Islamic Terrorism

[Justice]

You don't know that. There a some strong odds that some of these bastards were born into Islam, and have now declared Christian, openly denying Islam in the face of their executioners.

 

Some probably deserved this fate, given those circumstances.

Thanks for being a smart ass. I'm trying to condemn terrorism here but that's not good enough for you, huh?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Thanks for being a smart ass. I'm trying to condemn terrorism here but that's not good enough for you, huh?

Far from being a smart ass, I'm just being helpful. I mean, given the demographics of the area, there's a likelihood that more than a few engaged in apostate. Those certainly deserved to die, correct? And as such, their executioners were acting as the very hands of Alah Himself, correct? I mean, you've already stated you don't know who is to ask as executioner, and that you don't study that portion of your Book, because it doesn't interest you. Well, these individuals apparently do study that portion of your Book, and they felt It called to them. Edited April 8, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Justice]

Far from being a smart ass, I'm just being helpful. I mean, given the demographics of the area, there's a likelihood that more than a few engaged in apostate. Those certainly deserved to die, correct? And as such, their executioners were acting as the very hands of Alah Himself, correct? I mean, you've already stated you don't know who is to ask as executioner, and that you don't study that portion of your Book, because it doesn't interest you. Well, these individuals apparently do study that portion of your Book, and they felt It called to them.

Helpful? Thanks for the help. You're a swell guy. I like how you created this little story about those poor victims. You're awesome. I really admire you. Cool story, bro!

 

You really took me to Tasker! You're the man! Such amazing brilliance! I'm in awe. You're great! Two thumbs up!

 

No. You weren't being a smart ass. You were being a dick. It's people like you that complain all the time about moderate Muslims not condemning terrorism enough, but when one does you're on attack mode. You're a punk.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Justice

[3rdnlng]

Helpful? Thanks for the help. You're a swell guy. I like how you created this little story about those poor victims. You're awesome. I really admire you. Cool story, bro!

 

You really took me to Tasker! You're the man! Such amazing brilliance! I'm in awe. You're great! Two thumbs up!

 

No. You weren't being a smart ass. You were being a dick. It's people like you that complain all the time about moderate Muslims not condemning terrorism enough, but when one does you're on attack mode. You're a punk.

I'm glad to see that you have finally admitted that there is such a thing as moderate Muslims. If there are moderate Muslims than there must be other kinds of Muslims such as radical Muslims. Have we finally dropped the "they can't be Muslim because they do these awful deeds" mantra? If so, we have made progress, my friend.

[Justice]

I'm glad to see that you have finally admitted that there is such a thing as moderate Muslims. If there are moderate Muslims than there must be other kinds of Muslims such as radical Muslims. Have we finally dropped the "they can't be Muslim because they do these awful deeds" mantra? If so, we have made progress, my friend.

Yes and no. It's complicated. I've finally read up on apostacy. The executioner for apostacy can be anybody. I didn't see it written anywhere who exactly is supposed to do the actual killing, but to me, if you kill somebody you're a radical, even if your religion gives you the right to do so. There's also a process involved. You just can't kill somebody right away either, there is a process and the punishment isn't always death. There are other forms of punishment.

 

On the flip side, there are muslim scholars who actually believe there is no death penalty for apostacy. Those are your moderates, I guess, but I still believe terroristic acts such as this most recent event, 9/11, etc etc are not and will never be accepted as an act of a true muslim.

 

I was taught Islam by my parents and they concentrated on the five pillars of Islam, and they focused on teaching me to avoid committing sins and what exactly those sins are. I never even knew about apostacy until I learned about it here.

 

At the end of the day there are uncomfortable topics in all three religions. Christianity went as far as to release a New Testament that has about 62 contradictions to the Old Testament and a lot of those changes involve those uncomfortable subjects.

[3rdnlng]

Yes and no. It's complicated. I've finally read up on apostacy. The executioner for apostacy can be anybody. I didn't see it written anywhere who exactly is supposed to do the actual killing, but to me, if you kill somebody you're a radical, even if your religion gives you the right to do so. There's also a process involved. You just can't kill somebody right away either, there is a process and the punishment isn't always death. There are other forms of punishment.

 

On the flip side, there are muslim scholars who actually believe there is no death penalty for apostacy. Those are your moderates, I guess, but I still believe terroristic acts such as this most recent event, 9/11, etc etc are not and will never be accepted as an act of a true muslim.

 

I was taught Islam by my parents and they concentrated on the five pillars of Islam, and they focused on teaching me to avoid committing sins and what exactly those sins are. I never even knew about apostacy until I learned about it here.

 

At the end of the day there are uncomfortable topics in all three religions. Christianity went as far as to release a New Testament that has about 62 contradictions to the Old Testament and a lot of those changes involve those uncomfortable subjects.

Do you not think that there are many radical Muslims that might believe that not killing people for acts of apostacy goes directly against Muslim belief? Where did you read up and learn about apostacy? Is it addressed in the Quran? These are not trap or "I gotcha" questions but part of what I hope to be an honest dialogue.

