NationStates Jolt Archive

or maybe its just a bunch of "hitlers" that manipulate the masses and get to the top... i can tell you for one thing that the women dont appreciate it, and that muslims arent all extrimsist FOR ALLAH!!!!!!!!! nuts...

And then people like you came along and negated all his good work, thus making his entire life a waste of time. Poor Jesus.

Heh? Murray I lost ya.

Well the Jews will tell you that they're not prepared to die and that JC was a prophet who got a bit ahead of himself.

The jews who still practice Judaism are blind and fools. Christ came already,m'kay? Moses Prophecied about Christ (Only one I can think of) and so did nearly every OT prophet. And EVERY SINGLE one was fulfilled in christ-never would a bone of his be broken, the virgin birth, etc.



The Muslims will tell you that JC was a prophet. That's two against one so JC loses by a majority decision. The muslims and christians both use the old testament. The three religions are Abrahamic, they all believe in Adam and Eve and all that stuff. They have more in common than any of the Hindu or Pantheist religions.

The problem with the muslims is that Christ wasn't a prophet, he was the Son of God. Mohammed had been influenced by Christianity and Judaism, which is evidenced by what he wrote. It's also notable that several early bablyonian cultures shared the same basic story of creation-one man/woman, flood, etc.

Heh? Murray I lost ya.
Yeah, I know. It was a point. You always miss those.

The opponents are also as ignorant as the prejudiced accuser.

*not a personal comment directed to you, this is a general one*

How many here have actually taken the damned Qur'an and read the suras for yourself? How many here know of the basic theology, the five pillars of Islam, the sunnah, the shariah, the events during Mohammed's lifetime, the events after his death, the Shia-Sunni split, the Abbasid, Ummayid caliphates, the Shiah Imamtes, Islamic schools like hanafi, hanbali, deobandi, barelvi, etc, writings of muslim thinkers..both islamist (Qutb, Maududi, Waliullah etc) and sufi types like Rumi etc, the concept of dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb

How many here even know that Islam expanded the most and owes a lot to Abu Bakr than Mohammed?

Nothing. All I see is accusations of apologism, paranoia, fear-mongering etc but nobody actually learns anything other than hardening their own ignorant positions.
All of what you say is undoubtedly true. However, in the context of my responses to the specific arguments being presented in this thread and similar ones, I don't really give a rat's ass about the tenets of Islam. I am not actually arguing about Islam at all. What I am interested in here is the attitude of bigotry and hostility that drives the kinds of condemnations and accusations being made against Islam and also the kinds of retaliations that these condemnations/accusations are supposed to justify. It's not that I'm so worried about the poor Muslims being targeted by these people. What I'm worried about is the damage these attitudes do to those who espouse them and to the countries they represent and even control -- countries with big giant militaries and the urge to use them, like the US. Is radical Islamist terrorism a current problem? Yes, it is. But I maintain that a paranoid, bigoted, militarized, warmongering United States is and will be a far greater problem. I cannot have an impact on what happens in Muslim nations. I have no place even trying. But I can have an impact on my own country, and if I can do anything at all towards stopping my country from turning itself into a bloodthirsty, jingoistic, bad-guy state, then I must do it. That is why I argue with these people. I'm here to expose and debunk them, not to defend Islam (because believe me, if it wasn't Muslims, we'd be arguing with these same people about somebody else).

How many here have actually taken the damned Qur'an and read the suras for yourself? How many here know of the basic theology, the five pillars of Islam, the sunnah, the shariah, the events during Mohammed's lifetime, the events after his death, the Shia-Sunni split, the Abbasid, Ummayid caliphates, the Shiah Imamtes, Islamic schools like hanafi, hanbali, deobandi, barelvi, etc, writings of muslim thinkers..both islamist (Qutb, Maududi, Waliullah etc) and sufi types like Rumi etc, the concept of dar-ul-islam and dar-ul-harb

How many here even know that Islam expanded the most and owes a lot to Abu Bakr than Mohammed?

Nothing. All I see is accusations of apologism, paranoia, fear-mongering etc but nobody actually learns anything other than hardening their own ignorant positions.
Hey! Read the sign! Knee-Jerk Reactions Only.
I actually am pretty familiar with most of the things you described (except the various islamic schools mentioned there, I don't think I've ever heard of them). Islam, like most any other religion, has been exploited by people and used as an excuse for war, injustice, and whatnot. And there are plenty of verses in the Quran which are quite contrary to the moral standards of our society, and which I disagree with.

And you can focus on the bad aspects all you want, but until the advent of the Wahabbist brand of Islam around the 18th century, it was really quite progressive as a whole-- just compare the scientific progress of the Islamic Empire to the degenerate Dark Ages of Europe. Most of our modern sciences take some of their most basic parts from the discoveries of Muslim scientists and mathematicians. The word "algebra" even comes from Arabic.

Know Your Saudi Allies. Nina Shea does us a tremendous service. She goes through Saudi Arabia's textbooks after they are "reformed" to eliminate bigotry and intolerance. And guess what. They are no less filled with hatred and bigotry than before. This is the Wahhabi state. And here is evidence of the Wahhabi ideology that they spread, using billions of Saudi oil money to do so. Is Saudi Arabia our ally? Or is it not indeed the bankroll behind terrorism around the world today?
Washington Post, May 21, 2006
This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)
By Nina Shea
Saudi Arabia's public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other "unbelievers." But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis -- that was all supposed to change.
A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' " Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message. "The kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials, and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education," he said on a recent speaking tour to several U.S. cities. "Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan." The Saudi government even took out a full-page ad in the New Republic last December to tout its success at "having modernized our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow." A year ago, an embassy spokesman declared: "We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths." The embassy is also distributing a 74-page review on curriculum reform to show that the textbooks have been moderated.
The problem is: These claims are not true.
A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government's statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the "polytheists" and "infidels").
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to "spread the faith."
Freedom House knows this because Ali al-Ahmed, a Saudi dissident who runs the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs , gave us a dozen of the current, purportedly cleaned-up Saudi Ministry of Education religion textbooks. The copies he obtained were not provided by the government, but by teachers, administrators and families with children in Saudi schools, who slipped them out one by one.
Some of our sources are Shiites and Sunnis from non-Wahhabi traditions -- people condemned as "polytheistic" or "deviant" or "bad" in these texts -- others are simply frustrated that these books do so little to prepare young students for the modern world.
We then had the texts translated separately by two independent, fluent Arabic speakers.
Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state's political ideology; it is also a key area of Saudi education in which students are taught the interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism (a movement founded 250 years ago by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) that is reflected in these textbooks.
Scholars estimate that within the Saudi public school curriculum, Islamic studies make up a quarter to a third of students' weekly classroom hours in lower and middle school, plus several hours each week in high school. Educators who question or dissent from the official interpretation of Islam can face severe reprisals. In November 2005, a Saudi teacher who made positive statements about Jews and the New Testament was fired and sentenced to 750 lashes and a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned after public and international protests.)
The Saudi public school system totals 25,000 schools, educating about 5 million students. In addition, Saudi Arabia runs academies in 19 world capitals, including one outside Washington in Fairfax County, that use some of these same religious texts.
Saudi Arabia also distributes its religion texts worldwide to numerous Islamic schools and madrassas that it does not directly operate. Undeterred by Wahhabism's historically fringe status, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world's authoritative voice on Islam -- a sort of "Vatican" for Islam, as several Saudi officials have stated-- and these textbooks are integral to this effort. As the report of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks observed, "Even in affluent countries, Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools are often the only Islamic schools" available.
Education is at the core of the debate over freedom in the Muslim world. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden understands this well; in a recent audiotape he railed against those who would "interfere with school curricula."
The passages below -- drawn from the same set of Saudi texts proudly cited in the new 74-page review of curriculum reform now being distributed by the Saudi Embassy -- are shaping the views of the next generation of Saudis and Muslims worldwide. Unchanged, they will only harden and deepen hatred, intolerance and violence toward other faiths and cultures. Is this what Riyadh calls reform?
religion@freedomhouse.org
FIRST GRADE
" Every religion other than Islam is false."
"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."
FOURTH GRADE
"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."
FIFTH GRADE
"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."
"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."
"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."
SIXTH GRADE
"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."
EIGHTH GRADE
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."
"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."
"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."



"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."



NINTH GRADE



"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."
"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."
"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."
TENTH GRADE
The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:
"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).
"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."
ELEVENTH GRADE
"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."
"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."
"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."
TWELFTH GRADE
"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."
Nina Shea is director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House.

Muravyets,

I understand where you are coming from, that is why I said that it is not a personal comment at you.:)

Anglachel and Anguirel
but until the advent of the Wahabbist brand of Islam around the 18th century, it was really quite progressive as a whole-- just compare the scientific progress of the Islamic Empire to the degenerate Dark Ages of Europe.

Not quite, although what you wrote is a very popular idea doing the rounds.

The progressiveness of Islam during medieval ages was more of an accident of geography (middle east;) ) than due to inherent scientific inquisitiveness in Islamic theology. In fact, it is quite the opposite, since the sunnah states that whatever a man needs to know is in the Qur'an and there is no need to look elsewhere.

The scientific progress was due to the inflow of ideas from the north Africa, Byzantine Europe, India and Persia into the Islamic empire and the thinkers of the conquered areas who were assumed to be muslims by their muslim names. They were tolerated since there was ijtehad (creative interpretation) practiced widely at that time and after Hukagu Khan sacked Baghdad, the doors of ijtehad were closed forever in the sunni world.

