NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4823874.stm

He faces the death penalty since he was Muslim but became a Christian.

The trial judge said that if he reconverts to Islam then he will be forgiven, as he said that the religion of Islam was one of tolerance. However if he does not give up his beliefs he might face the death penalty. Kinda seems to be like the Judge needs to look at the definition for tolerance again in the dictionary. :rolleyes: He certainly also needs to rethink his ideas about Islam and what Allah would really want also.

Apparently reformists including Hamid Karzai want a more liberal, secular legal system, but its still difficult under the current legal system which is dominated by Sharia law.

It seems absurd that still around the world people face death for their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

I won't pretend that thing are anywhere near perfect in regard to religious matters in America or much of Europe, but I'm still thankful that at least our legal system does not have any such laws that can lead to a possible death penalty for religious beliefs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4823874.stm

He faces the death penalty since he was Muslim but became a Christian.

The trial judge said that if he reconverts to Islam then he will be forgiven, as he said that the religion of Islam was one of tolerance. However if he does not give up his beliefs he might face the death penalty. Kinda seems to be like the Judge needs to look at the definition for tolerance again in the dictionary. :rolleyes: He certainly also needs to rethink his ideas about Islam and what Allah would really want also.

Apparently reformists including Hamid Karzai want a more liberal, secular legal system, but its still difficult under the current legal system which is dominated by Sharia law.

It seems absurd that still around the world people face death for their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

I won't pretend that thing are anywhere near perfect in regard to religious matters in America or much of Europe, but I'm still thankful that at least our legal system does not have any such laws that can lead to a possible death penalty for religious beliefs.

That judge represents the nature of fundamentalist Muslims: Cruel, authoritative, and hypocritical. People have the right to believe what they wish. Islamic Fundamentalism has taken the place of fascism and Soviet Communism as "Top threat to humanity".

Aren't you glad we invaded? If we hadn't they'd still be governed by a fundamentalist-islamic regime with little respect for human rights.

Aren't you glad we invaded? If we hadn't they'd still be governed by a fundamentalist-islamic regime with little respect for human rights.

Truly, freedom is on the march!

That judge represents the nature of fundamentalist Muslims: Cruel, authoritative, and hypocritical. People have the right to believe what they wish. Islamic Fundamentalism has taken the place of fascism and Soviet Communism as "Top threat to humanity".
Personaly I see variations of this in all sorts of "Fundamentalism" to varying degrees.

Personaly I would say all Fundamentalism qualifys as the thread to humanity

Aren't you glad we invaded? If we hadn't they'd still be governed by a fundamentalist-islamic regime with little respect for human rights.
And yet another fine reason to leave that opium hub. They made their bed now they lie in it. We tried to give them freedom and teach tolerance, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

And yet another fine reason to leave that opium hub. They made their bed now they lie in it. We tried to give them freedom and teach tolerance, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Yeah most religions are slow to change to face reality.

It can be a bonus in some situations but usualy with the pace now it is a hinderance

Truly, freedom is on the march!
Yes, but notice how they never say if it's coming or going! :eek:

Yes, but notice how they never say if it's coming or going! :eek:

I nearly ruined my keyboard when I read this while drinking tea. :p

Truly, freedom is on the march!

Makes ya feel all squishy inside, don't it? Mmmm ... Freedom.

Truly, freedom is on the march!

It is, it's just a slow marcher.

It is, it's just a slow marcher.

They'd go a lot faster if they learned to bend their knees!

:D

They'd go a lot faster if they learned to bend their knees!

:D

Hmm. Liberals have been bending their knees to leftist dictators for most of the last century, maybe they could teach 'em a thing or two?

Hmm. Liberals have been bending their knees to leftist dictators for most of the last century, maybe they could teach 'em a thing or two?
Where the hell did you get that from?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4823874.stm

He faces the death penalty since he was Muslim but became a Christian.

The trial judge said that if he reconverts to Islam then he will be forgiven, as he said that the religion of Islam was one of tolerance. However if he does not give up his beliefs he might face the death penalty. Kinda seems to be like the Judge needs to look at the definition for tolerance again in the dictionary. :rolleyes: He certainly also needs to rethink his ideas about Islam and what Allah would really want also.

Apparently reformists including Hamid Karzai want a more liberal, secular legal system, but its still difficult under the current legal system which is dominated by Sharia law.

It seems absurd that still around the world people face death for their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

I won't pretend that thing are anywhere near perfect in regard to religious matters in America or much of Europe, but I'm still thankful that at least our legal system does not have any such laws that can lead to a possible death penalty for religious beliefs.
Islam means peace!! And tolerance. At least so I've been told.

I nearly ruined my keyboard when I read this while drinking tea. :p
Damn it! So close, yet so far away... And it was such a nice little plan I had devised too :D
My work here is done.

That judge represents the nature of fundamentalist Muslims: Cruel, authoritative, and hypocritical. People have the right to believe what they wish. Islamic Fundamentalism has taken the place of fascism and Soviet Communism as "Top threat to humanity".

RUN!!! Its the Communist-Islamist Radicals!!!

Where the hell did you get that from?

From the same place he and every other Bushevik get these silly ideas like "Bin Ladin and Hussein were tag team wrestling champions" and "Cutting taxes for the wealthy will help everyone." Out of their asses.

From the same place he and every other Bushevik get these silly ideas like "Bin Ladin and Hussein were tag team wrestling champions" and "Cutting taxes for the wealthy will help everyone." Out of their asses.
Heheh... Out of each other's asses, even.

The idiot knew what would happen to him if he converted. He could have just continued to do what most people do, fake it.

Good.