[GG]

Sayonara, Tsarnayev.

 

(I think that belongs in this thread)

[Justice]

Do you not think that there are many radical Muslims that might believe that not killing people for acts of apostacy goes directly against Muslim belief? Where did you read up and learn about apostacy? Is it addressed in the Quran? These are not trap or "I gotcha" questions but part of what I hope to be an honest dialogue.

I guess. I can't really speak on behalf of the radicals. I read about it online from a Muslim and non-Muslim perspective. I don't know if it is in the Quran.

[truth on hold]

Sayonara, Tsarnayev.

 

(I think that belongs in this thread)

deserves it's own thread because a) it's a high profile case, b) her comments are disgraceful and hideous when juxtaposed against the victims, and c) should not be associated with 1.6 billion others

Edited April 9, 2015 by JTSP

[Chef Jim]

Now if they can perfect their hacking skills we might have something to actually worry about here.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/europe/french-tv-network-attack-recovery/index.html

[OCinBuffalo]

Another reminder to all in this thread: thanks to the psuedo-intellectual contortions on display here, exactly nothing is "Islamic".

 

The word has no meaning. It can't have one, if every time we show a direct connection between something written specifically in the book(like slicing off heads, which IS IN FACT directly described as punishment for Christians and Jews), and behavior exhibited by those who claim to merely be acting upon that writing, we are told that it can't be "Islamic".

 

Islamic's definition is one of pure convenience, therefore it means nothing. It means whatever it needs to mean, based on whatever point is being made today, by some phony-ass clown who thinks they are doing the right thing(and of course are self-congratulated) by eternally changing its meaning. In fact, this is the 100% wrong thing.

 

If we can't ever define what is Islamic, because phony ass clowns keep changing the meaning to prevent themselves from being wrong/looking stupid, how can we ever truly separate, never mind condemn, those who are acting inside it tenets, from those who aren't?

 

The "I am more moral than you are, because I defend Islam, and its 1.6 billion people" crowd, mostly comprised of the far left, once again are obtaining standard far left results: They are getting the opposite of what they intend.

 

Math puts things into proper perspective: The generally accepted # of Muslims, based on a multitude of polls, who specifically believe that "Islam is the Answer"^TM and therefore believe that Sharia Law is the answer, and therefore believe that world war to reveal the Mahdi(there's that word again), or to impose a world-wide caliphate, is necessary and is therefore something they would support? ~25%. But lets say that's too high...because: standard leftist whining, and because thinking and doing are not in fact the same. Let's go with 10% of Muslims who are willing to act to force the entire world into "submission to Allah". (Since we are talking far-left people, I'm going to write out the math: 1,600,000,000 / 10 = 160,000,000) Wow! 160 million people.

 

Now, let's assume that all 160 mil are "not Islamic". Then, let's assume that the remainder not only ARE Islamic, but as pure as driven snow. Fair enough?

 

We cannot pretend 160 million psychotic people, some of whom are heads of government/have access to state assets == the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members don't even top 100, and who only have access to Wal Mart.(The God Hates Fags people, who, by that phrase alone, prove they have 0 conception of God. They are acting in direct contradiction to the words written in their book, in over 100+ places, and we are therefore 100% justified by calling them "not Christian".) It's F'ing retarded to place an "=" sign between these two groups of people. Especially since the 2nd group is merely annoying sick, not deadly sick.

 

We cannot write off, ignore, or attempt to marginalize these 10% people, by using the same old "a few people don't represent the entire group" excuse, for 1 simple reason: There's too many! 160 million people, never, ever = "a few". And, if the 160 mil all claim to be following Islam? Then Islam has a serious F'ing problem, that is Islamic, and yeah, the rest of the world has a right to call Islam on its problem, no differen that the Egyptian president did. Even if we cut the number to 1% of all Muslims? That's still 16 million people, that's still not a few, and the "few don't represent the whole group" excuse is still stupid/naive/whatever wrong.

 

Thus, one policy that is clearly superior to Obama's that would get results, with less cost, less death, and less suffering:

 

1. Define what is Islamic, specifically, and then stick with that. (Enough with the excuses, the ever-changing definitions, and the BS)

2. Stop moving the goal posts subjectively, so that more people can be defined under #1. We haven't seen this much dicking around with supposed fixed church teachings, since Henry VIII.

3. Identify the enemy, not only of the US/world, but also of Islam itself, give every Muslim opportunity to renounce that definition, and self-identify as not the enemy.

4. As I said above: open up the full US arsenal.

5. Put every Muslim to a decision: either they and their kids are willing to die, now, because they are the enemy, or, they are not.