Know Your Saudi Allies. Nina Shea does us a tremendous service. She goes through Saudi Arabia's textbooks after they are "reformed" to eliminate bigotry and intolerance. And guess what. They are no less filled with hatred and bigotry than before. This is the Wahhabi state. And here is evidence of the Wahhabi ideology that they spread, using billions of Saudi oil money to do so. Is Saudi Arabia our ally? Or is it not indeed the bankroll behind terrorism around the world today?
Washington Post, May 21, 2006
This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)
By Nina Shea
Saudi Arabia's public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other "unbelievers." But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis -- that was all supposed to change.
A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' " Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message. "The kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials, and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education," he said on a recent speaking tour to several U.S. cities. "Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan." The Saudi government even took out a full-page ad in the New Republic last December to tout its success at "having modernized our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow." A year ago, an embassy spokesman declared: "We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths." The embassy is also distributing a 74-page review on curriculum reform to show that the textbooks have been moderated.
The problem is: These claims are not true.
A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government's statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the "polytheists" and "infidels").
This indoctrination begins in a first-grade text and is reinforced and expanded each year, culminating in a 12th-grade text instructing students that their religious obligation includes waging jihad against the infidel to "spread the faith."
Freedom House knows this because Ali al-Ahmed, a Saudi dissident who runs the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs , gave us a dozen of the current, purportedly cleaned-up Saudi Ministry of Education religion textbooks. The copies he obtained were not provided by the government, but by teachers, administrators and families with children in Saudi schools, who slipped them out one by one.
Some of our sources are Shiites and Sunnis from non-Wahhabi traditions -- people condemned as "polytheistic" or "deviant" or "bad" in these texts -- others are simply frustrated that these books do so little to prepare young students for the modern world.
We then had the texts translated separately by two independent, fluent Arabic speakers.
Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state's political ideology; it is also a key area of Saudi education in which students are taught the interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism (a movement founded 250 years ago by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab) that is reflected in these textbooks.
Scholars estimate that within the Saudi public school curriculum, Islamic studies make up a quarter to a third of students' weekly classroom hours in lower and middle school, plus several hours each week in high school. Educators who question or dissent from the official interpretation of Islam can face severe reprisals. In November 2005, a Saudi teacher who made positive statements about Jews and the New Testament was fired and sentenced to 750 lashes and a prison term. (He was eventually pardoned after public and international protests.)
The Saudi public school system totals 25,000 schools, educating about 5 million students. In addition, Saudi Arabia runs academies in 19 world capitals, including one outside Washington in Fairfax County, that use some of these same religious texts.
Saudi Arabia also distributes its religion texts worldwide to numerous Islamic schools and madrassas that it does not directly operate. Undeterred by Wahhabism's historically fringe status, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world's authoritative voice on Islam -- a sort of "Vatican" for Islam, as several Saudi officials have stated-- and these textbooks are integral to this effort. As the report of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks observed, "Even in affluent countries, Saudi-funded Wahhabi schools are often the only Islamic schools" available.
Education is at the core of the debate over freedom in the Muslim world. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden understands this well; in a recent audiotape he railed against those who would "interfere with school curricula."
The passages below -- drawn from the same set of Saudi texts proudly cited in the new 74-page review of curriculum reform now being distributed by the Saudi Embassy -- are shaping the views of the next generation of Saudis and Muslims worldwide. Unchanged, they will only harden and deepen hatred, intolerance and violence toward other faiths and cultures. Is this what Riyadh calls reform?
religion@freedomhouse.org
FIRST GRADE
" Every religion other than Islam is false."
"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."
FOURTH GRADE
"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."
FIFTH GRADE
"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."
"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."
"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."
SIXTH GRADE
"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."
EIGHTH GRADE
"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."
"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."
"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."



"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."



NINTH GRADE



"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."
"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."
"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."
TENTH GRADE
The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:
"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).
"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."
ELEVENTH GRADE
"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."
"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."
"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."
TWELFTH GRADE
"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."
Nina Shea is director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House.
what I would like to know, is if you have to highlight everything related with islam or middle eastern countries.

Smile when you say that, mister. Them's fightin' words. This is nothing but an internet forum where talk is cheap, but I assure you that, in real life, I view you and "the Islamic enemy" as one and the same -- a threat to me -- the same threat, in fact. If push comes to shove, I will not tolerate that threat, and I will do whatever is in my power to crush it -- you and them both. My vision of utopia includes you and bin Laden sharing the same prison cell for the rest of your lives. Have a nice day.

Color me impressed with your Voltairean stance in favor of Islamofascism. But please, take whatever action you deem necessary in defense of our enemies. You just add to an already target-rich environment.

If you think you're equally against both Islamofascists and those fighting against them and their evil creed, you're dreaming. If you think there're any significant numbers of your fellow Voltaireans in this world, you're on crack. And unfortunately for your dreams, neither I nor UBL will ever see the inside of a prison cell. In my case, because I will be one of the VICTORS in the coming battle, and in UBL's case because he'll be dead, dead, dead along with his henchmen, supporters, enablers and spiritual advisors. Have a nice day :p

In my case, because I will be one of the VICTORS in the coming battle,

Oh yeah, some victory: you sitting on your arse babbling nonsense about "Voltairians" and ranting against Islam online. Colour me impressed. ;)

Oh yeah, some victory: you sitting on your arse babbling nonsense about "Voltairians" and ranting against Islam online. Colour me impressed. ;)

OK, you're impressed.

If you can't recognize a philosophical allusion, that's your defect, not mine.

Wake up and smell the Sharia, mate. You're a target just like everyone else who doesn't slavishly follow that bloodthirsty 7th-century child-rapist. Just look at those "home-grown" Islamofascist traitors who tried blowing up the London subways. And remember Theo van Gogh.

Oh yeah, some victory: you sitting on your arse babbling nonsense about "Voltairians" and ranting against Islam online. Colour me impressed. ;)
:D Well done.

OK, you're impressed.

If you can't recognize a philosophical allusion, that's your defect, not mine.

Wake up and smell the Sharia, mate. You're a target just like everyone else who doesn't slavishly follow that bloodthirsty 7th-century child-rapist. Just look at those "home-grown" Islamofascist traitors who tried blowing up the London subways. And remember Theo van Gogh.
Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded.

OK, you're impressed.

If you can't recognize a philosophical allusion, that's your defect, not mine.

Wake up and smell the Sharia, mate. You're a target just like everyone else who doesn't slavishly follow that bloodthirsty 7th-century child-rapist. Just look at those "home-grown" Islamofascist traitors who tried blowing up the London subways. And remember Theo van Gogh.
I can recognize a philosophical allusion.

I can also recognize some dumbshit who took a philosophy class once and who resorts to arcane and irrelevant references when he doesn't have a legitimate argument to make.

And I can also recognize yet another lame-ass attempt to demonize an opponent by claiming that anyone who doesn't support Bush's policies and isn't a bigoted warmonger must be a supporter of terrorism. Another sign of no legitimate argument to make.

You lose, beyotch.*

*I translated that one from Goethe. Go look it up.

Wake up and smell the Sharia, mate. You're a target just like everyone else who doesn't slavishly follow that bloodthirsty 7th-century child-rapist. Just look at those "home-grown" Islamofascist traitors who tried blowing up the London subways. And remember Theo van Gogh.

Yeah. Appeal to fear, oversimplification, ellicit negative opinion - spare me the nazi propaganda, Goebbels. The fact that you hate Muslims is not qualitatively different from nazi hatred of Jews. It's the same old story - you need someone to hate, a scapegoat.

You are, in fact, no different from the terrorists you claim make up 100% of the Islamic population. Except of course you're just sitting on your arse and not doing anything about anything.

<snip> and in UBL's case because he'll be dead, dead, dead along with his henchmen, supporters, enablers and spiritual advisors. Have a nice day :p
Not just merely dead, but really most sincerely dead.

Im back:D, im not sure what your debating about specifically now, but I still stick by the fact that the teachings of islam are much more violent then most religions. This will influence a number of people to do violent acts, as well as that it has a much bigger tendancy to intervine in politics and fuck up the nation. I don't care what happened in the middle ages because that is irrelivant, theres no point complaining about something that doesn't exist anymore as if it does still exist.

Im back:D, im not sure what your debating about specifically now, but I still stick by the fact that the teachings of islam are much more violent then most religions. This will influence a number of people to do violent acts, as well as that it has a much bigger tendancy to intervine in politics and fuck up the nation. I don't care what happened in the middle ages because that is irrelivant, theres no point complaining about something that doesn't exist anymore as if it does still exist.
You should show courtesy and be cordial with each other, so that nobody should consider himself superior to another nor do him harm.

You should show courtesy and be cordial with each other, so that nobody should consider himself superior to another nor do him harm.

Since when did i considor myself superior to anyone? I said the teachings of Islam. I have no beef with muslims themselves.

You're right. Hating Islam isn't racism.




But it's still discrimination.

You argue for reason, yet you refuse to use it.

Saddening. :(

Since when did i considor myself superior to anyone? I said the teachings of Islam. I have no beef with muslims themselves.
Avoid cruelty and injustice, for, on the Day of Judgment, the same will turn into several darknesses; and guard yourselves against miserliness; for this has ruined nations who lived before you.

