Fitna

[OCinBuffalo]

Nah. Let's just kill us some more brown people. Eventually the ones we leave alone will get the message. I mean, who doesn't just shut up and color when someone in their family gets murdered by invading foriegners? I know I would.

Right since war has never been won based on intimidating the enemy into submission with guaranteed physical and/or economic harm. And apparently winning war isn't also about making the choice to just shut up and color infinitely more attractive to the enemy than taking up arms again.

 

War is a stupid device started by idiots that throughout history only achieves the stated goals about 30% of the time. The problem is: just like a bar fight, once you find yourself in a war, if you act like it's still time to talk and/or don't respond accordingly, you're gonna get f'ed up every time. They, and I don't mean "brown people", I mean Hamas, OBL and his crew, and certain Saudi princes who fund both, started this war in Somalia/the first Trade center attack, continued it with the Cole, and are fighting it right now. The question for us is: is anyone one still thinking we can talk our way out of it while the enemy is throwing punches? Anybody who thinks that is the case is either ignorant or delusional.

[Helmet_hair]

You mean because over history those religions haven't committed terrible atrocities in the name of their God?

 

The fact of the matter is ANY entity, if given such societal control, is going to create such people. Those guys have been brainwashed since they were old enough to understand anything (kinda like children of hardcore Democrats/Republicans, but I digress). Add to that the fact that there's little social mobility, opportunity, or hope in those societies, and you have a recipe to create people who ain't afraid to die for a cause BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO LIVE FOR.

 

Continuing to try and place blame on a single factor is retarded and VERY American. As if terrorism in human history started and ends with the Muslim religion.

 

(Thanks AD)

 

Oh, and read this: http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_atran.pdf

 

Pete: I wonder if NPR will post a link?

 

Boston: lolz

I don't want to understand it; I just want to kill it (radical Islam). Trying to understand the roots of radical Islam is like trying to understand why someone would rape a 6 month old child. You can’t make sense of something that makes no sense or rationalize the irrational. Some chalk it up to defective minds but I believe there are evil people in the world.

 

BTW, if I was to believe your premise “the fact that there's little social mobility, opportunity, or hope in those societies, and you have a recipe to create people who ain't afraid to die for a cause BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO LIVE FOR.” Then the Ethiopians should be the most blood thirsty group of people on earth. Right?

[Alaska Darin]

I don't want to understand it; I just want to kill it (radical Islam). Trying to understand the roots of radical Islam is like trying to understand why someone would rape a 6 month old child. You can’t make sense of something that makes no sense or rationalize the irrational. Some chalk it up to defective minds but I believe there are evil people in the world.

There certainly are evil people in the world. Your comparison isn't valid. One is a wiring problem. The other (generally) isn't.

BTW, if I was to believe your premise “the fact that there's little social mobility, opportunity, or hope in those societies, and you have a recipe to create people who ain't afraid to die for a cause BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO LIVE FOR.” Then the Ethiopians should be the most blood thirsty group of people on earth. Right?

The two situations aren't even close to equal.

 

There's a ton of irony between your two "points". There's little reason to waste time understanding something mostly because you obviously haven't.

[Helmet_hair]

There certainly are evil people in the world. Your comparison isn't valid. One is a wiring problem. The other (generally) isn't.

 

The two situations aren't even close to equal.

 

There's a ton of irony between your two "points". There's little reason to waste time understanding something mostly because you obviously haven't.

I disagree with you on my first point. On my second point you could replace word “Ethiopians” with about a hundred other deprived groups like the American Indians or the Australian Aborigines who had it much worse, yet I don’t see them blowing up buildings to get what they want do you?

[Booster4324]

I disagree with you on my first point. On my second point you could replace word “Ethiopians” with about a hundred other deprived groups like the American Indians or the Australian Aborigines who had it much worse, yet I don’t see them blowing up buildings to get what they want do you?

 

You are missing the manipulating religion bit.

[Alaska Darin]

I disagree with you on my first point.