6. Annhiliate those that self-identify as the enemy. Repeat this step until all Islamic terror comes to a halt.

 

After a few US fuel-air bombs have suffocated entire towns full of people, the message will be delivered. And, spare me the "that will only lead to more violence because: vengeance" nonsense. No it won't. I used the word "annihilate". That means: nobody left to be "radicalized by US military attacks". As we've seen "countries" mean nothing to most Muslims in the ME. Villages/Towns do. Wipe out a town/village, and you wipe out 99% of the "radicalized" argument.

 

You see, the Great Sin here is: hope. Terrorists, and their 10% supporters, are given hope by the leaders of terror oganizations...that somehow all this death will eventually get them what they want. Therefore, the most logical, compassionate, and commonly sensible choice: erase that hope completely, and replace it with certainty of death, destruction, and no chance of gaining anything else.

Edited April 10, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[Justice]

Another reminder to all in this thread: thanks to the psuedo-intellectual contortions on display here, exactly nothing is "Islamic".

 

The word has no meaning. It can't have one, if every time we show a direct connection between something written specifically in the book(like slicing off heads, which IS IN FACT directly described as punishment for Christians and Jews), and behavior exhibited by those who claim to merely be acting upon that writing, we are told that it can't be "Islamic".

 

Islamic's definition is one of pure convenience, therefore it means nothing. It means whatever it needs to mean, based on whatever point is being made today, by some phony-ass clown who thinks they are doing the right thing(and of course are self-congratulated) by eternally changing its meaning. In fact, this is the 100% wrong thing.

 

If we can't ever define what is Islamic, because phony ass clowns keep changing the meaning to prevent themselves from being wrong/looking stupid, how can we ever truly separate, never mind condemn, those who are acting inside it tenets, from those who aren't?

 

The "I am more moral than you are, because I defend Islam, and its 1.6 billion people" crowd, mostly comprised of the far left, once again are obtaining standard far left results: They are getting the opposite of what they intend.

 

Math puts things into proper perspective: The generally accepted # of Muslims, based on a multitude of polls, who specifically believe that "Islam is the Answer"^TM and therefore believe that Sharia Law is the answer, and therefore believe that world war to reveal the Mahdi(there's that word again), or to impose a world-wide caliphate, is necessary and is therefore something they would support? ~25%. But lets say that's too high...because: standard leftist whining, and because thinking and doing are not in fact the same. Let's go with 10% of Muslims who are willing to act to force the entire world into "submission to Allah". (Since we are talking far-left people, I'm going to write out the math: 1,600,000,000 / 10 = 160,000,000) Wow! 160 million people.

 

Now, let's assume that all 160 mil are "not Islamic". Then, let's assume that the remainder not only ARE Islamic, but as pure as driven snow. Fair enough?

 

We cannot pretend 160 million psychotic people, some of whom are heads of government/have access to state assets == the Westboro Baptist Church, whose members don't even top 100, and who only have access to Wal Mart.(The God Hates Fags people, who, by that phrase alone, prove they have 0 conception of God. They are acting in direct contradiction to the words written in their book, in over 100+ places, and we are therefore 100% justified by calling them "not Christian".) It's F'ing retarded to place an "=" sign between these two groups of people. Especially since the 2nd group is merely annoying sick, not deadly sick.

 

We cannot write off, ignore, or attempt to marginalize these 10% people, by using the same old "a few people don't represent the entire group" excuse, for 1 simple reason: There's too many! 160 million people, never, ever = "a few". And, if the 160 mil all claim to be following Islam? Then Islam has a serious F'ing problem, that is Islamic, and yeah, the rest of the world has a right to call Islam on its problem, no differen that the Egyptian president did. Even if we cut the number to 1% of all Muslims? That's still 16 million people, that's still not a few, and the "few don't represent the whole group" excuse is still stupid/naive/whatever wrong.

 

Thus, one policy that is clearly superior to Obama's that would get results, with less cost, less death, and less suffering:

 

1. Define what is Islamic, specifically, and then stick with that. (Enough with the excuses, the ever-changing definitions, and the BS)

2. Stop moving the goal posts subjectively, so that more people can be defined under #1. We haven't seen this much dicking around with supposed fixed church teachings, since Henry VIII.

3. Identify the enemy, not only of the US/world, but also of Islam itself, give every Muslim opportunity to renounce that definition, and self-identify as not the enemy.

4. As I said above: open up the full US arsenal.

5. Put every Muslim to a decision: either they and their kids are willing to die, now, because they are the enemy, or, they are not.

6. Annhiliate those that self-identify as the enemy. Repeat this step until all Islamic terror comes to a halt.

 

After a few US fuel-air bombs have suffocated entire towns full of people, the message will be delivered. And, spare me the "that will only lead to more violence because: vengeance" nonsense. No it won't. I used the word "annihilate". That means: nobody left to be "radicalized by US military attacks". As we've seen "countries" mean nothing to most Muslims in the ME. Villages/Towns do. Wipe out a town/village, and you wipe out 99% of the "radicalized" argument.