Avoid cruelty and injustice, for, on the Day of Judgment, the same will turn into several darknesses; and guard yourselves against miserliness; for this has ruined nations who lived before you.

I get it, your selectively quoting certain parts of the Quran.

I get it, your selectively quoting certain parts of the Quran.
Apparently it's not all terrible.

Apparently it's not all terrible.

Of course it's not all terrible. But there are sections.

I get it, your selectively quoting certain parts of the Quran.
Have you read the entire Quran?

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race. I dislike it because of the content.

*snip*


How is this different from any other monotheistic religion?

Have you read the entire Quran?

Nope. But ive seen quite a few violent parts of it.

Nope. But ive seen quite a few violent parts of it.
So, you've [B]selectively[B] read it?

So, you've [B]selectively[B] read it?

Yep, doesn't mean it's not violent.

Of course it's not all terrible. But there are sections.
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the Lord your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you.

Yep, doesn't mean it's not violent.
Doesn't mean it's all violent.

Gandhi, early in his life, supported India to join World War I. A small part of his life.

Doesn't mean he's all violent.

Doesn't mean it's all violent.

Gandhi, early in his life, supported India to join World War I. A small part of his life.

Doesn't mean he's all violent.

I agree with that.

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the Lord your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the Lord your God has given you.

Wow. That reminds me strongly of something else I'd read

What was it now...

Ah yes, the Christian sack of Jerusalem

It's so graphic as to be unpostable here, but a quick google will turn up all the gory details.

Personally, I believe that if the Shiites and the Sunnis will stop killing each other, Islam could be a rather peaceful religion. And in fact from what I’ve read, (I haven't read the Koran, but I’ve read about it) the book of Islam teaches many of the same principles that the New and Old testament teaches; but radical Islamic extremists such as saladin, (the king of Damascus during the second crusade) Zarqawi (I think I spelled it right) Bin-Laden, and the late ayatollah have warped it into, in parts of the world what it is today. Now I’m not saying that Islam is the only radical religion, (the crusades-need I say more?) but it is the main religion in contemporary times that violence is engulfing. Parts of Islam the world probably can't change, such as the lack of free dress with women, even if such themes are considered-in parts of the civilized world-morally wrong- such as the mentioned topic, but the main hatred of other religions by people who have been brainwashed by extremists can be reversed through education. Maybe not in a single generation, but hopefully so. And those who refuse to change and still believe Jihad is the only way of life will simply be removed from the picture. Take post WWII Germany for example. Yes parts of the German population remained extremist, but that was the vast minority. From what I have read and seen in documentaries, former members of the Hitler youth, the Wermacht, even the SS deeply regret what they took part in. and for those who wanted to re-instate the third Reich, their plans were foiled by allied military forces disarming the public. I mean we took every weapon except a bolt-action rifle and a pistol out of a household. That’s one of the things we need to do in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Think about it: does a family really need an RPG or a fully automatic AK-47 assault rifle to get food? NO. We need to disarm to stop insurgencies. Hell, that's what the British tried to do at Lexington, am I right? The only reason they didn't succeed was that our armies were more or less matched at that point in the revolution. However, that is not the case in Iraq. An AK-47 can't stop an M1-A1 tank. So, if we can educate the public and disarm them as well, we can easily win in both Iraq and Afghanistan, thus, creating allies in the Middle East who can help the world crush not Islam, but extremist Islam.

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race. I dislike it because of the content.

Islam means submission. I don't believe humans should submit to God as I believe in reason as opposed to blind faith. Muslims also believe Allah controls their destiny, such a deterministic view of life discourages individual responsibility and an idea I personally find very depressing. Such beliefs are common to many religions.

What is worrying however is the conviction with which muslims hold their beliefs. They believe Islam should permeate every aspect of society, making know distiction between church and state. As a result Islam is at odds with free speech, free religion and free dress.

The punishments set in Islamic countries are determined by what it says in the Qu'ran. Apparently because Allah spoke it word for word to Mohammed the book is infallible. Therefore Hadd crimes, such as adultery, are automatically punished with death.

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?

The Qu'ran also contains passages which could arguably sanction terrorism as part of Jihad, but as the vast majority of mainstream muslims do not interpret them such I won't. Mainstream muslims do, however, see the state as a vehicle for enforcing the will of Allah - and that is therefore open to criticism, just as most rational people criticise Christianity when it forces morals on others.

If Roman Catholics believed and took everything out of context from the Bible, then every married Catholic man that ever stared at a beautiful woman would be blind...because the bible states to gouge out your eyes if it keeps you from being tempted. At least in the United States, there is a division between church and state, but in Muslim countries, religion IS state....

Yeah. Appeal to fear, oversimplification, ellicit negative opinion - spare me the nazi propaganda, Goebbels. The fact that you hate Muslims is not qualitatively different from nazi hatred of Jews. It's the same old story - you need someone to hate, a scapegoat.

You are, in fact, no different from the terrorists you claim make up 100% of the Islamic population. Except of course you're just sitting on your arse and not doing anything about anything.

Oooh, he called me the N-word! Dang, I feel so ashamed now, I guess I'd better just shut up like a good little dhimmi! Funny how Nazi references always seem to work their way into any argument from the political left, Islamic apologists and/or Christian-haters.

Your pathetic attempt to equate opposition to the evil dogmas of Islam and the evil acts of its adherents with "nazi hatred of Jews" merely establishes your inability to address the issue at hand. Moreover, I am not aware of any Jews who flew airplanes into buildings, murdered helpless captives on camera in front of the whole world, blew up buses and pizza restaurants or slaughtered schoolgirls on their way to class, still less any who publicly praised the killers. Nazi hatred of Jews was factually without justification. Contempt on the part of civilized humanity for the evil teachings of Islam and the evil deeds of practitioners of Islam who proclaim that they are acting as Muslims, and who are supported by the utter silence of the overwhelming majority of their fellow cultists worldwide, and the desire to see the evil creed defeated if not finally eliminated, are fully justified by the foregoing and a plenitude of other facts. So your "Nazi" argument fails miserably, as do all such inanities emanating from self-loathing leftists and effete, decadent Euro-wimps who don't have the wit to defend their own civilization even if they had the testicular fortitude to try.

As for the "claim" that "100% of the Islamic population" are terrorists, you are again in error as I made no such claim. The actual percentage of active terrorists is not the important factor. The important factors are the prevalence of Islamofascist ideology within the greater Islamic population, the absence of meaningful opposition to Islamofascist ideology from the majority of the population in countries dominated by Islam (the protestations by a small percentage of Muslims now being allowed to reside in civilized nations where they do not constitute the majority are unimportant and discountable as, at best, uninfluential in the main sources of Islamofascism, namely Muslim-dominated nations, and, at worst, instances of taqiyya put forth to deceive unbelievers), and more generally, the evil teachings which are essential elements of Islam and which are not, have never been, and will never be renounced and repudiated by the masses in Islam-dominated nations and their spiritual leaders and teachers (again ignoring the statements of Muslims inhabiting civilized nations as uninfluential and/or dishonest).

When the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, not to mention Iran, renounce and repudiate the explicit teachings of the Koran and the Hadith, set forth above and elsewhere, which mandate so-called holy war, prohibit friendships with Jews and Christians, prescribe lying in ambush (i.e., terrorism), approve of violence against women, justify murdering people who leave the Islamic cult and convert to other religions, and speak approvingly of mutilating prisoners and letting them bleed to death, among other depraved and bloodthirsty injunctions with which Islamic scripture is replete, then MAYBE the world will be justified in tolerating the continued existence of Islam. When al-Azhar University proclaims that everyone has the right to change religions freely, for any reason or no reason; that women are fully equal human beings, can dress as they choose, and are not booty to be freely raped without even worrying about whether they are impregnated; that Sharia law is NEVER to be imposed on ANY society; then MAYBE there can be peace between Islam and civilized humanity. In other words, when Islam has a Protestant Reformation, then MAYBE Islam will be fit to join the rest of civilization.

Unfortunately that day will probably never come. Since the so-called revelation of the Koran is the "final" revelation to mankind, a "reformed" Islam will cease to be Islam.

And since you express interest about what I'm doing other than "sitting", be assured that I am taking steps, small as they might be, to help bring about the undermining and defeat of Islam, including: continuing study of the Koran and Hadith; encouraging others to do so and pointing out the manifold evil teachings present in said documents; refusing to patronize Muslim-owned businesses and encouraging others to do likewise; speaking out against the lies of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and other Muslim apologists; reminding people not to forget 9/11, especially those (like me) who knew people who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; and using less gasoline, so that less money ultiimately makes its way into the coffers of Muslim oil-states and ultimately into the bank accounts of al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist terrorist enterprises.

As for how I differ from Islamofascist terrorists, well, let's see--I know, I haven't cut anyone's head off on camera lately.

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/2006/r3443127481.jpg

(SNIP)

So in other words your solution is...

"Invade their country, kill their leaders, and forcibly convert them all to Christianity" - Ann Coulter

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/2006/r3443127481.jpg

http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/2006/20060617_north-dakota3.jpg

Wow. That reminds me strongly of something else I'd read

What was it now...

Ah yes, the Christian sack of Jerusalem

It's so graphic as to be unpostable here, but a quick google will turn up all the gory details.
That passage was from Deuteronomy, not the Koran.