And you'd be wrong. I love the comparison of an individual to a societal problem and your belief that somehow holds validity.

On my second point you could replace word “Ethiopians” with about a hundred other deprived groups like the American Indians or the Australian Aborigines who had it much worse, yet I don’t see them blowing up buildings to get what they want do you?

Nice, typically oversimplified response. Which one your "societies" even remotely resembles the ones that spawn the terrorists of today? Do the Aborigines have preschools that teach children military tactics, to hate specific people for their differences from the time they're able to process minimal information, etc?

 

Jesus Christ, try getting some information. There are about 100 different really good documentaries on terrorism and Middle Eastern countries available on Netflix. Try watching one or two.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think what Helmet is trying to say is: "There is no direct causation between poverty and/or oppression and terrorism" And, "There must be some other contributing factor besides poverty and oppression, in this case religion, for terrorism to occur".

 

I would add that when you have the Koran as a playbook, it's a hell of a lot easier to call the "behead the infidel" play, and get your brainwashed, fully bought in to Islam, economically and militarily oppressed, people to run the play.

[Andrew in CA]

Yes, of course, and of course. I unlike some here, always do the reading and get familiar with the material before I randomly post whatever comes into my head. I actually read the Koran in High School, as part of my G&T stuff. Before I give examples, please familiarize me with your knowledge of the Koran so I know how detailed I should be.

 

The key element I am pointing out is that clearly the life of Jesus = serve mankind the whole time, and the life of Mohammed = serve himself exclusively, gain power, suddenly have an epiphany, use that to form an army, use that army to conquer, later in life try to say that Islam is about peace, well, only an idiot couldn't see the difference between the two men. I assume you are not an idiot. Further, only an idiot can't see the difference between what I am saying and that "an ideology can contain elements of destruction and violence without actually advocating it". The fact that historical details and anecdotes are contained in the bible has ZERO bearing on the fact that there are entire sets of detailed instructions on how to kill, main, torture and subjugate non-believers in the Koran. Again, only an idiot cannot see the difference between the two things in terms of degree. Many, many Muslims believe in these rules and that's why we have documented evidence of "honor"(the worst bastardization of a word ever) killings in the thousands worldwide each year, even here in the USA.

 

So here's my questions for you: Is a father killing his daughters as in here an example of not following the rules clearly stated in the Koran? Or are you saying that even though the rules regarding honor killings exist in the Koran, in detail, somehow this guy wasn't following them, or following them properly? Incidentally, apparently the son in that article isn't aware of the time-tested axiom "if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, ...". Also, where is the similar example of those specific rules in the Bible?

 

Also, this is a matter of rule vs exception. Their points are based on finding a few exceptional quotes and phrases = cherry picking, and trying to use that as a basis of comparison. In contrast, the entire theme of the Koran is "us vs. them". Whole sections are devoted to the handling of non-believers as opposed to a couple of quotes here and there, cherry picked from the Old Testament. So, again, I am merely pointing out to them and you the sheer weakness of their argument.

 

I have apologized for my earlier screed. Perhaps saying sorry once is not enough for you? Ok, I'll do it again. What I posted was uncalled for and it actually detracted from what I was trying to say, and I am sorry. In all cases, I highly doubt I will be taking what you say as instructive any time soon.

Sorry I mistook you for a typical American that has not read the Koran. I didn't realize it was required high school reading. Look, I was criticizing your argument because you criticized others for bringing up Christianity twice and then used it in your own argument. On second thought, I probably should have stayed out of it seeing as how I hadn't contributed anything earlier, but I posted it, and there it is. To answer your questions:

 

-I read segments of the Koran in a Comparative Religions class in college, totaling about 50 pages or so. I don't claim to be an expert or have any intimate knowledge of the Koran. I asked if you have read it because I have had similar discussions with people that say the Koran is a violent text and have actually never read a passage. Usually, people shoot from the hip and just parrot someone else's opinion, on this board as well as elsewhere. If you have read it, go on. You have a solid foundation upon which you can base your argument.