 

You see, the Great Sin here is: hope. Terrorists, and their 10% supporters, are given hope by the leaders of terror oganizations...that somehow all this death will eventually get them what they want. Therefore, the most logical, compassionate, and commonly sensible choice: erase that hope completely, and replace it with certainty of death, destruction, and no chance of gaining anything else.

Your post here is highly hypocritical and some are just misleading.

 

1. You made sound as if only Christians and Jews get their hand cut off for stealing. Not true, Muslims get their hand cut off too. One can easily debate this is the best way to handle a thief and the best deterrent. You would rather spend 1,000s of dollars taking care of the theif in prison. So what's the punishment for a thief? Shelter and feed this person? The Quran says every Muslim should donate 2.5 of their net worth to the poor every year. If everyone did this there wouldn't be many thieves, anyways. BTW, I've been to Palestine and have found out about some thieves in my village. None of them got their hands cut off.

 

2. As far as changing the religion goes this is where the hypocrisy part comes. Muslim contend, and it's true, the Quran has never been altered and yet there are many versions of the Bible. There are 62 contradictions in the old and New Testament. When it comes to this subject you're talking about interpretation. Produce those tenets directly from the Quran that you're referring to and don't just take one line. We need the whole thing because one line can easily be taken out of context. I'd be happy to debate you on those subjects.

 

3. Ten percent? I know a lot of Muslims and not one is a radical. Your number you magically pulled out of the air is most likely wrong.

 

4. Your use of the word "Islamic" is just wrong. The people you're referring to are radicals with a political agenda. These people do not follow Islam as its intended to be and yet these are the people you use to represent Muslims. You talk about the Mahdi, but what about the Muslim belief that Jesus (pbuh) will return?

 

You were being hypocritical when you mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church and the God hates fags groups, because we feel the same way about terrorists.

 

5. As far as your take on Obama and we need to kill these people are concerned the U.S. has already killed over a million people post 9/11. You act as if that's doing nothing. That's not nothing. That's something.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Justice

[B-Man]

Video appears to show ISIS militants destroying what is left of Nimrud, a kingdom from 900-612 B.C.

"In the video, militants use drills, sledgehammers and a bulldozer to destroy ancient stone reliefs and walls, before huge explosions can be seen...."

 

In the video, militants say "God has honored us in the Islamic State to remove all of these idols and statutes worshiped instead of Allah in the past days" and "Whenever we seize a piece of land, we will remove signs of idolatry and spread monotheism."

 

ADDED: More pictures (and video) here.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes and no. It's complicated. I've finally read up on apostacy. (1.) The executioner for apostacy can be anybody. I didn't see it written anywhere who exactly is supposed to do the actual killing,

 

but to me, if you kill somebody you're a radical, even if your religion gives you the right to do so. There's also a process involved. You just can't kill somebody right away either, there is a process and the punishment isn't always death. There are other forms of punishment.

 

On the flip side, (2.) there are muslim scholars who actually believe there is no death penalty for apostacy. Those are your moderates, I guess, but I still believe terroristic acts such as this most recent event, 9/11, etc etc are not and will never be accepted as an act of a true muslim.

 

I was taught Islam by my parents and they concentrated on the five pillars of Islam, and they focused on teaching me to avoid committing sins and what exactly those sins are. I never even knew about apostacy until I learned about it here.

 

At the end of the day there are uncomfortable topics in all three religions. (3.) Christianity went as far as to release a New Testament that has about 62 contradictions to the Old Testament and a lot of those changes involve those uncomfortable subjects.

Bolded #1: And that doesn't give you immediate pause? Why the F not? That's ad-hoc law, vigilante justice, whatever. What if some psycho just starts killing people? What if he means to shoot you, and hits me instead? That alone is reasonable cause for the rest of us, who also live in this world, to demand that you reform your religion. You can't have rules like this in civilized society.

 

#2: I know there are Catholic, and Protestant scholars. We have all sorts of Catholic and Protestant schools and Universities. Are there really Muslim scholars? I mean scholars as in: academic rigor, not madrassa horseshit. You can learn calculus at a Catholic high school. Can you learn calculus at a madrassa? How about biology? Madrassas teach that demons cause illness, and that homepathy works. So again, what exactly is a Muslim scholar? We have the Jesuit Priests and their deacons, and Franciscan Friars, and F'ing nuns, who, granted, can act like demons(F'ing ruler to the knuckles)...but they teach calculus, biology, etc., they don't teach about demons. Do Muslims have any Jesuits?

 

#3: Yes, Christianity could be called reformed Judaism. However, no Orthodox Jew I know agrees. Rather: Jesus was an Orthodox Rabbi. They point to his ideas, and many of his actions, especially doing things like throwing the gamblers and whores out of the temple, as unquestionably those of an Orthodox Rabbi. They say the apostles were self-interested propagandists, who took Jesus's Orthodox teachings and turned them into a separate religion for their own purposes. But, they also say that they understand those purposes: the Jewish Rabbis were not only corrupt, they were complicit with the Romans, so Christianity was inevitable.