And since you express interest about what I'm doing other than "sitting", be assured that I am taking steps, small as they might be, to help bring about the undermining and defeat of Islam, including: continuing study of the Koran and Hadith; encouraging others to do so and pointing out the manifold evil teachings present in said documents; refusing to patronize Muslim-owned businesses and encouraging others to do likewise; speaking out against the lies of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and other Muslim apologists; reminding people not to forget 9/11, especially those (like me) who knew people who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; and using less gasoline, so that less money ultiimately makes its way into the coffers of Muslim oil-states and ultimately into the bank accounts of al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist terrorist enterprises.

As for how I differ from Islamofascist terrorists, well, let's see--I know, I haven't cut anyone's head off on camera lately.

So you're boycotting businesses on race/religon alone....Sounds like rabid bigotry to me....

So you're boycotting businesses on race/religon alone....Sounds like rabid bigotry to me....

Wow, not just "bigotry" but "rabid bigotry"!

I guess you really don't have any thoughtful response to my arguments, so you decided to indulge in some good old PC name-calling. Well, guess what? It doesn't work. Nice try, though.

In case you never learned the difference, Muslims are not a "race." And if you think that opposition to Islam is mere dislike of a "religion", you haven't comprehended, or have willfully ignored, all of the reasons set forth in my and other posts for doing so. I will oppose any so-called religion whose practitioners actively wage war against me and my country in the name of their evil creed and do so without substantial opposition from the vast majority of their fellow cultists.

If the ancient Aztec religion were still being practiced, I would oppose it as well and refuse to patronize any business owned by a practicing Aztec pagan or anyone else whose creed included human sacrifice. I consider Islamofascists who slaughter helpless captives on camera to be practitioners of the equivalent of human sacrifice, and I take the absence of opposition to these outrages in Islam-dominated nations (not to mention positive support thereof) as evidence of approval.

Since you seem not to be open-minded on the subject but to have made up your mind regardless of the facts, I don't expect to change your mind. Others, however, have proven to be receptive to the facts and have opened their eyes to the true nature of the Islamic enemy.

Wow, not just "bigotry" but "rabid bigotry"!

I guess you really don't have any thoughtful response to my arguments, so you decided to indulge in some good old PC name-calling. Well, guess what? It doesn't work. Nice try, though.

In case you never learned the difference, Muslims are not a "race." And if you think that opposition to Islam is mere dislike of a "religion", you haven't comprehended, or have willfully ignored, all of the reasons set forth in my and other posts for doing so. I will oppose any so-called religion whose practitioners actively wage war against me and my country in the name of their evil creed and doing so without substantial opposition from the vast majority of their fellow cultists.

If the ancient Aztec religion were still being practiced, I would oppose it as well and refuse to patronize any business owned by a practicing Aztec pagan or anyone else whose creed included human sacrifice. I consider Islamofascists who slaughter helpless captives on camera to be practitioners of the equivalent of human sacrifice, and I take the absence of opposition to these outrages in Islam-dominated nations (not to mention positive support thereof) as evidence of approval.

Since you seem not to be open-minded on the subject but to have made up your mind regardless of the facts, I don't expect to change your mind. Others, however, have proven to be receptive to the facts and have opened their eyes to the true nature of the Islamic enemy.

Either that, or you don't really like couscous, and hate the taste of grilled lamb served with slices of fried eggplant.

So in other words your solution is...

"Invade their country, kill their leaders, and forcibly convert them all to Christianity" - Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter is a brilliant and profound thinker, if sometimes given to exaggeration.

BTW, the goals of Islam are substantially similar. The vast majority of believing Muslims support worldwide imposition of Sharia. The only difference is, some ostensibly support doing it "peacefully."

Either that, or you don't really like couscous, and hate the taste of grilled lamb served with slices of fried eggplant.

Actually I rather enjoy couscous and have cooked it myself many times. I also like lamb. Not so keen on eggplant, though, but I'll eat it if served :)

Replace Islam with any other religion and the same shit applies.
What about Daosim, Cunfucism, Bhuddism, Shinto, and Unitarianism not all religions are fire and brimstone.

Ann Coulter is a brilliant and profound thinker, if sometimes given to exaggeration.


You are a fucking moron.

Ann Coulter is a brilliant and profound thinker, if sometimes given to exaggeration.


You just want love...harsh love...isnt that it?

Will we ever find a cure for the terrible confusion between "good attention" and "bad attention"?

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race.
it's not racist; it's being a religious biggot which is as serious as being racist.

I dislike it because of the content.
i hope you have read the Qu'ran and not just talking out of ignorance.

Islam means submission. I don't believe humans should submit to God as I believe in reason as opposed to blind faith.
which religion that believes in a monotheistic God, does not 'demand' some level of submission towards God? (note: i said towards God, not toward His supposed human ministers)

Muslims also believe Allah controls their destiny, such a deterministic view of life discourages individual responsibility and an idea I personally find very depressing. Such beliefs are common to many religions.
er... well, how can you believe in God without believing God controls your destiny to a certain extent? controling the destiny of mankind doesn't mean controlling individual's destiny...

What is worrying however is the conviction with which muslims hold their beliefs.
ROFL... show me a true believer who isn't convinced about their beliefs... if they're not convinced, they're not true believers...

They believe Islam should permeate every aspect of society, making know distiction between church and state. As a result Islam is at odds with free speech, free religion and free dress.
ridiculous... you're talking about fundamentalists not muslims. in the past, jews, christians and muslims have lived in relative peace in the middle east.

The punishments set in Islamic countries are determined by what it says in the Qu'ran.
so were the punishments by the catholic inquisitions determined by the references in the book of revelation about "purification by fire". you have to remember that many people in islamic countries still live in the "middle ages".

Apparently because Allah spoke it word for word to Mohammed the book is infallible.
fundamentalist christians say the same about the bible...

Therefore Hadd crimes, such as adultery, are automatically punished with death.
i believe the old testament says the same...

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?
the left???? why are you bringing politics into a religious argument? you're showing a hidden agenda...

The Qu'ran also contains passages which could arguably sanction terrorism as part of Jihad, but as the vast majority of mainstream muslims do not interpret them such I won't.
why do you mention it then, if not to '(un)say' "it sanctions terrorism"? that's being subversive. also, can you give examples? as far as i've read the Qu'ran, Jihad is only allowed when your country is invaded and specifically says "children and women" should not be targeted. please provide me with some direct quotes from the Qu'ran, since i'm obviously not as well informed as you.

Mainstream muslims do, however, see the state as a vehicle for enforcing the will of Allah - and that is therefore open to criticism, just as most rational people criticise Christianity when it forces morals on others.
the US slogan is "in God we trust"... most western states are built upon christian values, so it's arguable that the state is also a tool to 'enforce' christian values to a certain extent... talk about being biased...

please stop throwing mud at islam at pick on the fundamentalists instead; regardless of them being islamic, christian, jewish, buddhist or hindus...

Oooh, he called me the N-word! Dang, I feel so ashamed now, I guess I'd better just shut up like a good little dhimmi! Funny how Nazi references always seem to work their way into any argument from the political left, Islamic apologists and/or Christian-haters.

Funny how nazi-esque Islam haters think anyone who opposes their radical hatred is a "political left, Islamic apologist and/or Christian-hater."

I'm surprised you haven't called me an untermensch or a race-traitor yet. I guess that would be too politically incorrect for you.

Your pathetic attempt to equate opposition to the evil dogmas of Islam and the evil acts of its adherents with "nazi hatred of Jews" merely establishes your inability to address the issue at hand. Moreover, I am not aware of any Jews who flew airplanes into buildings, murdered helpless captives on camera in front of the whole world, blew up buses and pizza restaurants or slaughtered schoolgirls on their way to class, still less any who publicly praised the killers. Nazi hatred of Jews was factually without justification.

Nonsense. The Jews undermined the German economy, declared war on Germany. Germans had every reason to hate them! As much as you have reason to hate all Muslims.

And when it comes to people like you, you practically masturbate with your indulgence of hatred. You LOVE it. If it wasn't Muslims, it'd be someone else. Your care for "helpless captives on camera" is fake and just an excuse for you to bang your gavel of hatred.

Contempt on the part of civilized humanity for the evil teachings of Islam

Blah blah blah blah

and the evil deeds of practitioners of Islam who proclaim that they are acting as Muslims

blah blah blah

So your "Nazi" argument fails miserably, as do all such inanities emanating from self-loathing leftists and effete, decadent Euro-wimps who don't have the wit to defend their own civilization even if they had the testicular fortitude to try.

Ooh! Busting out the big words now. "self-loathing leftists" and "effete, decadent Euro-wimps."

I bet you have an erection right now. Admit it. You do. This is cake and pie for you and your obvious enthusiasm is grotesquely disturbing.

As for the "claim" that "100% of the Islamic population" are terrorists, you are again in error as I made no such claim. The actual percentage of active terrorists is not the important factor.

Funny, you seemed to think the terrorist aspect was important when you whined and cried about flying planes into buildings. You can (understandably) hate them, but now you hate people who DIDN'T do that, who DIDN'T slaughter anyone on camera. Your only justification is that they didn't oppose such things enough to your satisfaction, visibly and in the major news press. In short you hate Muslims not for the terrorists, but because Islam as a whole doesn't have good enough PR capabilities to make you feel safe.

Awwwww. Poor baby.