 

-I didn't see the Koran mentioned in that story or anywhere in the story mention a verse in the Koran that this maniac used to justify it. They mentioned "honor killing," but didn't demonstrate it with a line from the Koran or a quote or note from him saying it was from the Koran. In fact, his family said it had nothing to do with Islam. I've not read the part of the Koran about honor killings, but apparently you have.

 

-Honestly, you haven't really pointed out the weakness of their argument to me. Again, I'm no scholar of the text, but the parts I have read have seemed in tune with the general tenets of respect, honor God, help the poor, etc. Maybe my professor was cherry-picking, it's a possibility. I'll have to read more of it to get a fuller understanding. I just disagree that the Koran has a "theme of us v. them."

 

-No need to apologize, and I wasn't calling on you to. I wasn't criticizing the tone of your argument, just the fact that you abandoned the whole "don't bring Christianity into this." It's a friggin online politics forum, everybody goes a little crazy sometimes- and sometimes it's more fun when you do. But I guess all this was moot, because you won't be taking anything I say as instructive. Damn, I thought I was going to be able to indoctrinate you to my personal opinions.

[In space no one can hear]

I think what Helmet is trying to say is: "There is no direct causation between poverty and/or oppression and terrorism" And, "There must be some other contributing factor besides poverty and oppression, in this case religion, for terrorism to occur".

 

I would add that when you have the Koran as a playbook, it's a hell of a lot easier to call the "behead the infidel" play, and get your brainwashed, fully bought in to Islam, economically and militarily oppressed, people to run the play.

 

 

 

Now the Koran is a playbook?

 

Let me tell you, The Bible has been one hell of a playbook for some horrific crimes against humanity throughout the ages.

[Chilly]

I think what Helmet is trying to say is: "There is no direct causation between poverty and/or oppression and terrorism"

 

Which would be correct, but the idea of hope and a culture of death plays a huge role in it.

 

And, "There must be some other contributing factor besides poverty and oppression, in this case religion, for terrorism to occur".

 

There are multiple other contributing factors, the largest of which are level of freedom in a society and occupation by a foreign entity.

 

Again I point to the material that I've already posted for you to read.

 

I would add that when you have the Koran as a playbook, it's a hell of a lot easier to call the "behead the infidel" play, and get your brainwashed, fully bought in to Islam, economically and militarily oppressed, people to run the play.

 

If you eliminate Islam, you eliminate a tool terrorists use, but you will NOT eliminate terrorism, they will find other ways to go about it.

[Chilly]

Nope. This is the fundamental concept you are missing: the instructions to kill/maim/torture believers and non-believers are clearly stated, in multiple ways, over and over, in the Koran. There is no where near the amount of rules, punishments, and pre-ordained judgments in the Bible. In an effort to quantify: for every 1 instruction that prescribes violent behavior in the Bible, there are around 50 in the Koran. This is not subject to interpretation and is a matter of fact.

 

Also: would you classify a father who kills his daughter for being too forward, as I posted above, a terrorist? I wouldn't, since a terrorist is generally about killing strangers for political purposes. How do you resolve the prescription for killing one's daughter, clearly stated rules, in the Koran? Moreover, when a man follows these rules as clearly detailed, in this country, this year, how do resolve that behavior as merely an interpretation?

 

No, I would not describe him as a terrorist, but a sadly misguided individual.

 

Sure there are definite causal differences for why one guy kills innocent people, as defined clearly in the Koran, and why one guy chooses not to. I would suggest that politics, economics, and culture all are significant factors. However, my point continues to be that the rules are stated clearly in the Koran that provide the nut every "justification" he needs to make the choices he does. There are nowhere near the same instructions in Christianity. Again, this is a matter of fact.

 

So, are most Muslims bad Muslims then to read the same information, but choose not to act upon it?