 

It's an interesting theory, and I've spent hours learning it(no choice). It has a lot of holes. I could torture most of the Protestant South with it, because these Jews have been working on this for 100s of years, and if you say it right, it all sounds very plausible. But, as usual, you'll also notice that the Orthodox Jews don't have a place in this version of events. They are bystanders. Convenient.

 

But, consider: If this is the Orthodox Jew's, or all people's, takeaway on Jesus, and they claim that every single change in the New Testament was something they were doing/going to do anyway...why can't Islam make the same major, sweeping changes?

 

 

 

Your post here is highly hypocritical and some are just misleading.

 

1. You made sound as if only Christians and Jews get their hand cut off for stealing. Not true, Muslims get their hand cut off too. One can easily debate this is the best way to handle a thief and the best deterrent. You would rather spend 1,000s of dollars taking care of the theif in prison. So what's the punishment for a thief? Shelter and feed this person? The Quran says every Muslim should donate 2.5 of their net worth to the poor every year. If everyone did this there wouldn't be many thieves, anyways. BTW, I've been to Palestine and have found out about some thieves in my village. None of them got their hands cut off.

 

2. As far as changing the religion goes this is where the hypocrisy part comes. Muslim contend, and it's true, the Quran has never been altered and yet there are many versions of the Bible. There are 62 contradictions in the old and New Testament. When it comes to this subject you're talking about interpretation. Produce those tenets directly from the Quran that you're referring to and don't just take one line. We need the whole thing because one line can easily be taken out of context. I'd be happy to debate you on those subjects.

 

3. Ten percent? I know a lot of Muslims and not one is a radical. Your number you magically pulled out of the air is most likely wrong.

 

4. Your use of the word "Islamic" is just wrong. The people you're referring to are radicals with a political agenda. These people do not follow Islam as its intended to be and yet these are the people you use to represent Muslims. You talk about the Mahdi, but what about the Muslim belief that Jesus (pbuh) will return?

 

You were being hypocritical when you mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church and the God hates fags groups, because we feel the same way about terrorists.

 

5. As far as your take on Obama and we need to kill these people are concerned the U.S. has already killed over a million people post 9/11. You act as if that's doing nothing. That's not nothing. That's something.

Horsecrap: my post may be lots of things(some of them intentionally galling, especially for other posters, not just you) but one thing it isn't is hypocritical.

 

1. Mutilation of any kind is barbaric. Period. This is why I call "Purist Islam" a civilization and culture-killer. It retards the growth of any people that live by it literally. Moderate Islam, by definition, means you don't get your hand cut off for stealing, doesn't it? IF so, then there's one line we can easily draw: moderate Islam can be tolerated in a civilized society. Purist Islam cannot be, and won't be...ever.

 

2. Hypocrisy or history? You're seriously going to tell me that there's no such thing as Sunnis and Shiites now? I call BS on the "never been altered" thing. We can sit in a circle and play "pass the secret". The original message never comes back the same. The same thing is true for any ancient work that has been hand-copied over centuries. The likelihood that no one altered the text approaches 0 the more times it's been hand copied. Why? People are stupid, lazy, prideful, get a new assignment, die, and some are just wiseasses. They could easily have made changes for any of those reasons, and there's no way to prove it either way.

 

Now, as far as the Gospels go? History. Not hypocrisy. The Gospels were held in secret, because keeping them == death by Romans. So, of course some are going to recopied wrong/redundant, incomplete, missing, whatever. The Gospels weren't being protected by an army that was going around conquering people. They were being held by people who very likely were going to be eaten by lions tomorrow. Comparing these two this is merely: ignorance of history.

 

The fact is that Emporer Constantine, many Popes, and King James all got sick of the endless bloodshed, or just mere quibbling, over this passage and that one, and they themselves ordered the Gospels to be edited for clarity, and to reduce redundancy and obvious error. They didn't intend to change the content. However, a strong case is being made that there are certain gospels, especially ones pertaining to Mary Magdelene and women in general, that have been kept out by bad actors. That? I have no idea if its true or not.

 

3. There are polls that say 25% of all Muslims support the Jihadi movement fully. Now, are they accurate? Who knows. My point: if ONLY 1% of all Muslims are the bad guys? That's 16 million people. 16 million people are not, and never going to be, "a few". So, the tired "a few bad Muslims doesn't mean all are bad" excuse?

 

Retarded. Not when we are talking about 16 million. Or 8 million, or 4 million, or 2 million, or 50,000. We don't have 50,000 of the rest of the world's religion's, combined, bad guys looking to murder innocent people. But, we have at least that number of Muslims, and probably a lot more.

 

4. I do talk about the Mahdi, for a very specific F'ing reason: Iran, or at least the F'ing nuts in charge, believe that it falls to them to start a world war. And why? So that the Mahdi will reveal himself and lead ALL OF ISLAM....not just the bad guys...to victory over the rest of the world. Iran is trying to build nukes, supports terror all over the world, and is trying to rule the entire ME.