Aren't you glad we invaded? If we hadn't they'd still be governed by a fundamentalist-islamic regime with little respect for human rights.
Yeah, this is definitely progressing at a horribly slow speed. They've had four years to reform the law. NATO should send in more troops to suppress violent elements that are distracting the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

Islam means peace!! And tolerance. At least so I've been told.
Just because George W. Bush said it, doesn't make it true.

The punishment by death in the case of Apoatasy has been unanimously agreed on by all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence

Its not that fundimental apparantly

The idiot knew what would happen to him if he converted. He could have just continued to do what most people do, fake it.

One of the key principals of most religions is not to lie. Specificly not to lie about where you place your faith. Paul was an excellent example in the Christian faith

There are a number of reasons for the man's penalty (just to say beforehand, I don't feel that any of this is justified, nor right- this is just what is written in the Qu'ran):

-a basic tenet of Islam is that anyone not believing Allah is the only god, then they should die

-anyone converting from Islam should die

-on the political spectrum, there is no seperation of church and state in most of the Middle East, ergo what is in the Qu'ran is, for all intents and purposes, law

There are a number of reasons for the man's penalty (just to say beforehand, I don't feel that any of this is justified, nor right- this is just what is written in the Qu'ran):

-a basic tenet of Islam is that anyone not believing Allah is the only god, then they should die

-anyone converting from Islam should die

-on the political spectrum, there is no seperation of church and state in most of the Middle East, ergo what is in the Qu'ran is, for all intents and purposes, law
Here's the thing. I don't give a damn what the Qu'ran says. I give a damn about the Bible. If you want to care about the Qu'ran, fine, but don't shove it down my throat. Or kill a guy because he doesn't believe that stuff.

One of the key principals of most religions is not to lie. Specificly not to lie about where you place your faith. Paul was an excellent example in the Christian faith
Shouldn't you be happy for them then that he's going to die a martyr?

-a basic tenet of Islam is that anyone not believing Allah is the only god, then they should die


See this is confusingly debatable. One of the verses in the Quran discussing this says "kill them wherever you find them" (them being non believers) but the verse or so before says " Allah does not love the aggressors". It seems though the first verse I showed is a blank cheque for expansionism.

From the same place he and every other Bushevik get these silly ideas like "Bin Ladin and Hussein were tag team wrestling champions" and "Cutting taxes for the wealthy will help everyone." Out of their asses.

DAMMIT, you beat me to this answer!!! ::anger::

:P

-a basic tenet of Islam is that anyone not believing Allah is the only god, then they should die
That is wrong. It doesn't say anything like that. Indeed, it's got provisions for those who live in an Islamic state without being Muslims, and other than a special tax it says remarkably little.

And what about the Almohad Empire? Everyone lived there in peace and harmony (Muslims, Jews and Christians), while just a few kilometres north in Spain people were burned to death in their thousands.

Shouldn't you be happy for them then that he's going to die a martyr?

I would prefer him to live.

Chrisitianity does not have a concept of martyerdom in its doctrine that is comparable to Islam (as far as I am aware). I am proud of him for standing up for what he believes, and I am sad he will die for that but pleased he is being truthful to what he believes.

Here's the thing. I don't give a damn what the Qu'ran says. I give a damn about the Bible. If you want to care about the Qu'ran, fine, but don't shove it down my throat. Or kill a guy because he doesn't believe that stuff.

Mate, thats fine by me- I'm not a Muslim, nor would I ever want to be- I'm just stating that, in the minds of the accusers, they feel themselves justified.
I've done a very little about studying the Qu'ran and this is just what I've found to be true of the book.

I would prefer him to live.

Chrisitianity does not have a concept of martyerdom in its doctrine that is comparable to Islam (as far as I am aware). I am proud of him for standing up for what he believes, and I am sad he will die for that but pleased he is being truthful to what he believes.
Why would it have to compare to Islam for him to fulfill a martyr role for Christians (which he will undoubtedly do ... they seem to often like that sort of thing. Hell look at their main religious character)

I would prefer him to live.

Chrisitianity does not have a concept of martyerdom in its doctrine that is comparable to Islam (as far as I am aware). I am proud of him for standing up for what he believes, and I am sad he will die for that but pleased he is being truthful to what he believes.
Exactly. The whole point of Christianity is that Christ was the last matyr.

Exactly. The whole point of Christianity is that Christ was the last matyr.
I would say “ultimate” martyr rather then last. The way they often put forth the martyrdom of the apostles and such for their faith really contradicts him being the last (at least in the eyes of the people) .

Why would it have to compare to Islam for him to fulfill a martyr role for Christians (which he will undoubtedly do ... they seem to often like that sort of thing. Hell look at their main religious character)

I said they dont have martyerdom in their doctrine. IE there is nothing saying that it is good to die as a martyr or anything like that. Where as the Quran and the Hadiths have passages refering to rewards etc.

I said they dont have martyerdom in their doctrine. IE there is nothing saying that it is good to die as a martyr or anything like that. Where as the Quran and the Hadiths have passages refering to rewards etc.
But there are some pretty hefty endorcements for it

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Seems like a promice of reward to me

Exactly. The whole point of Christianity is that Christ was the last matyr.
You should note that the very term "martyr" originally referred to people who died for Christ, after Christ. I wonder...

You should note that the very term "martyr" originally referred to people who died for Christ, after Christ. I wonder...
Yeah when looking online I seemed to have found that too

Or at least closly associated with it

http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectid=2757BD94-2424-4A7F-A6F9CDCB999BA3D6&method=Display

But there are some pretty hefty endorcements for it

Seems like a promice of reward to me

I stand corrected.