The important factors are the prevalence of Islamofascist ideology within the greater Islamic population, the absence of meaningful opposition to Islamofascist ideology from the majority of the population in countries dominated by Islam (the protestations by a small percentage of Muslims now being allowed to reside in civilized nations where they do not constitute the majority are unimportant and discountable as, at best, uninfluential in the main sources of Islamofascism, namely Muslim-dominated nations, and, at worst, instances of taqiyya put forth to deceive unbelievers), and more generally, the evil teachings which are essential elements of Islam and which are not, have never been, and will never be renounced and repudiated by the masses in Islam-dominated nations and their spiritual leaders and teachers (again ignoring the statements of Muslims inhabiting civilized nations as uninfluential and/or dishonest).

Right. Ignore the Muslims in "civilized" nations because they don't conform to your theory of hatred. I guess ignorance and denial WILL suffice to justify, in your mind, your idiotic hatred.

When the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, not to mention Iran, renounce and repudiate the explicit teachings of the Koran and the Hadith,

Why should they? Just because you don't understand the Koran and you interpret it to support your own bigotry, it's the job of majorities of entire nations to prove you wrong by some sort of fucking publicity stunt?

set forth above and elsewhere, which mandate so-called holy war, prohibit friendships with Jews and Christians, prescribe lying in ambush (i.e., terrorism),

Oh please. Lying in ambush is terrorism? Interesting definition. I guess "hide and go seek" is a childrens game designed to train people to become fucking terrorists.

then MAYBE the world will be justified in tolerating the continued existence of Islam

News-flash - you are not the world.

What is justified to YOU, or not, is not what is justified to "the world," or not.

Jeez, not only a fucking nazi but an arrogant shit too.

when Islam has a Protestant Reformation, then MAYBE Islam will be fit to join the rest of civilization.

Good to know you're the arbiter of judging What's Right for Civilization. Shall I call you God?


And since you express interest about what I'm doing other than "sitting", be assured that I am taking steps, small as they might be, to help bring about the undermining and defeat of Islam, including: continuing study of the Koran and Hadith; encouraging others to do so and pointing out the manifold evil teachings present in said documents; refusing to patronize Muslim-owned businesses and encouraging others to do likewise; speaking out against the lies of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and other Muslim apologists; reminding people not to forget 9/11, especially those (like me) who knew people who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; and using less gasoline, so that less money ultiimately makes its way into the coffers of Muslim oil-states and ultimately into the bank accounts of al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist terrorist enterprises.


Ooh! Yeah, I don't see any of that as anything more than bigotry. But hey, if you want to feel like you're doing something for "victory," go right ahead. I'm sure Mamma New Mitanni is vewwy pwoud.


As for how I differ from Islamofascist terrorists, well, let's see--I know, I haven't cut anyone's head off on camera lately.

Yeah. But you'd love to. Or are you saying you would rather give mercy and understanding to terrorists?

Are you actually denying your obvious hatred?

It reeks in every word you manage to punch onto the keyboard. You can't even take being called out on your nazi bullshit without ranting about "leftists" or "euro-wimps" or "Christian-haters." You betray your own obvious rage and apparently, don't even know you do it. Too easy.

And since you express interest about what I'm doing other than "sitting", be assured that I am taking steps, small as they might be, to help bring about the undermining and defeat of Islam, including: continuing study of the Koran and Hadith; encouraging others to do so and pointing out the manifold evil teachings present in said documents; refusing to patronize Muslim-owned businesses and encouraging others to do likewise; speaking out against the lies of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and other Muslim apologists; reminding people not to forget 9/11, especially those (like me) who knew people who worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; and using less gasoline, so that less money ultiimately makes its way into the coffers of Muslim oil-states and ultimately into the bank accounts of al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist terrorist enterprises.
do you also warn people about the "evil teachings" in the bible?... do you remind people that muslims died in the WTC? by refusing to patron any muslim business (including those that are viable), are you not damaging your own economy and punishing their potentially non-muslim employees? by using less gasoline, are you not also damaging american shareholders of oil companies and american owners of gas station's franchisings? you sound as subversive as a nazi in the making... the only difference is that you decided to pick on muslims and throw them all in the same bag, instead of picking on jews (jews haven't been a race for hundreds of years, by the way). not all nazis were directly involved in the executions, but their support gave power to the executors (which makes them guilty as well), just as you are obviously actively doing. from the above paragraph i can only say you are ill and suffering from paranoid delusion; do the world a favour and go see a psychiatrist.

do you also warn people about the "evil teachings" in the bible?...

There are NO teachings in the New Testament (I'm not interested in Old Testament injunctions) that are in ANY way comparable to the bloodthirsty ravings of the Koran and Hadith. I dare you to name ONE example to the contrary. And don't bother with Matthew 10:34. "I came not to send peace, but a sword" by no means constitutes an incitement to violence, but refers to division within families over Christ's ministry.

Compare and contrast:
Jesus Christ: "When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:10-11)

Mohammed: "Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." (Buhkari Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas)

do you remind people that muslims died in the WTC?
Islamofascists murder their own daily. Just look at Iraq. When it comes to slaughtering unbelievers, they don't care if a few of their own get in the way as well.

by refusing to patron any muslim business (including those that are viable), are you not damaging your own economy and punishing their potentially non-muslim employees?

No, my money goes to other businesses and thus stays in America. As for their "potentially non-muslim employees," not my problem. They choose to work for the enemy, they earn the consequences of that choice.

by using less gasoline, are you not also damaging american shareholders of oil companies and american owners of gas station's franchisings?

Oil shareholders aren't my concern either. They're making huge profits as it is. And it's far more important to reduce American dependence on oil from Muslim oil-states than it is to ensure that Exxon corporate officers get $400 million compensation packages. Furthermore, reduced gasoline consumption is good for the environment and reduces global warming (so we're told).

you sound as subversive as a nazi in the making... the only difference is that you decided to pick on muslims and throw them all in the same bag, instead of picking on jews (jews haven't been a race for hundreds of years, by the way). not all nazis were directly involved in the executions, but their support gave power to the executors (which makes them guilty as well), just as you are obviously actively doing.

Thank you for confirming once again that Islamofascist apologists, leftists, America-haters and Christian-bashers just can't resist pulling out the N-word when all else fails and their arguments are revealed as specious. And your own words confirm my point: "not all nazis [read: MUSLIMS] were directly involved in the executions, but their support gave power to the executors (which makes them guilty as well)."

Re #301:

Two words: truth hurts.

Deal with it.

BTW: people like you remind me of Mr. Spock's suggestion that Dr. McCoy's engrams be impressed on a computer: "The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most stimulating" :p

Have a nice day.

There are NO teachings in the New Testament (I'm not interested in Old Testament injunctions) that are in ANY way comparable to the bloodthirsty ravings of the Koran and Hadith. I dare you to name ONE example to the contrary. And don't bother with Matthew 10:34. "I came not to send peace, but a sword" by no means constitutes an incitement to violence, but refers to division within families over Christ's ministry.



More bollocks. You cant just say "don't count the old Testament". All christian denominations I'm aware of still refer to it.

More bollocks. You cant just say "don't count the old Testament". All christian denominations I'm aware of still refer to it.

They may refer to it, but New Testament teachings supersede conflicting OT teachings. That's why it's the NEW Testament.

And I note that you haven't responded to my question. Perhaps it's because you can't?

and even the Jordan river, has bodies floatin....

They may refer to it, but New Testament teachings supersede conflicting OT teachings. That's why it's the NEW Testament.



Yet every time some white-toothed yank gets on his horse about the death penalty, how the light shines out Americas ass and why the Israelis "own" the occupied territories, its the old Testament they go to. Like flies to shite, as it were.

Yet every time some white-toothed yank gets on his horse about the death penalty, how the light shines out Americas ass and why the Israelis "own" the occupied territories, its the old Testament they go to. Like flies to shite, as it were.

Ah, still no response :)

For all those reading, presented for your musical enjoyment is one of my favorite spirituals:

NO HIDING PLACE

No hiding place (down here)
No hiding place
There's no hiding place
Down here
(No hiding place)
And they went to the rock to hide their face
But the rock cried out
No hiding place
There's no hiding place
Down here

And the sinners are gonna be running
At the knowledge of their fate
They'll run to the rocks and the mountains
But their prayers will be too late
They forgot about Jesus
Not knowing the end was nigh
At the end they'll try to find a hiding place
When it comes their time to die

No hiding place in the mountains
No hiding place in the waters
No hiding place
Down here
(No hiding place)
And they went to the rock to hide their face
But the rock cried out
No hiding place
There's no hiding place
Down here

well, I can think of one that I like!
The parable of the Many Murders.
Matthew 21:33-42, Mark 12:1-9
Matthew 21:38
'But when the tenants saw his son, they said to one anther, "This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance."'


Mark 12:8
'So they seized him and killed him.'
Matthew 21:40
'Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?'
Matthew 21:41
They said to him, 'He will kill those miserable men in some horrible way. Then he will lease the vineyard to other tenants.'
Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:9
Jesus said to them, 'He will come and destroy the tenants.

I love this one. However, the killing is justified!

well, I can think of one that I like!
The parable of the Many Murders.
Matthew 21:33-42, Mark 12:1-9
Matthew 21:38
'But when the tenants saw his son, they said to one anther, "This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance."'