 

Good enough reason to talk about the Mahdi?

 

Look, this can't be that hard to understand: I don't call these people Muslims. THEY call themselves Muslims. I didn't make up the name "The Islamic Brotherhood". THEY did. It doesn't matter what you or I or some panty-twisted apologist calls them: they are Muslims until Islamic clerics unite, and tell them "NO you aren't!". Declare a Fatwah. Do something. They are Muslims right up until the minute they pull the trigger, and then, their entire history of being Muslim is gone?

 

BS. They were a Muslim yesterday, and they are one today, and if they go pray to Allah and visit the Mosque....because no Mullah has the balls to kick them out...tomorrow, after setting off a bomb today? They are STILL Muslims. You know the only way they aren't Muslims?

 

You. You and/or their Mullah. It falls to you to kick them out your faith, publicly and permanently. Period.

 

5. Much of the killing has been done for nothing, now that Obama has lost both wars, and Yemen, and Syria, and everywhere, by sounding the general retreat...for no reason. Iraq wouldn't be ISIS if we stayed. The entire world smells both ideological far-left weakness, and personal weakness, on Obama, and we live in world of wolves. This weakness? It means a lot more people are going to have to die.

 

Sorry, but that is the lesson from history. Weakness invites war. Weakness give people in Hamas and Hezbollah hope...that they might actually win, instead of giving up on violence == more die.

 

And, often the wrong people have been killed for the wrong reasons. I have written this before: our strategy in Iraq was stupid. We acted like it was WW2. We should have adopted a "castling" strategy. Slow and steady. Damn the press and the Democrats. Getting us a "quick victory", to keep them from bitching was militarily stupid, and therefore, politically stupid.

 

Blitzkrieg to Baghdad did nothing but challenge the authority of every clan/village/chief/elder behind us. So we ended up fighting about that, in addition to fighting terrorists and leftover Bathists. That's where most of the unnecessary casualties came from. We should have respected the local leaders, and asked them what they needed from us, and let them do their jobs: all politics is instantly local when you stop a dictator. Then, you get security, and, everybody gets time to be comfortable, and see it working. The guys in the next village can't wait for you to show up, because they want what the current guys are getting, etc., and they kill the bad guys for you, or at least drive them out, so you will show up.

 

That's the better way, isn't it? But, what's done is done.

[Justice]

Bolded #1: And that doesn't give you immediate pause? Why the F not? That's ad-hoc law, vigilante justice, whatever. What if some psycho just starts killing people? What if he means to shoot you, and hits me instead? That alone is reasonable cause for the rest of us, who also live in this world, to demand that you reform your religion. You can't have rules like this in civilized society.

 

Killing innocent people is condemned and not permissable. Refer to the other thread in which I replied to you for a more detailed answer.

 

#2: I know there are Catholic, and Protestant scholars. We have all sorts of Catholic and Protestant schools and Universities. Are there really Muslim scholars? I mean scholars as in: academic rigor, not madrassa horseshit. You can learn calculus at a Catholic high school. Can you learn calculus at a madrassa? How about biology? Madrassas teach that demons cause illness, and that homepathy works. So again, what exactly is a Muslim scholar? We have the Jesuit Priests and their deacons, and Franciscan Friars, and F'ing nuns, who, granted, can act like demons(F'ing ruler to the knuckles)...but they teach calculus, biology, etc., they don't teach about demons. Do Muslims have any Jesuits?

 

There are people that have memorized the entire Quran word for word. I'd call them scholars. Do you even know what the true definition of madrassa is? It means school. My nephews all go to school (madrassa) and no they don't teach them a radicalized view of Islam there and yes you can learn calculus. The negative connotation of the word "madrassa" that is used here in the States is an interesting one, since all schools are called madrassa's then that leads the viewer/reader to believe it's all bad. Not true.

 

#3: Yes, Christianity could be called reformed Judaism. However, no Orthodox Jew I know agrees. Rather: Jesus was an Orthodox Rabbi. They point to his ideas, and many of his actions, especially doing things like throwing the gamblers and whores out of the temple, as unquestionably those of an Orthodox Rabbi. They say the apostles were self-interested propagandists, who took Jesus's Orthodox teachings and turned them into a separate religion for their own purposes. But, they also say that they understand those purposes: the Jewish Rabbis were not only corrupt, they were complicit with the Romans, so Christianity was inevitable.

 

It's an interesting theory, and I've spent hours learning it(no choice). It has a lot of holes. I could torture most of the Protestant South with it, because these Jews have been working on this for 100s of years, and if you say it right, it all sounds very plausible. But, as usual, you'll also notice that the Orthodox Jews don't have a place in this version of events. They are bystanders. Convenient.

 

But, consider: If this is the Orthodox Jew's, or all people's, takeaway on Jesus, and they claim that every single change in the New Testament was something they were doing/going to do anyway...why can't Islam make the same major, sweeping changes?