However I think there is a differnece in how the Quran puts it forward. I think that difference is that the Bible says you have to be killed, not kill yourself. Also what with the lack of a equivlent of Jihad in the bible (IE a holy war clause. I am aware that there are wars in the Bible but there isnt a specific clause of when war is and is not justified) the idea of holy war isnt so focused upon. You look at the crusades for instance. No matter how about religion people think they are, the fact is the war was not about genocidally killing every Muslim they could find. And that is true of all wars involving religion. If someone truely wanted to fight a war on religious grounds the logic behind it would be to kill everyone who didnt subscribe to their particular religious beliefs. To my knowledge there have been very few wars like that.

What's really stupid about this, is that it could have been prevented. We let them incorporate Sharia into their constitution. Also, we should have forced them to accept the fact that there are apostates. But hey, let's undermine Democracy instead...

Oh and the ROP has struck again. This time a famous Indonesian boxer running a school decided that prayer could be held in Indonesian there as no one speaks Arabic. The result, he gets thrown in prison when a riot ensues.

Indonesian prayer dispute (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hatred20mar20,0,2363078.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

That is wrong. It doesn't say anything like that. Indeed, it's got provisions for those who live in an Islamic state without being Muslims, and other than a special tax it says remarkably little.
The provision for apostasy is death.

And what about the Almohad Empire? Everyone lived there in peace and harmony (Muslims, Jews and Christians), while just a few kilometres north in Spain people were burned to death in their thousands.
Almohads were a fundamentalist regime that drove out all Jews and Christians from North Africa....

A difference I'd like to point out:

Christian martyrdom: Die for your beliefs without harming others as you die or with anger and doubt.

Islamic martyrdom: Go into the nearest "infidel" city, strap explosives onto your chest, walk into the most crowded area you find, detonate your explosives, and kill yourself and the innocent civilians around you.

However I think there is a differnece in how the Quran puts it forward. I think that difference is that the Bible says you have to be killed, not kill yourself.

Islam has harsh words agains suicides. The suicide-bomber is apostasy.
If you wanna see suicide for one's own faith, check out Samson.

Also what with the lack of a equivlent of Jihad in the bible (IE a holy war clause. I am aware that there are wars in the Bible but there isnt a specific clause of when war is and is not justified) the idea of holy war isnt so focused upon.

What about when God told the Israelites that they were to battle and exterminate the Canaanites? What about Jericho? Or Goliath? Or Samson and the donkey's jaw?

Almohads were a fundamentalist regime that drove out all Jews and Christians from North Africa....
I think he meant to say Cordoba, which battled the Almohads btw. Also, Maimonides was external minister for the Cordoba Caliphate.

Islam has harsh words agains suicides. The suicide-bomber is apostasy.
If you wanna see suicide for one's own faith, check out Samson.



What about when God told the Israelites that they were to battle and exterminate the Canaanites? What about Jericho? Or Goliath? Or Samson and the donkey's jaw?
Did God say, attack them because they don't follow your beliefs or attack them because they are a threat to your people? If the Israelites had just set up their nation without removing rival nations, they would have been crushed.

A difference I'd like to point out:

Christian martyrdom: Die for your beliefs without harming others as you die or with anger and doubt.

Islamic martyrdom: Go into the nearest "infidel" city, strap explosives onto your chest, walk into the most crowded area you find, detonate your explosives, and kill yourself and the innocent civilians around you.
Your "analysis" is grotesque.

I stand corrected.

However I think there is a differnece in how the Quran puts it forward. I think that difference is that the Bible says you have to be killed, not kill yourself. Also what with the lack of a equivlent of Jihad in the bible (IE a holy war clause. I am aware that there are wars in the Bible but there isnt a specific clause of when war is and is not justified) the idea of holy war isnt so focused upon. You look at the crusades for instance. No matter how about religion people think they are, the fact is the war was not about genocidally killing every Muslim they could find. And that is true of all wars involving religion. If someone truely wanted to fight a war on religious grounds the logic behind it would be to kill everyone who didnt subscribe to their particular religious beliefs. To my knowledge there have been very few wars like that.
There are differences (that can and probably will be argued) but that does not really apply to this situation and Christianity using this as a martyr situation.

Did God say, attack them because they don't follow your beliefs or attack them because they are a threat to your people? If the Israelites had just set up their nation without removing rival nations, they would have been crushed.
God said: go in there and make yourself room, for you are my people. Consider that Joshua was the first leader in Palestine-proper, and was already waging war (with the Bible jubilating over the number of victims).
Didn't God make it clear what Christians should do to idolaters?

God said: go in there and make yourself room, for you are my people. Consider that Joshua was the first leader in Palestine-proper, and was already waging war (with the Bible jubilating over the number of victims).
Didn't God make it clear what Christians should do to idolaters?
But did He say, "Go in there and kill the rest because they don't believe in me?" No, He said, "Go in there and make room, because you are my people." He didn't say how, He didn't say to fight because He hated the other nations. He technically didn't order them to kill anyone. But that's the way they did it.

Christianity (eg. with jesus' face creamed on some kind of batter) + Cakemix + Oven = Christian Cake

So, to obtain Christianty simply subtract the oven and the cakemix from the finalized cake.

Your "analysis" is grotesque.
Yet apt.

The truth isn't always pretty.

Christianity (eg. with jesus' face creamed on some kind of batter) + Cakemix + Oven = Christian Cake

So, to obtain Christianty simply subtract the oven and the cakemix from the finalized cake.
Please, just go away, you're a crazy person, do you understand that? You speak like you come from a mental institution.

Please, just go away, you're a crazy person, do you understand that? You speak like you come from a mental institution.
Oh come now! A little light relief now and again never hurt anybody!Wittle barkers!