 

OBL and the rest of his tools have clearly stated their objective on multiple occasions: To establish an Islamic, theocratic, caliphate similar to where the borders were drawn around 1300 AD. In fact they want to control everything from Spain to Indonesia. That is what we are fighting against. The simple fact is that you cannot separate the religion from the political when your enemy is using the religion as justification and more importantly as a weapon itself. As long as they are choosing to bastardize Islam, that forces our hand to suppress, or at the very least keep in check, the spread of that weapon. We had to do the very same thing with Communism and Nazism, because our enemies were hiding their base grabs for power and wealth behind an "ideal" = "the only reason we have to kill people is that they don't subscribe to the ideal and therefore will do harm to us all". Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Idi Amin, all used that same "I'm fighting for an IDEAL, not personal gain" BS. In order win the wars of the 20th century, we had to separate those "believers" from the average joe, or cause the average joe to declare himself a "non-believer", and annihilate the nuts.

 

Lets assume for a second that you can equate the use of religion with the use of a political ideal (which I disagree with, but I digress), how the hell would you even do that?

 

I don't remember dismissing it. I do remember saying that terror in general fails miserably, so what does his analysis, valid as it may be, change about what I am saying? I think we agree that most of this is an vain attempt at grabbing power, hiding behind a religious "cause". IF that is the model that we use for determining what is strictly religiously motivated vs. what is motivated by religion AND OTHER THINGS, then sure, I bet that 3% is very accurate.

 

Again, I suggest you read it without making assumptions about it.

 

In all cases, this work does not detract from my basic point that Islam is clearly not the "religion of peace" to the degree it is being spun as, compared with other religions. It is clearly the least "peaceful" religion, save Satanism and Scientology, because of the rules contained in the book.

 

Depends on what time period you are looking at.

 

Clearly it has been stated over and over by every terror expert that if a guy wants to do a terrorist act, and is suicidally committed to it beyond all doubt, he has a decent chance to succeed.

 

Which is why it is a popular tool, but you can do multiple things to greatly decrease the chance of success.

[Chilly]

There is no defense for that brand of crazy. The only thing you can do is: go find the bastard on his ground and stop him there, at his house, before he gets here. That is not defense, that is offense. It's as simple as that. Diffuse means go get them, not try to stop them during the act or punish them after the fact. This is why this is a war and not the crime prevention activity Clinton characterized it as = you don't have to check with the Attorney General before you kill a guy, as Clinton did with OBL, if you are looking at this as a war. IF only he had looked at this as the war that had been declared on us since Somalia, things might have been better. But, it's not like anybody thought any differently than he did. I didn't see it for what it was, that's for sure. If I had, I might still be in the Army.

 

If you are trying to stop the use of terrorism as a tactic, doing such as full fledged invasions tends to morph their networks to be more decentralized and create more terrorists. While you may get the guy you went after, you have created more and smarter terrorists by doing so.

 

Yes, Clinton screwed up by not taking out OBL when he had a chance to.

 

 

Agreed. Instead of doing something useful, all we heard was "what did he know, when did he know it" quotes from Democrats over and over, which did nothing but provoke the overreaction that is now the Iraq war. In essence, it's pretty clear that in hindsight, the Bush administration was so unfairly vilified by the Democrats, who apparently had their reason and sensibility take a vacation after 9/11, that they went so far the other way as to have their reason and sensibility take a vacation. This is what happens when ideology is allowed to supplant common sense and reason. This is also what happens when you have the level of incompetence and/or bias, take your pick, that is rampant in the media today.

 

I was talking more about the media showing it over and over for days, instead of only covering it for small parts, to lessen its impact (similar to how the Israeli media works).

 

As long as we are fighting them on their ground, then yes. Look the Vietnam War was going terribly for the North, to the point that they were talking about quitting, and the Tet OFFENSIVE was basically their last hope. It worked because of one thing: They were fighting us on our ground for the first time--> the U.S. embassy and/or our bases that supposedly were impregnable. Once again, you don't win war on defense, ever. Edit: Before anybody brings up the Revolutionary War, please understand that we went on offense: Canada, the Iroquois, trapping Cornwallis, all the time. We took the ground the enemy was defending, and that's why we won.

