Andy

I know exactly what I meant, I think it is your comprehension that is in question. I chose the words carefully and undesrtand their meaning. We had UN permission in Afghanistan, by no means could that be construed as an invasion. In the case of Iraq there is debate as to the legality of the action, even though there is no clear precedent for that other than US actions in the past, so that can be rightfully called an invasion, as Iran would have been if we had gone in directly from Iraq. I corrected you initially because the actions in Afghanistan show clearly Bush's level of committment to the principles of the UN and his belief of their importance and role in the international world, unlike you suggested.

 

[DZip]

"Muslims don't kill People - people kill people"

These terrorists are using Islam to gain credibility for their cause since they usually do not have a government that supports their cause. The real problem is that no Islamic group has come forward to denounce these terrorist actions. One can only surmise that if they do not oppose it, they must agree with it.

 

[Fencer128]

I know exactly what I meant, I think it is your comprehension that is in question. I chose the words carefully and undesrtand their meaning. We had UN permission in Afghanistan, by no means could that be construed as an invasion. In the case of Iraq there is debate as to the legality of the action, even though there is no clear precedent for that other than US actions in the past, so that can be rightfully called an invasion, as Iran would have been if we had gone in directly from Iraq. I corrected you initially because the actions in Afghanistan show clearly Bush's level of committment to the principles of the UN and his belief of their importance and role in the international world, unlike you suggested.

OK. I can see where this is going and have no desire to spend the next 2 hours! looking up dictionary definitions of "invade" and "conquer" - suffice to say that "invade" can be applied in the literal sense to both events. I took your horror at the use of the word "invade" to imply that you believed it meant some underhanded or illegal war. Technically it does not but I corrected myself to save your feelings on that issue. Now I see you use the word "invade" in it's proper context - as I did - and it made me question how you viewed it's use, hence my post.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

so now that it is clear, what are the 2 countries he invaded?

By lumping Afghanistan and Iraq into one group of countries he "invaded" as an example of his lack of concern for international law, you fail to see the important difference between the two. The fact is Afghanistan actually supports the opposite point you were hoping to make, the second example, Iraq, only shows a continued pattern of the first, a clear effort at international diplomacy.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
MOAB sounds like an Islamic terrorist to me.

The neanderthal in me wants to see it used on some Islamic Terrorists very soon. I will buy the video and watch it as many times as I had to watch the trade centers crumble to the ground and watch the people jumping out of the window on the 100th floor because their skin was being cooked like KFC.

Give me the button!

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
so now that it is clear, what are the 2 countries he invaded?

By lumping Afghanistan and Iraq into one group of countries he "invaded" as an example of his lack of concern for international law, you fail to see the important difference between the two. The fact is Afghanistan actually supports the opposite point you were hoping to make, the second example, Iraq, only shows a continued pattern of the first, a clear effort at international diplomacy.

All I have ever maintained is that the US has invaded 2 countries and that some thought that meant that the US might make their way down their "axis of evil" list.

My recent posts concerning the use of the word "invade" sought merely to point out that you too use this word to describe what happened when the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.

...They should consider themselves lucky we did not invade there as well...

I have no doubt that invasion is what occured in both cases. In response to the fact that you obviously did not like the use of that word with repsect to Afghanistan I double checked it's meaning with webster. I found that I was correct in my useage.

This is all I am trying to say with my posts. I've not tried nor am trying to make any point regarding legality or international law.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Moonbeam]

The neanderthal in me wants to see it used on some Islamic Terrorists very soon. I will buy the video and watch it as many times as I had to watch the trade centers crumble to the ground and watch the people jumping out of the window on the 100th floor because their skin was being cooked like KFC.
--------------------------------------
Gee those scenes had just the opposite effect on me. I don't ever want to see anything like that again. But then by Neanderthal I suppose you mean primitive and unevolved. I suppose you are, I cannot say. What a pity though, and to be so proud of your hate. Amazing. Of course you realize that how we treat the least among us is how we treat our own souls. In a prison of hate how will yours fly?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The neanderthal in me wants to see it used on some Islamic Terrorists very soon. I will buy the video and watch it as many times as I had to watch the trade centers crumble to the ground and watch the people jumping out of the window on the 100th floor because their skin was being cooked like KFC.
--------------------------------------
Gee those scenes had just the opposite effect on me. I don't ever want to see anything like that again. But then by Neanderthal I suppose you mean primitive and unevolved. I suppose you are, I cannot say. What a pity though, and to be so proud of your hate. Amazing. Of course you realize that how we treat the least among us is how we treat our own souls. In a prison of hate how will yours fly?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, are you saying I should have sympathy for the terrorists?

I fully understand that an eye for an eye can make the whole world go blind.

How can we stop these terrorists? I don have some pity on them.. trust that. I cannot understand why they see so little value in their own lives that they would be willing to do such horrifying things. I wish all of humanity could see that we are exactly the same and that life is a balance beam of Karma.

 

[Alistar7]

All I have ever maintained is that the US has invaded 2 countries and that some thought that meant that the US might make their way down their "axis of evil" list.


Yes, you grouped two different actions together, one that had UN support and one that did not, and implied both showed a pattern of a lack of respect for international law.

"My recent posts concerning the use of the word "invade" sought merely to point out that you too use this word to describe what happened when the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq."


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...They should consider themselves lucky we did not invade there as well...

Sorry, I was not speaking of Afghanistan in that instance, only Iraq, theres the problem.

I made it very clear the difference between the two and you still seem to think they are interchangeable and any reference of one should also carry the weight of the other.

I hardly care what websters technical definition of "invade" is, in the context you used, your intent was to lump both actions together and label them with one word to describe them in a manner which suited your personal feelings.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
All I have ever maintained is that the US has invaded 2 countries and that some thought that meant that the US might make their way down their "axis of evil" list.


Yes, you grouped two different actions together, one that had UN support and one that did not, and implied both showed a pattern of a lack of respect for international law.

"My recent posts concerning the use of the word "invade" sought merely to point out that you too use this word to describe what happened when the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq."


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...They should consider themselves lucky we did not invade there as well...

Sorry, I was not speaking of Afghanistan in that instance, only Iraq, theres the problem.

I made it very clear the difference between the two and you still seem to think they are interchangeable and any reference of one should also carry the weight of the other.

I hardly care what websters technical definition of "invade" is, in the context you used, your intent was to lump both actions together and label them with one word to describe them in a manner which suited your personal feelings.

OK, now I'm a little annoyed. I didn't imply or wish to imply anything regarding international law. That is your defensive side taking over and reading what you would like to think I meant into my words. I don't really care for how you view the legality of the actions because basically it doesn't interest me. I am not interested in the legality and made no arguement concerning it. The only thing that remotely interested me was the fact that some people honestly believed that the US wanted to eliminate the threat that the axis of evil posed towards it - and that you flew off the handle at the use of the word "invade".

That's it. No conspiracy to make some sort of implication over legality. No judgement over what war was more just than the other.

I was just making the point that some believed this and that you were wrong to get hysterical over the use of the word "invade" - as it was correctly used. I don't know what else to call the action of moving an armed force into another country's territory without their permission.

Crikey - it's not difficult to understand my point. Please stop trying to second guess my intentions.

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: I guess an apology is out of the question then.