But did He say, "Go in there and kill the rest because they don't believe in me?" No, He said, "Go in there and make room, because you are my people." He didn't say how, He didn't say to fight because He hated the other nations. He technically didn't order them to kill anyone. But that's the way they did it.
Don't spin it. The Leviticus is filled with curses against idolatry. The people calls for the murder of idolatrers, and the destruction of their property.
God initially gave a blank check to his people, and then specified, through orders, what they were to do to non-believers.

What about when God told the Israelites that they were to battle and exterminate the Canaanites? What about Jericho? Or Goliath? Or Samson and the donkey's jaw?

Like I said, there are examples of war in the Bible. Many of them. But there is no Jihad style set of rules for what does and does not constitute a holy war.

Don't spin it. The Leviticus is filled with curses against idolatry. The people calls for the murder of idolatrers, and the destruction of their property.
God initially gave a blank check to his people, and then specified, through orders, what they were to do to non-believers.
But, as in many other religions, is it all meant to be literal? Also, remember at the time of the Old Testament, that was the "in-thing" for lack of a better term. Read the New Testament, I think you'll find it to be much different than the Old Testament. Remember, Christianity focuses more on the New Testament, not the Old, that's Judaism(Nothing against Judaism) I don't think good Christians practice the "Either you agree with me or I'll kill you" way, I think they practice what Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing."

Yet apt.

The truth isn't always pretty.
No, it's not remotely true.
Murder-suicide was introduced into Islam by the extermely small and heterodoxic Hashashins at Alamut, to fight both the crusaders and the Muslim emirs. It seeped into arguments on the Shia side, and was taken over by those born-mainstream Muslims who have a political agenda and little qualification to read dogmas. This happend as late as the 1980s!
Whereas the Christian version has allowed for very violent twists as well.

Oh come now! A little light relief now and again never hurt anybody!Wittle barkers!
Maybe so, but it doesn't mean you have the right to butt into a serious debate and say something that makes no sense. Its not funny, and it hurts you because people start to not take anything you say seriously.

No, it's not remotely true.
Murder-suicide was introduced into Islam by the extermely small and heterodoxic Hashashins at Alamut, to fight both the crusaders and the Muslim emirs. It seeped into arguments on the Shia side, and was taken over by those born-mainstream Muslims who have a political agenda and little qualification to read dogmas. This happend as late as the 1980s!
Whereas the Christian version has allowed for very violent twists as well.
Again, other than the Crusades, which were stupid and wrong(Which even the Catholic Church now says), has the Christian religion gone on a rampage to destroy everyone who doesn't follow what they say? I don't see almost any Christians beheading non-Christians and screaming, "Jesus be praised!"

Again, other than the Crusades, which were stupid and wrong(Which even the Catholic Church now says), has the Christian religion gone on a rampage to destroy everyone who doesn't follow what they say? I don't see almost any Christians beheading non-Christians and screaming, "Jesus be praised!"
Aside from some fundamentalists that is. But yes, Christianity is very different to what it was once.

No, it's not remotely true.
Murder-suicide was introduced into Islam by the extermely small and heterodoxic Hashashins at Alamut, to fight both the crusaders and the Muslim emirs. It seeped into arguments on the Shia side, and was taken over by those born-mainstream Muslims who have a political agenda and little qualification to read dogmas. This happend as late as the 1980s!
Whereas the Christian version has allowed for very violent twists as well.
Hashashin forbade committing suicide. they would brazenly walk up and kill a VIP and then the VIP's bodyguards would cut the Hashashin down. Suicidal, but not suicide. With that context in mind, Islamic Kharijites pioneered suicidal assassination, and that was the 7th century AD only a few years after Muhammad died. Furthrermore, if Hashashin were extreme heterodoxy, then Kharijites were extreme Sunni orthodoxy.

Like I said, there are examples of war in the Bible. Many of them. But there is no Jihad style set of rules for what does and does not constitute a holy war.

The LORD said to Moses, "Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor." (Numbers 25)

"[The Lord:] Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." (Numbers 31)

The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.(Numbers 31)

David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran. (Samuel 17)

David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage. (Samuel 18)

As soon as he began to reign, he killed Jeroboam's whole family. He did not leave Jeroboam anyone that breathed, but destroyed them all, according to the word of the LORD given through his servant Ahijah the Shilonite- because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and had caused Israel to commit, and because he provoked the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger. (1 Kings, 15)

etc etc

Your "analysis" is grotesque.
But pretty accurate.

Again, other than the Crusades, which were stupid and wrong(Which even the Catholic Church now says), has the Christian religion gone on a rampage to destroy everyone who doesn't follow what they say? I don't see almost any Christians beheading non-Christians and screaming, "Jesus be praised!"
Psst: Timmy McVeigh.
Also: all the Christain White Power terrorists, the Catholic Ustashe, the massacres brought by the 30 Years' War, the Black Hundreds in Russia and the Iron Guard in Romania, the Kataeb in Lebanon, Bosnia, etc etc. Put it in context, and you'll find terrorist Christians* to surpass Muslim ones in number (by sheer persistance in history). Sure, that says nothing of Christianity, but neither should "Islamic" terrorism say anything about Islam.

*by which I mean: people who acted in the name of what they considered Christianity

Hashashin forbade committing suicide. they would brazenly walk up and kill a VIP and then the VIP's bodyguards would cut the Hashashin down. Suicidal, but not suicide. With that context in mind, Islamic Kharijites pioneered suicidal assassination, and that was the 7th century AD only a few years after Muhammad died. Furthrermore, if Hashashin were extreme heterodoxy, then Kharijites were extreme Sunni orthodoxy.
Oh yeah, they were Sunni. :rolleyes:

Aren't you glad we invaded? If we hadn't they'd still be governed by a fundamentalist-islamic regime with little respect for human rights.

But there has been great progress made! See, he's on trial instead of being stoned in the street. SURELY that counts for something...right?