 

Focusing WAY too much on me saying defensive strategies are MORE important than offensive. Please refer to the material I posted above.

 

Great question. I would say the latter. Why? Because terrorists come from the terrorism ideology. You aren't going to win until you kill the idea, and the masters of the idea, just like killing Hitler essentially killed the Nazi ideal, but getting Germans to openly state that they are not Nazis was what ultimately ended the conflict. There will always be a few nuts that remain, but they won't do anything because they know that their activity will gain nothing, once a large majority of the people have rejected their ideology as false.

 

Which you do by taking away the incentives for someone to use terrorism in the first place.

 

My problem with what you are posting is this: by that very definition, and since terrorist attacks continue, clearly the ideology is still supported by many Muslims. As such, clearly a large population of Muslims HAVE NOT rejected this Islamic Fascism ideal as false. As long as that remains to be the case, then those who do not publicly state and behave in a manner that demonstrates that rejection, must be looked at as enemies. Most importantly, as long as they derive their moral basis for support of terror from Islam, and not something else, then Islam is a weapon that must be neutralized. The trick is to get the reasonable Muslims to use their own book: in essence to use the very rules for non-believers against the terrorists, since they keep saying that terrorists are non-believers.

 

I covered the rest of this above.

 

Terrorism is NOT a "Islamic Facism ideal".

[OCinBuffalo]

Now the Koran is a playbook?

 

Let me tell you, The Bible has been one hell of a playbook for some horrific crimes against humanity throughout the ages.

Which AGAIN, has nothing to do with the premise of the original poster, or the fact that we are talking about the Koran here, terrorism here, and this century here.

 

If you want to do an historical analysis of the Bible's use for violence, for example in the 11th century, start your own thread!

 

What people did with the Bible 1000 years ago has nothing to do with what people are doing with the Koran TODAY. It's people like you who keep trying to equate the 2, that allow the terrorist's BS to propagate. IT's BS! That's all there is to it, utter crap, based on ridiculous argument that somehow what happened 8-900 years ago somehow matters today. Deal with it already. There is no justification for these terror attacks and the minute you realize that, you might just be able to start contributing something useful to the solution, or at least to the debate.

 

I guarantee you that talking about the Thirty Years War, or another ridiculous historical misuse of the Bible, offers absolutely no substantive counsel or basis for how to solve the problems that are in front of us. So please, quit wasting everyone's time. You are probably much smarter than this.

[erynthered]

Which AGAIN, has nothing to do with the premise of the original poster, or the fact that we are talking about the Koran here, terrorism here, and this century here.

 

If you want to do an historical analysis of the Bible's use for violence, for example in the 11th century, start your own thread!

 

What people did with the Bible 1000 years ago has nothing to do with what people are doing with the Koran TODAY. It's dopey people like you who keep trying to equate the 2, that allow the terrorist's BS to propagate. IT's BS! That's all there is to it, utter crap, based on ridiculous argument that somehow what happened 8-900 years ago somehow matters today. Deal with it already. There is no justification for these terror attacks and the minute you realize that, you might just be able to start contributing something useful to the solution, or at least to the debate.

 

I guarantee you that talking about the Thirty Years War, or another ridiculous historical misuse of the Bible, offers absolutely no substantive counsel or basis for how to solve the problems that are in front of us. So please, quit wasting everyone's time.

 

Thank you

[Chilly]

Which AGAIN, has nothing to do with the premise of the original poster, or the fact that we are talking about the Koran here, terrorism here, and this century here.

 

If you want to do an historical analysis of the Bible's use for violence, for example in the 11th century, start your own thread!