 

You won't be seeing any changes made to the Quran. Not now, not ever. How dare we as mere people change the word of God?

 

 

 

Horsecrap: my post may be lots of things(some of them intentionally galling, especially for other posters, not just you) but one thing it isn't is hypocritical.

 

1. Mutilation of any kind is barbaric. Period. This is why I call "Purist Islam" a civilization and culture-killer. It retards the growth of any people that live by it literally. Moderate Islam, by definition, means you don't get your hand cut off for stealing, doesn't it? IF so, then there's one line we can easily draw: moderate Islam can be tolerated in a civilized society. Purist Islam cannot be, and won't be...ever.

 

The cutting off of the hand is meant to be deterent to thievery. Why do you defend the rights of thieves? You know what the punishment is so don't steal. Problem solved.

 

2. Hypocrisy or history? You're seriously going to tell me that there's no such thing as Sunnis and Shiites now? I call BS on the "never been altered" thing. We can sit in a circle and play "pass the secret". The original message never comes back the same. The same thing is true for any ancient work that has been hand-copied over centuries. The likelihood that no one altered the text approaches 0 the more times it's been hand copied. Why? People are stupid, lazy, prideful, get a new assignment, die, and some are just wiseasses. They could easily have made changes for any of those reasons, and there's no way to prove it either way.

 

Now, as far as the Gospels go? History. Not hypocrisy. The Gospels were held in secret, because keeping them == death by Romans. So, of course some are going to recopied wrong/redundant, incomplete, missing, whatever. The Gospels weren't being protected by an army that was going around conquering people. They were being held by people who very likely were going to be eaten by lions tomorrow. Comparing these two this is merely: ignorance of history.

 

The fact is that Emporer Constantine, many Popes, and King James all got sick of the endless bloodshed, or just mere quibbling, over this passage and that one, and they themselves ordered the Gospels to be edited for clarity, and to reduce redundancy and obvious error. They didn't intend to change the content. However, a strong case is being made that there are certain gospels, especially ones pertaining to Mary Magdelene and women in general, that have been kept out by bad actors. That? I have no idea if its true or not.

 

The Quran has never been changed. The earliest book are exactly the same as the books from today. Believe it if you want, but that's the truth. Shiites and Sunnis share the same exact Quran. The interpretation might be a little different, but that's as far as that goes.

 

"The fact is that Emporer Constantine, many Popes, and King James all got sick of the endless bloodshed, or just mere quibbling, over this passage and that one, and they themselves ordered the Gospels to be edited for clarity, and to reduce redundancy and obvious error."

 

The word of God was an obvious error?

 

3. There are polls that say 25% of all Muslims support the Jihadi movement fully. Now, are they accurate? Who knows. My point: if ONLY 1% of all Muslims are the bad guys? That's 16 million people. 16 million people are not, and never going to be, "a few". So, the tired "a few bad Muslims doesn't mean all are bad" excuse?

 

Retarded. Not when we are talking about 16 million. Or 8 million, or 4 million, or 2 million, or 50,000. We don't have 50,000 of the rest of the world's religion's, combined, bad guys looking to murder innocent people. But, we have at least that number of Muslims, and probably a lot more.

 

I don't know about that. I know hundreds of Muslims both here and in Palestine and none of them are radicals. Now the percentage is higher than my zero but well below your 25% You're suggesting there aren't more than 50,000 radicalized Christians or Jews? That's a joke, right? Maybe you should read up on the Christian groups in Africa that are beheading people as well or the settlers in Palestine that kill innocent people.

 

4. I do talk about the Mahdi, for a very specific F'ing reason: Iran, or at least the F'ing nuts in charge, believe that it falls to them to start a world war. And why? So that the Mahdi will reveal himself and lead ALL OF ISLAM....not just the bad guys...to victory over the rest of the world. Iran is trying to build nukes, supports terror all over the world, and is trying to rule the entire ME.

 

Good enough reason to talk about the Mahdi?

 

Look, this can't be that hard to understand: I don't call these people Muslims. THEY call themselves Muslims. I didn't make up the name "The Islamic Brotherhood". THEY did. It doesn't matter what you or I or some panty-twisted apologist calls them: they are Muslims until Islamic clerics unite, and tell them "NO you aren't!". Declare a Fatwah. Do something. They are Muslims right up until the minute they pull the trigger, and then, their entire history of being Muslim is gone?

 

BS. They were a Muslim yesterday, and they are one today, and if they go pray to Allah and visit the Mosque....because no Mullah has the balls to kick them out...tomorrow, after setting off a bomb today? They are STILL Muslims. You know the only way they aren't Muslims?

 

You. You and/or their Mullah. It falls to you to kick them out your faith, publicly and permanently. Period.

 

There is a fatwah. Once again, refer to my other reply to you in the other thread. You'll find it there. BTW, I can call myself a billionaire, it doesn't mean I am one.