:p

Oh yeah, they were Sunni. :rolleyes:
Objectively speaking Kharijite doctrin is nearly identical to Sunni doctrine, except that Kharijites are much more willing to kill other Muslims. Kharijite terrorism has profoundly influenced Islamic military history to this day. Al Qaeda's religious doctrines and military practices are far closer to Kharijitism than to the Hashashins.

*snip-several examples of biblical battles*

Read my posts.

I havent denied that the Bible contains a lot of bloodshed. What I have denyied is the existance of a Jihad style doctrine regarding war. If you look in the Bible for a set of rules regarding when you should and should not go to war, you wont find anything. You will find examples of when Israel went to war yes, but not the kind of doctrine you find in the Quran.

Objectively speaking Kharijite doctrin is nearly identical to Sunni doctrine, except that Kharijites are much more willing to kill other Muslims. Kharijite terrorism has profoundly influenced Islamic military history to this day. Al Qaeda's religious doctrines and military practices are far closer to Kharijitism than to the Hashashins.
If they were Sunni, then I say that Gnosis is the real Christianity.
But, yes, you're right in a way: it must have had some presence in the extreme communities before a minority of Wahhabis and Shia took it over. But there's no evidence to say more than that.

Read my posts.

I havent denied that the Bible contains a lot of bloodshed. What I have denyied is the existance of a Jihad style doctrine regarding war. If you look in the Bible for a set of rules regarding when you should and should not go to war, you wont find anything. You will find examples of when Israel went to war yes, but not the kind of doctrine you find in the Quran.
Dude: the Lord ordered people to kill! I fail to see the "essential" nuance.
I'm sorry if I don't have the patience to look through all the Bible just to give you the instances where God tells people to kill idolaters. But you know they're there.

Psst: Timmy McVeigh.
Also: all the Christain White Power terrorists, the Catholic Ustashe, the massacres brought by the 30 Years' War, the Black Hundreds in Russia and the Iron Guard in Romania, the Kataeb in Lebanon, Bosnia, etc etc. Put it in context, and you'll find terrorist Christians* to surpass Muslim ones in number (by sheer persistance in history). Sure, that says nothing of Christianity, but neither should "Islamic" terrorism say anything about Islam.

*by which I mean: people who acted in the name of what they considered Christianity

Most of those wars you refernce were fought by Chrisitans as opposed to for Christianity. There is a significent diffrence. If I kill someone, and I am a Christian, that does not mean I am killing them in the name of Christianity. However, if I am killing someone and I say the reason I am killing them is because they have done "X" which according to me in Chrisitianty means you should die for it, then yes I am acting in the name of Chrisitianty.

Dude: the Lord ordered people to kill! I fail to see the "essential" nuance.
I'm sorry if I don't have the patience to look through all the Bible just to give you the instances where God tells people to kill idolaters. But you know they're there.

I agree. There are those instances. I didnt say there wernt. What I did say however is that he did not say "You must kill all idolitors, everywhere". Nor is there any kind of doctrine regarding war. There are accounts of battles and commands to go to war, but if you look into it there is no doctrine that says "X, Y and Z conditions of war makes it a holy war thus endorced by God" or something to that effect.

Most of those wars you refernce were fought by Chrisitans as opposed to for Christianity. There is a significent diffrence. If I kill someone, and I am a Christian, that does not mean I am killing them in the name of Christianity. However, if I am killing someone and I say the reason I am killing them is because they have done "X" which according to me in Chrisitianty means you should die for it, then yes I am acting in the name of Chrisitianty.
Oh, brother.
For how long have mainstream Christians argued for killing Jews because the Bible told them to (specifically Paul)? And infidels - isn't that what the Muslims where? Doesn't the Christan eschatology itself involve a final war (according to many)?
And, again, doesn't the Bible tell you to kill, whether you respect the requirement or not?

If they were Sunni, then I say that Gnosis is the real Christianity.
But, yes, you're right in a way: it must have had some presence in the extreme communities before a minority of Wahhabis and Shia took it over. But there's no evidence to say more than that.
I think you are looking for something akin to Ezekiel 9

1 Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, "Bring the guards of the city here, each with a weapon in his hand." 2 And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.

3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"

9 He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.' 10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done."

11 Then the man in linen with the writing kit at his side brought back word, saying, "I have done as you commanded."

Oh, brother.
For how long have mainstream Christians argued for killing Jews because the Bible told them to (specifically Paul)?

I'd be impressed if you could find a Bible verse that supports that.


And infidels - isn't that what the Muslims where?

Infidel basicly means non belivever


Doesn't the Christan eschatology itself involve a final war (according to many)?

Between hevean and hell


And, again, doesn't the Bible tell you to kill, whether you respect the requirement or not?

The Bible does not tell "me" to kill. It tells accounts of where the Israelites were told to kill. In the old testement also. Do you not know the significent difference between the old and new coveneant.

I agree. There are those instances. I didnt say there wernt. What I did say however is that he did not say "You must kill all idolitors, everywhere".

Neither does Islam. And, btw, all Muslim fundamentalists are going against the Quran when they argue that Christians and idolaters are the same (all provisions for killing, however they may apply, are aimed at non-Jews and non-Christians). That's why Usama needs to say that Americans aren't really Christian. Note that he has never attacked Christianity as a whole.

Nor is there any kind of doctrine regarding war. There are accounts of battles and commands to go to war, but if you look into it there is no doctrine that says "X, Y and Z conditions of war makes it a holy war thus endorced by God" or something to that effect.

Again, a martyr goes to heaven, and a war is called for when God commands one, or when you are attacked (identical to the requirement in the Quran).
I fail to see the difference.