 

What people did with the Bible 1000 years ago has nothing to do with what people are doing with the Koran TODAY. It's people like you who keep trying to equate the 2, that allow the terrorist's BS to propagate. IT's BS! That's all there is to it, utter crap, based on ridiculous argument that somehow what happened 8-900 years ago somehow matters today. Deal with it already. There is no justification for these terror attacks and the minute you realize that, you might just be able to start contributing something useful to the solution, or at least to the debate.

 

I guarantee you that talking about the Thirty Years War, or another ridiculous historical misuse of the Bible, offers absolutely no substantive counsel or basis for how to solve the problems that are in front of us. So please, quit wasting everyone's time. You are probably much smarter than this.

 

It is relevant to show that religion, no matter which one, can and has been used as a justification of violence. This points to the problem not being one religion itself, but other influences and factors.

[Sketch Soland]

It is relevant to show that religion, no matter which one, can and has been used as a justification of violence. This points to the problem not being one religion itself, but other influences and factors.

 

One could also say that factors that are common to religion in general manifest in various ways through various religions, often producing violence in one sort or another due to dogmatic beliefs about the nature of the universe and who "holds the key(s) to the kingdom", so to speak.

 

Religion (as it has existed so far), in this day and age, is an anachronistic mode for modeling consciousness and the human experience of that consciousness in the universe. Single-valued logic that only allows binary formulation of experience limits one's ability to develop and transform new schema for modeling and understanding the universe. Why do humans feel the necessity to hold on to thousands of years old modeling systems that do not compute with our present day experience of the universe? They feel the need because these systems give a sense of continuity to life as well as a sense of purpose that, due to how the systems have been constructed and indoctrinated, states that there is some "essence" to life that is somehow the "ground" of all experience. Or, in other words, there's a "reason" why you're alive and why the universe does not comport to our religious modeling of it. But has anyone ever experienced an "essence" before? Has anyone ever located somewhere, something, or some time in the universe that is not a product of constant transformation?

 

Beware those that NEED to construct a universe that revolves around themselves or their religion. They are willing to go to any lengths to bring about the revelation and realization of what their religion dictates. Religion, because it instills "essence" into our experience, is so far the ultimate human justification for any action that one desires. When our models of the world do not comport with our experience of the world, how can there not be strife?

[K-9]

Now the Koran is a playbook?

 

Let me tell you, The Bible has been one hell of a playbook for some horrific crimes against humanity throughout the ages.

 

Stoning, anyone?

[Chilly]

Some good news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7339324.stm

 

al-Masri dead.

[erynthered]

Some good news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7339324.stm

 

al-Masri dead.

 

 

Looks like I'll have to buy him a Paver.

 

< Bishop Hedd>

[OCinBuffalo]

Sorry I mistook you for a typical American that has not read the Koran. I didn't realize it was required high school reading. Look, I was criticizing your argument because you criticized others for bringing up Christianity twice and then used it in your own argument. On second thought, I probably should have stayed out of it seeing as how I hadn't contributed anything earlier, but I posted it, and there it is. To answer your questions:

It's not required reading. I was referring to my Gifted and Talented class. For a while in high school I thought I might want to do foreign service, CIA, State something like that and G&T is all about doing things that are outside the curriculum. Yes I was a nerd, and no, I'm not trying to say I am smarter than anyone.

 

I didn't bring it up, I was responding to those who had, in a thread about Islamic Fascism. I did use Christianity in an effort to provide context and comparison to Islam, since it had already been brought up.

-I read segments of the Koran in a Comparative Religions class in college, totaling about 50 pages or so. I don't claim to be an expert or have any intimate knowledge of the Koran. I asked if you have read it because I have had similar discussions with people that say the Koran is a violent text and have actually never read a passage. Usually, people shoot from the hip and just parrot someone else's opinion, on this board as well as elsewhere. If you have read it, go on. You have a solid foundation upon which you can base your argument.

Thanks for the giving me your leave to proceed Is there any thing else his lordship requires?