 

5. Much of the killing has been done for nothing, now that Obama has lost both wars, and Yemen, and Syria, and everywhere, by sounding the general retreat...for no reason. Iraq wouldn't be ISIS if we stayed. The entire world smells both ideological far-left weakness, and personal weakness, on Obama, and we live in world of wolves. This weakness? It means a lot more people are going to have to die.

 

Sorry, but that is the lesson from history. Weakness invites war. Weakness give people in Hamas and Hezbollah hope...that they might actually win, instead of giving up on violence == more die.

 

And, often the wrong people have been killed for the wrong reasons. I have written this before: our strategy in Iraq was stupid. We acted like it was WW2. We should have adopted a "castling" strategy. Slow and steady. Damn the press and the Democrats. Getting us a "quick victory", to keep them from bitching was militarily stupid, and therefore, politically stupid.

 

Blitzkrieg to Baghdad did nothing but challenge the authority of every clan/village/chief/elder behind us. So we ended up fighting about that, in addition to fighting terrorists and leftover Bathists. That's where most of the unnecessary casualties came from. We should have respected the local leaders, and asked them what they needed from us, and let them do their jobs: all politics is instantly local when you stop a dictator. Then, you get security, and, everybody gets time to be comfortable, and see it working. The guys in the next village can't wait for you to show up, because they want what the current guys are getting, etc., and they kill the bad guys for you, or at least drive them out, so you will show up.

 

That's the better way, isn't it? But, what's done is done.

 

Another interesting take. How about this one: WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Our reasons for being there were based on lies. Iraq was far better off with Saddam than it is now. You say we never should've left, I say we shouldn't have gone.

[B-Man]

Italian police have arrested 15 Muslim refugees after they murdered 12 Christians in their boat as they all fled Libya. The story of the murders broke yesterday afternoon, and CNN’s Ben Wederman provides the follow-up. Ten others rescued in another set of boats were also arrested for human trafficking:

 

Muslims who were among migrants trying to get from Libya to Italy in a boat this week threw 12 fellow passengers overboard — killing them — because the 12 were Christians, Italian police said Thursday.

 

Italian authorities have arrested 15 people on suspicion of murdering the Christians at sea, police in Palermo, Sicily, said.

The original group of 105 people left Libya on Tuesday in a rubber boat. Sometime during the trip north across the Mediterranean Sea, the alleged assailants — Muslims from the Ivory Coast, Mali and Senegal — threw the 12 overboard, police said.

 

 

 

They would have killed more, but the rest of the refugees linked themselves together to prevent it:

 

 

Other people on the voyage told police that they themselves were spared “because they strongly opposed the drowning attempt and formed a human chain,” Palermo police said.

 

 

It's a shame that the Senate Democrats continue to hold the Human Trafficking Bill hostage .......

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 19, 2015 by B-Man

[B-Man]

ISIL video purports to show killing of Ethiopian Christians

USA TODAY: April 19, 2015

 

A video purporting to show the killing of Ethiopian Christians by Islamic State-affiliated militants in Libya has been released online.

 

The 29-minute video appears to show militants holding two groups of captives, one by an affiliate in eastern Libya known as Barka Province and the other by the Fazzan Province, an affiliate in the south.

 

A masked fighter wielding a pistol says Christians must convert to Islam or pay a special tax prescribed by the Quran, before the captives in the south are shown being shot dead and the captives in the east are beheaded on a beach.

 

More at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/19/isil-ethiopian-christians/26026769/

 

.

Edited April 19, 2015 by B-Man

[Chef Jim]

US Government kills American citizen. Not sure which way to go on this. Discuss.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/world/adam-gadahn-al-qaeda/index.html

[IDBillzFan]

US Government kills American citizen. Not sure which way to go on this. Discuss.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/world/adam-gadahn-al-qaeda/index.html

 

No need for outrage. The president is a Democrat.

[OCinBuffalo]

US Government kills American citizen. Not sure which way to go on this. Discuss.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/world/adam-gadahn-al-qaeda/index.html

One way to go is the obvious violation of the Geneva Convention. IF these people were real soldiers with real officers, and they purposely used enemy POWs as human shields, that would be a war crime. POWs are supposed to be held in clearly denoted camps far away from any military target.

 

Therefore, we could use this to justify, once and for all, not only keeping GITMO open, since we need a place to store illegal combatants, and/or war criminals, as these guys have self-identified themselves to be, but also, that none of these Muslim combatants are entitled to any protections whatsoever. We should treat them like pirates: summary execution, and no rights if captured. The bottom line is we need a place to interrogate them, and we need a place to store them, where they are denied Constitutional protections....that is...unless idiots are included with "we".

 

The single hangup is American citizens, obviously. You don't give up your rights even when you commit treason.

 

I'd like to see an Amendment that allows Congress to divest someone of their citizenship. Then, the POTUS could drone strike them at will. Also, I'd like to see that Amendment expanded to all traitors and those found guilty of sedition. Send the Islamonuts to Gitmo, and send the Communists to Venezuela, never to be heard from again.