Mark 12:8
'So they seized him and killed him.'
Matthew 21:40
'Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?'
Matthew 21:41
They said to him, 'He will kill those miserable men in some horrible way. Then he will lease the vineyard to other tenants.'
Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:9
Jesus said to them, 'He will come and destroy the tenants.

I love this one. However, the killing is justified!

If you read this text literally, you could well make the argument that Jesus approves of capital punishment for murderers and robbers (a reasonable position IMHO, but I digress). But I think that overlooks the fact that Jesus is presenting a parable here (Matthew 21:33: "Hear another parable: . . . ") and that His point is that God will deal harshly with those who reject Jesus and (eventually) put Him to death.

Still, a valid point. One could argue that approval of capital punishment includes an element of violence. If so, it then becomes a question of degree, and I maintain that the degree of violence and outright bloodthirstiness in the New Testament is insignificant at most, in comparison to that found in Islamic scripture and provides a clear basis for distinguishing between the two (and in my mind, for favoring one over the other).

One could also argue that passages like this one provided the basis for the charge of deicide against the Jews and a "justification" (wrong-headed, of course) for persecution of the Jews by Christians. All I can say to that is that the Catholic Church, at least, officially renounced the deicide charge in the early 1960's and has sought to make amends (however inadequate) and reconcile with the Jewish people ever since. Yet another example of a Christian reformation, the likes of which, sadly, are unlikely ever to be implemented by Islam.

I totally agree with you!
There is barely enough bloodshed in the NT
to cover one passage! But in Islam its
almost all behead the unbelivers, and kill
the infadel.

There are NO teachings in the New Testament (I'm not interested in Old Testament injunctions) that are in ANY way comparable to the bloodthirsty ravings of the Koran and Hadith. I dare you to name ONE example to the contrary. And don't bother with Matthew 10:34. "I came not to send peace, but a sword" by no means constitutes an incitement to violence, but refers to division within families over Christ's ministry.
you pick those bits in religious scriptures that suit your arguments best, isn't it? just like the inquisitors did and islamic fundamentalists do...
Islamofascists murder their own daily. Just look at Iraq. When it comes to slaughtering unbelievers, they don't care if a few of their own get in the way as well.
and no "christian" does? please...

TIME: Do you believe in God?

MCVEIGH: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.
No, my money goes to other businesses and thus stays in America. As for their "potentially non-muslim employees," not my problem. They choose to work for the enemy, they earn the consequences of that choice.
"work for the enemy"... you spit hate in every word, you are worse than a poisonous snake. didn't Jesus say "love your enemy"? and don't say "you shouldn't read that literally", because Jesus spoke very clearly.
Oil shareholders aren't my concern either. They're making huge profits as it is. And it's far more important to reduce American dependence on oil from Muslim oil-states than it is to ensure that Exxon corporate officers get $400 million compensation packages. Furthermore, reduced gasoline consumption is good for the environment and reduces global warming (so we're told).
that was not your initial argument, so don't try spin-doctoring what you previously said about using less oil because you didn't want you money to end in arab hands.
Thank you for confirming once again that Islamofascist apologists, leftists, America-haters and Christian-bashers just can't resist pulling out the N-word when all else fails and their arguments are revealed as specious.
unfortunately for you, i don't fall in any of theose labels. i'm sorry but it's a fact; you're no better than a nazi (call it right-wing extremists if your prefer) or a left-wing extremist. you spit hate like every one of them... you are equal to them, no better or worse.
And your own words confirm my point: "not all nazis [read: MUSLIMS] were directly involved in the executions, but their support gave power to the executors (which makes them guilty as well)."
you are so blind by your own poison that you don't realise how evil you are.

there is obviously very little point arguing with someone so full of hate as you are. you are exactly from the same bag of the islamofascists; you are a christianfascist. you think you are a christian but you are as far from God as Satan is. by branding innocent islamic people equal to islamic fundamentalists, you are talking just like "islamofascists". woe to you and woe to them.

yeah, uh.....hmmmmm
how many fundamentalist Christians blew themselves up in a Mosque, Church, open air market, bus, etc. recently?
How many fundi christians beheaded a Jewish person or Islamic person, or even another Christian in the name of God?
How many muslims and Jews are being slaughtered by fundamentalist Christians?
Answer me if you can Assis.

Ah, still no response :)

For all those reading, presented for your musical enjoyment is one of my favorite spirituals:


Its known to be hard to score when the Goalposts move so frequently.

By the way, what would your Jesus say about your blanket treatment of muslims?

yeah, uh.....hmmmmm
how many fundamentalist Christians blew themselves up in a Mosque, Church, open air market, bus, etc. recently?
How many fundi christians beheaded a Jewish person or Islamic person, or even another Christian in the name of God?
How many muslims and Jews are being slaughtered by fundamentalist Christians?
Answer me if you can Assis.

George Bush - Xtian - 30,000 plus dead in Iraq.

R Reagan - xtian - hundreds of thousands dead in Latin America...

yeah, uh.....hmmmmm
how many fundamentalist Christians blew themselves up in a Mosque, Church, open air market, bus, etc. recently?
How many fundi christians beheaded a Jewish person or Islamic person, or even another Christian in the name of God?
How many muslims and Jews are being slaughtered by fundamentalist Christians?
Answer me if you can Assis.
How many innocent people have been blown up in the middle east at the hand of "coalition christians" or as a result of "christian" Bush's orders? i've stopped counting...

Its known to be hard to score when the Goalposts move so frequently.

By the way, what would your Jesus say about your blanket treatment of muslims?
he would despise it... i would put my hands in the fire for that one.

George Bush - Xtian - 30,000 plus dead in Iraq.

R Reagan - xtian - hundreds of thousands dead in Latin America...
those don't count, in the eyes of a fundamentalist christian of course.

George Bush - Xtian - 30,000 plus dead in Iraq.

R Reagan - xtian - hundreds of thousands dead in Latin America...

ROFLMAO!!!!
I'm sorry, (heheheh) hooo... wow! um, I almost choked myself to death with laughter there for a moment! lol! lol! lol!!

Ok, now how should approach this?
Oh, I know.
First, since when does the faith of the leader have any impact on war? I do not ever seem to recall hearing Bush or Regan say this is a Holy War against the enemy. I dont recall seeing Army recruiters at my Church for the Army of God to go and kill Muslims and Latin Americans.
Second, you failed to answer my question, by providing the funniest damn response ever. Just because they are both christians, doesnt mean they are waging a "holy War"! Damn! what the hell are you smoking????

How many innocent people have been blown up in the middle east at the hand of "coalition christians" or as a result of "christian" Bush's orders? i've stopped counting...

Once again....
How many of the soldiers are Christian?
Then again, are they killing in the name of God? Are they taking out school children from school buses and slaughterng them in the name of God?
My God are you twisted!

By your definition, every US soldier has a Crucifix sown onto his or her uniform, prclaiming allegance to God and the Holy Bible?
What planet are you from??

How many innocent people have been blown up in the middle east at the hand of "coalition christians" or as a result of "christian" Bush's orders? i've stopped counting...

Its amaizing your ignorance of reality.
You claim the Christian religon is waging these wars against the Muslims. BULLSHIT!!!! No, only one man is doing this, Bush. If you hate him so damn much, good. But dont you dare say that the Christians stareted this war and are waging it against the poor Muslims. What about the mass murder in Darfur, Sudan? Who is killing who? Muslims are slaughtering Christians. How blind are you?

Its known to be hard to score when the Goalposts move so frequently.

By the way, what would your Jesus say about your blanket treatment of muslims?

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." Matthew 25:11.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15-20.

Surely Christ had Islam, Mohammed and the deluded followers of the false prophet in mind when He spoke these words.

Once again....
How many of the soldiers are Christian?
Then again, are they killing in the name of God? Are they taking out school children from school buses and slaughterng them in the name of God?
My God are you twisted!
the values that american soldiers are defending are supposedly "christian" (the US is built on christian values), just like the values of islamic fundamentalists are supposedly "islamic". of course none of them are true. Jesus would despise the US government as much as he would despise the islamic fundamentalists, if he came back now. the US would probably just "crucify" him again, for not defending them. you turn a blind eye to all the innocent killings, just like the terrorists do. you are the twisted one, my friend...

By your definition, every US soldier has a Crucifix sown onto his or her uniform, prclaiming allegance to God and the Holy Bible?
What planet are you from??
which book do you swear upon, when you're in a US court?

Its amaizing your ignorance of reality.
You claim the Christian religon is waging these wars against the Muslims. BULLSHIT!!!! No, only one man is doing this, Bush. If you hate him so damn much, good. But dont you dare say that the Christians stareted this war and are waging it against the poor Muslims. What about the mass murder in Darfur, Sudan? Who is killing who? Muslims are slaughtering Christians. How blind are you?

He's willfully blind, obviously. He's caught up in the politically correct world of "non-judgmentalism". Just like so many others in the Western world who refuse to wake up and smell the Sharia. One of their problems is, they are convinced that Western civilization in general and the US in particular are bad, bad, bad, and so any and all enemies of Western civilization and the US must be good, good, good and thus immune from criticism. Another of their problems is their complete lack of a moral compass. Moral relativism is their only guide, and that's no guide at all.