If they were Sunni, then I say that Gnosis is the real Christianity.
But, yes, you're right in a way: it must have had some presence in the extreme communities before a minority of Wahhabis and Shia took it over. But there's no evidence to say more than that.
Have you ever taken a look at the Kharijite theological doctrines? Your analogies with Gnosis are wholly misinformed. If anything, the Shia have a flair for producing mystery cults and Gnostic tendencies. Kharijites take fundamentalist Islamic legalism to an extreme. It is impossible to point out major differences between Kharijite and Sunnii theology regarding the nature of Allah, the Koran, the Prophet, etc. The meat and potatos of Kharijite theology is wholly Islamic. Kharijitism is only distinguished by its extreme political and religious violence. What I'm saying is that suicidal reliigious murder has been part of Islam since its inception. I'm not saying that CHristianity is any better, but your notion that all the troubles began with Hasashin is totally incorrect, and ignores wholesale the definitive early period of Islam. All the historical evidence proves that Al Qaeda and violent Wahhabism sits squarely in the time-honored Muslim tradition of charismatic sheikhs preaching violent "purification" of the Ummah by killing non believers. We should never whitewash the worst Christian crimes, and neither should you whitewash the worst Islamic crimes. The only lesson to be learned is that people are assholes, no matter what sect or religion. 100 instances of Islamic toleration will be matched with 100 instances of Islamic violence, 100 instances of CHristian toleration, and 100 instances of Christian violence.

Also, Tim McVeigh did not kill in the name of religion.

Neither does Islam. And, btw, all Muslim fundamentalists are going against the Quran when they argue that Christians and idolaters are the same (all provisions for killing, however they may apply, are aimed at non-Jews and non-Christians). That's why Usama needs to say that Americans aren't really Christian. Note that he has never attacked Christianity as a whole.


The Quran has several verses advocating what I described. But they are somwhat contradictory. "Kill them where you find them" is preceded by "Allah loves not the agressors". It seems somewhat contradictory


Again, a martyr goes to heaven, and a war is called for when God commands one, or when you are attacked (identical to the requirement in the Quran).
I fail to see the difference.

The Qurans depictments of what is and isnt just war are far more complex than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam

Read this to see more

The Bible has refernce to wars fought where God has commanded it, but it does not have refernce to specific times when war is justified, unlike the Quran

I'd be impressed if you could find a Bible verse that supports that.


snip
Some relivilations tends to push that way

23. “4. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.”
- Revelation, 9/4

Though there are many examples of commands to kill thoes that do not Christian or Jewish

Here is another list I found ... double checked a large chunk so far seemes accurate dispite it being on evilbible the descriptions are simplifications rather then direct quotes

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

I'd be impressed if you could find a Bible verse that supports that.

On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying.
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. (Acts 13)

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. (Ephesians 2)

For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. (Titus 1)

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Romans 3)

I'm not saying that you oughta read these in a certain way: I am pointing out that Christians have for centuries, and many still do.

Infidel basicly means non belivever

Oh, man. Of course it does, doh - this was not about the etimology. I don't assume that Muslims would have been around in the time of the Bible! I want to point out that, according to Christianity, Muslims are infidels (reason why Muhammad is depicted in hell in an Italian fresco).

Between hevean and hell

The Bible does not tell "me" to kill. It tells accounts of where the Israelites were told to kill. In the old testement also. Do you not know the significent difference between the old and new coveneant.

I am constantly annoyed by this habit of telling people how they should read the Bible, assuming that the only Christianity around is shaped by the Bible Belt.
Look, every single word you used is interpreted differently by conflictual dogmas. You do not own Christianity, and you do not have responsabilities for it either. The world did not begin with Luther.

The Quran has several verses advocating what I described. But they are somwhat contradictory. "Kill them where you find them" is preceded by "Allah loves not the agressors". It seems somewhat contradictory

What does this have to do with anything?

The Qurans depictments of what is and isnt just war are far more complex than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam

Read this to see more

The Bible has refernce to wars fought where God has commanded it, but it does not have refernce to specific times when war is justified, unlike the Quran

Per UpwardThrust.

Have you ever taken a look at the Kharijite theological doctrines? Your analogies with Gnosis are wholly misinformed. If anything, the Shia have a flair for producing mystery cults and Gnostic tendencies. Kharijites take fundamentalist Islamic legalism to an extreme. It is impossible to point out major differences between Kharijite and Sunnii theology regarding the nature of Allah, the Koran, the Prophet, etc. The meat and potatos of Kharijite theology is wholly Islamic. Kharijitism is only distinguished by its extreme political and religious violence. What I'm saying is that suicidal reliigious murder has been part of Islam since its inception. I'm not saying that CHristianity is any better, but your notion that all the troubles began with Hasashin is totally incorrect, and ignores wholesale the definitive early period of Islam. All the historical evidence proves that Al Qaeda and violent Wahhabism sits squarely in the time-honored Muslim tradition of charismatic sheikhs preaching violent "purification" of the Ummah by killing non believers. We should never whitewash the worst Christian crimes, and neither should you whitewash the worst Islamic crimes. The only lesson to be learned is that people are assholes, no matter what sect or religion. 100 instances of Islamic toleration will be matched with 100 instances of Islamic violence, 100 instances of CHristian toleration, and 100 instances of Christian violence.

Also, Tim McVeigh did not kill in the name of religion.

My anology with the Gnosis was meant to point out something else. Not heterodoxy, but the simple fact that official Islam cannot be judged with arguments combating the very first thing to go against it! The Gnosis itself might have grown a branch that would have been perfectly similar to today's Christianity (Origenes might even provide us with an "almost real" case), but it still could not account for Christianity itself (or rather, any of its versions).
We do not disagree, as I have said, about violence going hand in hand with this or that religion - interpretations are available to all, and from the start. But, that is not to say religion itself is to blame.
About Tim Mc Veigh: he considered himself an associate of Christian Identity, and fought for a Christian America as he saw it. Sure, his vision was more complex than that, but it was this as well.