-I didn't see the Koran mentioned in that story or anywhere in the story mention a verse in the Koran that this maniac used to justify it. They mentioned "honor killing," but didn't demonstrate it with a line from the Koran or a quote or note from him saying it was from the Koran. In fact, his family said it had nothing to do with Islam. I've not read the part of the Koran about honor killings, but apparently you have.

Again, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...it's probably a f'ing duck! Or Occam's Razor. Take your pick. To be as specific as I can be, there is a concept called a Hadd, similar but not the same to a capital crime, but Hadd includes the judgment AND the punishment. There is so such thing a judge ruling that they only cut off your pinky if cutting off your hand is the punishment. If this was a Muslim country, there would be no Liberals, since all of them that deny Allah or his laws/punishments(or even question them) are subject to Hadd, and therefore would be as good as dead. Liberals that argue for judicial restraint would have to be killed for going against the proscribed punishments set by Allah. In essence, there is no debate, you either are guilty or you aren't and if you are you get the punishment. Question the punishment and you die.

 

Adultery is a Hadd-punishable offense. In fact is specifically states that no judge can give the sentence of Hadd for adultery unless there are 4 witnesses. That's why when a woman gets raped, and nobody sees it or only 3 people see it, but somebody finds out she's not a virgin anymore, she goes to jail and the rapist walks. So the rules are what they are. The problem is that any Muslim can choose to say that there are 4 witnesses, and they can define adultery however they want. You take the worst of both conditions, and the fact that the punishment is always death, and bam, there's your justification for an honor killing, by the book.

 

The bottom line is: who is going to argue with their Imam about whether honor killings are ok in Islam, especially when doing so may cost you your life? And, the most telling thing is: you don't see Muslim Imams STOPPING people from honor killing, which is strange if they are supposedly following Islam, since there is no specific wording for honor killings, yet 5000 of them occur every year.

-Honestly, you haven't really pointed out the weakness of their argument to me. Again, I'm no scholar of the text, but the parts I have read have seemed in tune with the general tenets of respect, honor God, help the poor, etc. Maybe my professor was cherry-picking, it's a possibility. I'll have to read more of it to get a fuller understanding. I just disagree that the Koran has a "theme of us v. them."

Wait a college professor(80% of whom are Liberals) cherry picking is only a possibility? Um dude, more like a probability. Of course there are plenty of noble things in both the Bible and the Koran. That's not the point. The point is what is in the Koran that is not in the Bible? The point is that there is a hell of a lot of specific laws/punishments in the Koran that do not point to forgiveness, brotherhood, and letting God determine judgment, as in the entire theme of the New Testament, and instead point to revenge, killing one's own family, killing unbelievers, and man passing final judgment on his brother, as in the "us v them", "righteous v the sinner" theme of the Koran. That's the blatantly obvious difference. "Take care of the poor, as long as they are Muslim" vs. "anything you do unto my brother, you do unto me". Notice that there is no specification for Christians only in the second quote.

 

Don't you think there might be a problem with the class you took when it clearly missed this difference? Did they bother to tell you that Mohamed used a lot of the Bible to create the Koran? Did they tell you that supposedly Jesus and Moses visited Mohamed and told him that we didn't have it right, and that's why he needed to start Islam? Of course it wasn't because Mohamed wanted to invent a new religion and use it to conquer? Nah, of course not.

-No need to apologize, and I wasn't calling on you to. I wasn't criticizing the tone of your argument, just the fact that you abandoned the whole "don't bring Christianity into this." It's a friggin online politics forum, everybody goes a little crazy sometimes- and sometimes it's more fun when you do. But I guess all this was moot, because you won't be taking anything I say as instructive. Damn, I thought I was going to be able to indoctrinate you to my personal opinions.

Yep. And perhaps this is may be instructive: don't take a class in college and assume that you now know the difference between religions. All you did was show up 2-3 times a week and listen to somebody tell you their potentially biased interpretation of the difference. Moreover, they gave you only small parts of each book, and somehow you bought it that these small parts were indicative of the whole thing, "because they said so". Hey I did it too, we've probably all done it, the important thing is not to keep doing it.