Its amaizing your ignorance of reality.
You claim the Christian religon is waging these wars against the Muslims. BULLSHIT!!!! No, only one man is doing this, Bush. If you hate him so damn much, good. But dont you dare say that the Christians stareted this war and are waging it against the poor Muslims. What about the mass murder in Darfur, Sudan? Who is killing who? Muslims are slaughtering Christians. How blind are you?
no, i don't claim that christians are waging this war, because true christians don't wage wars. hence why i used "" when referring to them. they say they are "christians" and men of peace...

Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15-20.
sounds like Mr. Bush is heading to fire then...

He's willfully blind, obviously. He's caught up in the politically correct world of "non-judgmentalism". Just like so many others in the Western world who refuse to wake up and smell the Sharia. One of their problems is, they are convinced that Western civilization in general and the US in particular are bad, bad, bad, and so any and all enemies of Western civilization and the US must be good, good, good and thus immune from criticism. Another of their problems is their complete lack of a moral compass. Moral relativism is their only guide, and that's no guide at all.
"non-judgmentalism" is the basis of christianity, for Jesus himself said "do not judge lest you'll be judged"

of course, christianfascists like you have thrown that out as well and decided that he was speaking another parable, when his sentence was pretty clear.

you turn a blind eye to all the innocent killings, just like the terrorists do....

OH, THE INNOCENTS! THE INNOCENTS!! 100,000 INNOCENTS!!! :rolleyes:

The only blind eye being turned here is yours, to the tens of thousands of innocents who are alive today instead of shot, buried, gassed or shredded in Saddamite factory machinery, not to mention the innocent women who are no longer inmates of Saddamite rape rooms.

There probably have been innocent civilian casualties. Guess what? That's the way war works. What you, perhaps deliberately, fail to acknowledge is that we are not DELIBERATELY TARGETING MASS NUMBERS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Unlike the Saddamite regime, which made it a policy to do so.

the values that american soldiers are defending are supposedly "christian" (the US is built on christian values), just like the values of islamic fundamentalists are supposedly "islamic". of course none of them are true. Jesus would despise the US government as much as he would despise the islamic fundamentalists, if he came back now. the US would probably just "crucify" him again, for not defending them. you turn a blind eye to all the innocent killings, just like the terrorists do. you are the twisted one, my friend...

So in other words, the Christian religion is responsible for "the innocent killings" because it just so happens that the nation waging the war has a Christian background? THAT is biggest stretch I have ever seen. Once again, when do US soldiers proclaim their allegance to God, the Bible, Jesus, and the Christian faith, and are taught to kill all non-believers? why arent there any Christian missionaries FLOCKING to Iraq to convert them to Christianity? You just cant stand the fact that these Islamic terrorists are using their religion to wage mass murder IN THE NAME OF ALLAH! Until Bush himself, stands on a podium, and declairs that we shall behead all people of any other faith other than Christianity in the name of Jesus, your argument is pointless. Have you seen the make up our soldiers? Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, all fighting together under one banner. The United States of America. Not the Bible, not God, not Jesus, not Christianity.
Once again, who is doing the killing in Iraq in the name of Allah? Not US soldiers. who is killing innocent civilians with carbombs at Holy Shrines, Mosques, markets, police stations, schools? Wake up! Its the Islamic terrorists!

By your definition, every US soldier has a Crucifix sown onto his or her uniform, prclaiming allegance to God and the Holy Bible?
What planet are you from??
i'm not from a planet, i come from God...

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

every american proclaims allegiance to God... of course they forget His word and one of his basic 10 commandements (you shall not kill, remember?) when it suits their interests.

OH, THE INNOCENTS! THE INNOCENTS!! 100,000 INNOCENTS!!! :rolleyes:

The only blind eye being turned here is yours, to the tens of thousands of innocents who are alive today instead of shot, buried, gassed or shredded in Saddamite factory machinery, not to mention the innocent women who are no longer inmates of Saddamite rape rooms.

There probably have been innocent civilian casualties. Guess what? That's the way war works. What you, perhaps deliberately, fail to acknowledge is that we are not DELIBERATELY TARGETING MASS NUMBERS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Unlike the Saddamite regime, which made it a policy to do so.

Assis fails to understand the difference between DELIBERATE killing of civilans in the name of Allah and accidental killing of civilians in the name of taking out those that do the DELIBERATE murders.

i'm not from a planet, i come from God...



every american proclaims allegiance to God... of course they forget His word and one of his basic 10 commandements (you shall not kill, remember?) when it suits their interests.

If I remember correctly, the original Hebrew translation was, "Thou shall not MURDER."
By the way, which God are they proclaiming allegance to?
I have seen Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Atheists, all say the Pledge of Allegiance without so much as a flinch at the mer mention of God. God as in a greater, devine being.

"non-judgmentalism" is the basis of christianity, for Jesus himself said "do not judge lest you'll be judged"

of course, christianfascists like you have thrown that out as well and decided that he was speaking another parable, when his sentence was pretty clear.

Better go back to Sunday school, mate. Let's look at what Christ really said:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5 (King James Version)

The "mote" in Islam's eye is about as big as Saudi Arabia, for all the reasons previously stated and more. And there's no beam in my eye that's labeled, "Let's rape women prisoners and who cares if they're impregnated," or "Mutilate prisoners and let them bleed to death," or "God said I could rape a nine-year-old girl so it's OK"! So I will continue to judge all who believe in these and other evil teachings of Islam, and I'm perfectly happy to be judged by that same judgment.

So in other words, the Christian religion is responsible for "the innocent killings" because it just so happens that the nation waging the war has a Christian background?
again... they are not christian, just like "islamic fundamentalists" are not trully islamic. the Qu'ran repudiates the killing of innocent lives, even during a Jihad.
Once again, when do US soldiers proclaim their allegance to God, the Bible, Jesus, and the Christian faith, and are taught to kill all non-believers?
when they swear allegiance to the flag and that implies "a nation under one God".
why arent there any Christian missionaries FLOCKING to Iraq to convert them to Christianity?
thank you God for him asking that question:
Bible Belt missionaries set out on a 'war for souls' in Iraq
(Filed: 27/12/2003)

US Christian evangelists want to "save Muslim souls" in Iraq, writes David Rennie in Cleveland
American Christian missionaries have declared a "war for souls" in Iraq, telling supporters that the formal end of the US-led occupation next June will close an historic "window of opportunity".

Organising in secrecy, and emphasising their humanitarian aid work, Christian groups are pouring into the country, which is 97 per cent Muslim, bearing Arabic Bibles, videos and religious tracts designed to "save" Muslims from their "false" religion.
try again...

You just cant stand the fact that these Islamic terrorists are using their religion to wage mass murder IN THE NAME OF ALLAH!
just like Bush is using this war to defend his twisted "christian" values.
Until Bush himself, stands on a podium, and declairs that we shall behead all people of any other faith other than Christianity in the name of Jesus, your argument is pointless.
he doesn't need to behead them, he's bombing them, shooting them and torturing them in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; so much less barbaric isn't it?
Have you seen the make up our soldiers? Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, all fighting together under one banner. The United States of America. Not the Bible, not God, not Jesus, not Christianity.
the political leaders are self-proclaimed "christians". they are nothing of the sort.
Once again, who is doing the killing in Iraq in the name of Allah? Not US soldiers. who is killing innocent civilians with carbombs at Holy Shrines, Mosques, markets, police stations, schools? Wake up! Its the Islamic terrorists!
who is ordering the bombing that is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians? you wake up...

Did you hear about the Sunni schoolchildren who were forced off a school bus, forced to dig a ditch, and then shot in the head by Shiite gunman, proclaiming they are doing Allah's work?
What about the daily carbombings in the name of Allah?
What about the beheadings of their prisoners on TV?
They read a few chapters from the Koran, scream "Allah is great!!"
and then cut the head off a prisoner. Our soldiers are doing worse?
oh man..... How abou the two missing soldiers that turned up decapitated, with signs of brutal torture? Who did al of that? Islamic Terrorists!
The terror plots in Canada and Chicago? Gee, who was behind those?
Murdering innocent civilians in the name of God or Allah or whatever is wrong. But who is doing it the most? Christians or Muslims?

Assis fails to understand the difference between DELIBERATE killing of civilans in the name of Allah and accidental killing of civilians in the name of taking out those that do the DELIBERATE murders.
thanks again for your question:
Fresh evidence of 'executions' by rogue US marines in Iraq

New photographs lend weight to allegations of revenge killings by US unit under attack in which 24 unarmed civilians died

Paul Harris in Washington and David Smith in Basra
Sunday May 28, 2006
The Observer

Fresh photographic evidence seen by US investigators is believed to reveal that some of the 24 unarmed Iraqis killed in the Iraqi town of Haditha after an American died in a roadside bomb in November were in effect executed, it was reported yesterday.
According to Congressional and defence officials quoted by the Los Angeles Times, the pictures show wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children. Some were shot in the head and some in the back.

Better go back to Sunday school, mate. Let's look at what Christ really said:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
well, i'm translating to english from my bible, so the wording is naturally different. when you don't have solid arguments, you pick on the writing... pathetic.