My anology with the Gnosis was meant to point out something else. Not heterodoxy, but the simple fact that official Islam cannot be judged with arguments combating the very first thing to go against it!
The Kharijites went against the proto-*Shia* political entity, the Ali Caliphate. THe Kharijite movement was never a major theological rebellion against official *Sunni* doctrines. Kharijtes and Sunni agree on basically every point, even though they mutually consider the other to be heretical. This mutual animosity is based solely on lingering bad blood. The only conspicuous difference between Sunni and Kharijites is that Kharijites espouse religious violence as a daily habit. In the grand Islamic dichotomy of Shiism and Sunnism, Kharijites are clearly very similar to Sunni. Just as to an objective observer, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are obviously closer theologically than either to Calvinism. But Catholics and Orthodox would not admit it, especially the Orthodox who consider everything outside their communion to be damned.


The Gnosis itself might have grown a branch that would have been perfectly similar to today's Christianity (Origenes might even provide us with an "almost real" case), but it still could not account for Christianity itself (or rather, any of its versions).
We do not disagree, as I have said, about violence going hand in hand with this or that religion - interpretations are available to all, and from the start. But, that is not to say religion itself is to blame.
About Tim Mc Veigh: he considered himself an associate of Christian Identity, and fought for a Christian America as he saw it. Sure, his vision was more complex than that, but it was this as well.
Tim McVeigh was barely religous and I've never read anything suggesting he was even remotely motivated by religion to perpetrate his terrorism. His worldview was a largely irrational, and secular, paranoia of the Federal Government. His ideal of America is a paleoconservative anarchic frontier woodland where paranoid conspiracy theorists like himself could live in the woods without any perceived interference from Big Brother. Furthremore McVeigh was Catholic and took Mass til his execution, but Christian Identity was rabidly anti-Catholic. Any connection between McVeig and Christian Identity would be an alliance of convenience, since the CI was also opposed to the Feds. Clearly McVeigh was not a religious fanatic, and the America he fought for was just a warped paranoid anarchic wilderness where anyone could live, whether Christian or not.

-snip-
There are things I would still disagree with in what you posted, but we agree on too many others for that to be necessary.

Fair enough.

Aren't you glad we invaded? If we hadn't they'd still be governed by a fundamentalist-islamic regime with little respect for human rights.

We? Unless you rolled in 2003, leave the 'we' out of it.

Afghan man could face death penalty for converting to Christianity.

... So?

Aren't you glad we invaded? If we hadn't they'd still be governed by a fundamentalist-islamic regime with little respect for human rights.
Just goes to show that you can't civilize savages, just make them fear you so that they'll leave you alone.

... So?

That's generally a 'bad' thing. I know you loathe all Muslims and the such, but those of us who actually don't fall for the xenophobic hate propaganda find that rather a bad thing.

That's generally a 'bad' thing. I know you loathe all Muslims and the such, but those of us who actually don't fall for the xenophobic hate propaganda find that rather a bad thing.

If people die, it's not my problem.

Well, he only converted from a really sick religion to a slightly less sick religion.
He should've better given up on this religion nonsense, then there would be no need to punish him :D

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

These ones are old covenant and are the laws of Israel. They wernt to be applied to countries. If you dont know about how the new covenant changed things, I suggest you research it.

Though there are many examples of commands to kill thoes that do not Christian or Jewish


Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

This is about what God will do to people who do not accept him. Not about people to people

Well, he only converted from a really sick religion to a slightly less sick religion.
He should've better given up on this religion nonsense, then there would be no need to punish him :D

Why is religion nonsesne?

Why is religion nonsesne?
It's nonsense because it's the worship of a being that can't be shown to exist, and the adoption of restrictive laws so as not to incur this being's anger. Kind of like the superstitious belief that if you "step on a crack you'll break your mother's back". There's no evidence that stepping on a crack on the sidewalk will have any effect on your mother, but some very superstitious people will step over them anyway.

If people die, it's not my problem.

Your attitude reminds me of the "First they came for..." poem. What a shame.

Your attitude reminds me of the "First they came for..." poem. What a shame.

It's not like what's happening to this guy affects me, or ever will.

Not all muslims are hate mongers. It just ires me that we are protecting the ones that are.

That judge represents the nature of fundamentalist Muslims: Cruel, authoritative, and hypocritical. People have the right to believe what they wish. Islamic Fundamentalism has taken the place of fascism and Soviet Communism as "Top threat to humanity".Religious Fundamentalism is the "Top threat to humanity".

Religious Fundamentalism is the "Top threat to humanity".

Anything fundamentalism is the top threat to humanity. Stopped, Chuck Norris must be.

Some relivilations tends to push that way



Though there are many examples of commands to kill thoes that do not Christian or Jewish

Here is another list I found ... double checked a large chunk so far seemes accurate dispite it being on evilbible the descriptions are simplifications rather then direct quotes

Revelation 9 refers to an attack by demonic locusts with scorpion's tails, not by Christians (there is a difference!)

1The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. 2When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. 3And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.

7The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. 9They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.

And once again, there is a difference between history and commandments, between showing what wars occurred, and giving commands that are in effect for the future.

Just for laughs, wouldn't it be fun to piss off fundies of every flavor by having the UN pass a resolution condemning any system of laws based on religion?

Just for laughs, wouldn't it be fun to piss off fundies of every flavor by having the UN pass a resolution condemning any system of laws based on religion?

Isn't that how WWII started? >_<

Isn't that how WWII started? >_<
I thought WWII started when Hitler got a craving for French wine and Polish kielbasa.

Isn't that how WWII started? >_<

Nope.

I thought WWII started when Hitler got a craving for French wine and Polish kielbasa.

And that's how WWIII will start. I want Dutch cheese and... French wine, not really... British food, heck no... Italian technology, oy vey!

Scrap WWIII, let's just annex Holland.

A difference I'd like to point out:

Christian martyrdom: Die for your beliefs without harming others as you die or with anger and doubt.

Islamic martyrdom: Go into the nearest "infidel" city, strap explosives onto your chest, walk into the most crowded area you find, detonate your explosives, and kill yourself and the innocent civilians around you.
Do posts like this serve a purpose or are you just venting anger and bigotry?

Again, other than the Crusades, which were stupid and wrong(Which even the Catholic Church now says), has the Christian religion gone on a rampage to destroy everyone who doesn't follow what they say? I don't see almost any Christians beheading non-Christians and screaming, "Jesus be praised!"
Why are conservatives always about proving that Christianity is better than Islam? I think that they're just trying to justify bigotry as every conservative in history has done.

I think both are troublesome religions. Fundamentalist Muslims are worse than Fundamentalist Christians, at the moment, but neither religion is inherently better or worse.

It's nonsense because it's the worship of a being that can't be shown to exist, and the adoption of restrictive laws so as not to incur this being's anger. Kind of like the superstitious belief that if you "step on a crack you'll break your mother's back". There's no evidence that stepping on a crack on the sidewalk will have any effect on your mother, but some very superstitious people will step over them anyway.

There are many and various philosophical proofs to God's existance. And the rules themselves make a great deal of sense in many cases, even non-religious peolpe can see that.

There are many and various philosophical proofs to God's existance. And the rules themselves make a great deal of sense in many cases, even non-religious peolpe can see that.
Philosophical proofs? Bullshit. One can use philosophy to prove atheism as well. If it can be used to prove two mutually exclusive things then where's the value in philosophical proofs?

Philosophical proofs? Bullshit. One can use philosophy to prove atheism as well. If it can be used to prove two mutually exclusive things then where's the value in philosophical proofs?

Well for example, logical absolutes. Many logical absolutes exist but their explanation cannot be explained by scientific analysis since they do not exist in the emperical sense. Logical absolutes such as

- Nothing can bring itself into existance
- Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time

Logical absolutes are purely conceptual. But the exist none the less. So the universe cant be purely physical

Well for example, logical absolutes. Many logical absolutes exist but their explanation cannot be explained by scientific analysis since they do not exist in the emperical sense. Logical absolutes such as

- Nothing can bring itself into existance
- Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time

Logical absolutes are purely conceptual. But the exist none the less.
As you've said. They're purely conceptual. A being who rewards the good and punishes the evil is not a concept, so I don't think your analogy works.

Anyway, this discussion started with you (at least I think it was you) asking why religion was absurd. I gave you the answer from my point of view. I'm sure you don't consider it absurd, and that's certainly your right, but those of us who don't agree with you are rather offended when laws are based on religion and especially in situations where people will be executed over this arguably absurd belief.

There are many and various philosophical proofs to God's existance. And the rules themselves make a great deal of sense in many cases, even non-religious peolpe can see that.

Can you give any examples?

As you've said. They're purely conceptual. A being who rewards the good and punishes the evil is not a concept, so I don't think your analogy works.


Its not an analogy. You see if conceptial things can exist then that means that it isnt only emperical things that exist. Thus it isnt just a purely physical universe.

- Nothing can bring itself into existance
- Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time

Logical absolutes are purely conceptual. But the exist none the less. So the universe cant be purely physical

granting for the sake of argument that those actually are 'logical absolutes', how does that conclusion follow?

Its not an analogy. You see if conceptial things can exist then that means that it isnt only emperical things that exist. Thus it isnt just a purely physical universe.
Conceptual things, like the example you used that something can't create itself, are mental descriptions of conditions in the physical universe. Equating the existence of god to them is pretty much saying that god is an idea. I'll grant that the idea or concept of god exists, but that's much different from an actual being called god.

It's nice to see that a US invasion leads to the construction of a successful, peaceful, Western democratic government.

I mean except Afghanistan.

Or Iraq.

Maybe next time though.

It's nice to see that a US invasion leads to the construction of a successful, peaceful, Western democratic government.

I mean except Afghanistan.

Or Iraq.

Maybe next time though.
Hopefully next time we'll have enough sense not to get into an Iraq situation again, and we'll just bomb the shit out of any nation that attacks us, causing maximum suffering and death, in order to make them fear us rather than try to rebuild and reform them as in Afghanistan.

Hopefully next time we'll have enough sense not to get into an Iraq situation again, and we'll just bomb the shit out of any nation that attacks us, causing maximum suffering and death, in order to make them fear us rather than try to rebuild and reform them as in Afghanistan.

Whoa, we were attacked by a nation? Which one?

Whoa, we were attacked by a nation? Which one?
Afghanistan's Al Quaeda foreign legion.

Afghanistan's Al Quaeda foreign legion.

Well if we were just attacked by another nation-state - and since the attack did include a military target, the Pentagon - doesn't that mean it's not Terrorism?

Well if we were just attacked by another nation-state - and since the attack did include a military target, the Pentagon - doesn't that mean it's not Terrorism?
Call it what you will, in hindsight I think we should have just wiped Afghanistan out, whether with conventional weapons or otherwise to make an example of them. Something along the lines of "This is what happens when you attack the USA".

Call it what you will, in hindsight I think we should have just wiped Afghanistan out, whether with conventional weapons or otherwise to make an example of them. Something along the lines of "This is what happens when you attack the USA".
Except they never attacked the USA.