Did you hear about the Sunni schoolchildren who were forced off a school bus, forced to dig a ditch, and then shot in the head by Shiite gunman, proclaiming they are doing Allah's work?
What about the daily carbombings in the name of Allah?
What about the beheadings of their prisoners on TV?
They read a few chapters from the Koran, scream "Allah is great!!"
and then cut the head off a prisoner. Our soldiers are doing worse?
oh man..... How abou the two missing soldiers that turned up decapitated, with signs of brutal torture? Who did al of that? Islamic Terrorists!
The terror plots in Canada and Chicago? Gee, who was behind those?
Murdering innocent civilians in the name of God or Allah or whatever is wrong. But who is doing it the most? Christians or Muslims?
for sick people like you two, only the deaths of innocent lives that suit your interests count... you two are sick, twisted and evil.

here's a little gift for sick people like you. i bet you'll love to watch it:
source (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

well, i'm translating to english from my bible, so the wording is naturally different. when you don't have solid arguments, you pick on the writing... pathetic.

Wrong again. You're dingbattin' a thousand today.

I'm not "picking on the writing," as you would have figured out by actually reading and thinking about what I wrote. I'm pointing out that your quotation is incomplete and misleading. The point Christ is making, which you've obviously missed, is not, repeat not, "don't ever make judgments", but "before you judge someone else, make sure you're not guilty of the same (or worse) behavior".

I'm not guilty of the evil behaviors that are approved of, indeed authorized, in Islamic scripture. That beam has never been in my eye. I will therefore judge Islam and will accept judgment by the same standard.

Wrong again. You're dingbattin' a thousand today.

I'm not "picking on the writing," as you would have figured out by actually reading and thinking about what I wrote. I'm pointing out that your quotation is incomplete and misleading. The point Christ is making, which you've obviously missed, is not, repeat not, "don't ever make judgments", but "before you judge someone else, make sure you're not guilty of the same (or worse) behavior".

I'm not guilty of the evil behaviors that are approved of, indeed authorized, in Islamic scripture. That beam has never been in my eye. I will therefore judge Islam and will accept judgment by the same standard.
i won't waste my time with you anymore... you are really not worthy.

tens of thousands[/B] of innocent civilians? you wake up...

Once again. Before we even got into this war with Iraq, who was causing the most problems with terrorist attacks, around the world?
Who?

1975
Jan. 24, New York City: bomb set off in historic Fraunces Tavern killed 4 and injured more than 50 people. Puerto Rican nationalist group (FALN) claimed responsibility, and police tied 13 other bombings to the group.
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt and Days Inn, in Amman Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); 6 killed.
1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.
1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.
2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
2001 (Sept.): Destruction of WTC; attack on Pentagon. Total dead 2,992.
2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 14 German tourists.
2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 1.
2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.
2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.
2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2003 (May): 4 bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia housing compound, killing 17.
2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked 2 synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
2004 (March): 10 bombs on 4 trains exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 and injuring more than 1,400.
2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9.
2004 (Dec.): Terrorists entered the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 9 (including 4 attackers).
2005 (July): Bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.
2005 (Oct.): 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia.
2005 (Nov.): 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan.

So who was responsible for the majority of these attacks?
Fundi Christians? no

There is a huge differance between war and terrorist attacks.
Are US soldiers on a daily basis shooting innocent Iraqis for fun in the name of God(or Bush)? No. Are they specifically targeting Mosques and hospitals to inflict maximum civilian casualties? No. Are US soldier going out and planting bombs along roads where civilians travel heavily to work and school? No.
By the way, torture in Gitmo? HAH! we didnt detain them all. Did you know that almost 90% of the detainees in Club Gitmo were caught and brought in by none other than Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Pakistan? They caught them and handed them to us! why? Because they have terrorist links! I doubt they would just pick random innocent people to just hand them oer to us.

ROFLMAO!!!!
I'm sorry, (heheheh) hooo... wow! um, I almost choked myself to death with laughter there for a moment! lol! lol! lol!!

Ok, now how should approach this?
Oh, I know.
First, since when does the faith of the leader have any impact on war? I do not ever seem to recall hearing Bush or Regan say this is a Holy War against the enemy. I dont recall seeing Army recruiters at my Church for the Army of God to go and kill Muslims and Latin Americans.


Forced laughter...thats normally associated with fundamentalists. However I digress.

By backing Bush the christian right endorsed his decision to go to war. He uses his "faith" to gain that vote. And the "war against communism" attracted many recruits solely on the basis that communism was "against Gawd". Just because its not overt doesn't mean its not there.

By the way, your buddy is blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few. Yet here you are saying that the "faith" of Bush has nothing to do with what happens on a war. If he as leader of America is not expected to be guided by his faith and influence a war, why are Muslims supposed to be accountable for an unelected Saudi?


Assis fails to understand the difference between DELIBERATE killing of civilans in the name of Allah and accidental killing of civilians in the name of taking out those that do the DELIBERATE murders.

Archbishop Romero, amongst a few hundred thousand others. As the Iraq war was based on a false premise all deaths were avoidable and therefore acceptance of those inevitable casualties was deliberate murder, for want of a better word.

Better go back to Sunday school, mate. Let's look at what Christ really said:
.

Allegedly said. While there may have been an historical Christ quite how much the Gospels accurately portray the man is open to a great deal of question. Thus your blind belief that its true is in ways parallel to the Fundamentalist Muslim. And similarly, you use it to justify your bigotry.

here's a little gift for sick people like you. i bet you'll love to watch it:
source (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

Wow, US soldiers killing an insurgent.
so, um, I should be disgusted by it?
ITS called war.
Did you ever hear of the SS Wolfpacks after WWII?
yeah, they were insurgents just like these scumbags.
Killing allied soldiers, bombing civilians, in the name of Hitler.
and so on. Do you know how the US delt with them after being caught?
A bullet to the head. Thats it.
Stop showing compassion for these terrorists. We'll just see how much you'll love them when your world explodes thanks to another terrorist attack, in the name of Allah!

Once again. Before we even got into this war with Iraq, who was causing the most problems with terrorist attacks, around the world?
Who?


Well...If you add up all the people in that list, they won't come to as many Gutamalans that were killed with the Aid of R Reagan. Or the Nicaraguans that died at the hands of his contras. Or the El Salvadoreans that died at the hands of American trained and funded death squads. Theres always going to be fringe groups and lunatics. The problem with America seems to be the supposedly christian fringe lunatics, amongst others, have taken over the Asylum.

for sick people like you two, only the deaths of innocent lives that suit your interests count... you two are sick, twisted and evil.

wow. ouch that hurt.
I dont like the death of anyone innocent. However, how death came about is the point. During the naval bombardment of france right before the Normandy invasion killed some innocent french people as well. But the French people understood that was unavoidable. In war it is unavoidable. However, intentional murder of civilains under the guise of "for Allah" is reprehensible.
No I am not a sick, twisted, evil person. Neither are you. I just see how the world really is. Bush isnt my fav either and I despise the man.

Well...If you add up all the people in that list, they won't come to as many Gutamalans that were killed with the Aid of R Reagan. Or the Nicaraguans that died at the hands of his contras. Or the El Salvadoreans that died at the hands of American trained and funded death squads. Theres always going to be fringe groups and lunatics. The problem with America seems to be the supposedly christian fringe lunatics, amongst others, have taken over the Asylum.
How many people died under "communist" rule?
How many people died under left wing rebel groups?
How many were killed under the Islamic faith?
I am not blaiming all Muslims of these attacks.
However, i dont understand why dont they do something to
crush this growing radical fringe group of Islam? Why?

Read this article before you start mentioning that.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12885.htm

Remember, that the human interpertation of any religion is up to them. The writers of the bible wrote the bible in the best way they thought they could using the teachings of Christ. The same is with the Qaran.

In Reference to the now Terrorist Oriented word Jihad-
Remember the Crusades, killing for God? Yea, that happened with Christianity.

And remember, that the Qaran was written during the time period that the Muslims were driven out of Medina (Or was it Mecca?), and that they were at war and on siege on all fronts at the time, and things were not looking very possitive. The usage of Jihad as written meant that Muslims had a right to defend Islam (As the followers of Islam were at war with many other people who did not practice Islam) and their Families, Property, etc, against the Invaders/Infidels (Or Something along thoose lines... Remember that the Infidels that the book was reffering to was Medina, and other cities.) It then went on in the same passage, a part that many people conviently leave out, is that God is forgiving, and that their former enemies should be treated with peace and amnesty.

People have always used Religion as a reasoning for war, and its happened to just about every religion one time or another. Even Hitler was christian. Individuals can choose to morph their religions to accomplish their goals in any way, and people have done so. But, what has remained the same, no matter what reason people have tried to use, is that the religion people use to fuel their own motives, still holds its own original meaning. Whether people choose to recognize it or not.

Let us not forget the massive persecution of christians during ancient times as well. lots of Christians were fed to the lions in those days as well.

i won't waste my time with you anymore... you are really not worthy.

To quote Fritz Strauss (a famous French horn player and father of composer Richard Strauss) when Wagner once stormed off stage in a fit: "I have put him to flight!"

Ann Coulter is a brilliant and profound thinker, if sometimes given to exaggeration.<snip>
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, that's a good one! :D :D

<snip>
It reeks in every word you manage to punch onto the keyboard. You can't even take being called out on your nazi bullshit without ranting about "leftists" or "euro-wimps" or "Christian-haters." You betray your own obvious rage and apparently, don't even know you do it. Too easy.
And don't forget "Votairean." :D

If you read this text literally, you could well make the argument that Jesus approves of capital punishment for murderers and robbers (a reasonable position IMHO, but I digress). But I think that overlooks the fact that Jesus is presenting a parable here (Matthew 21:33: "Hear another parable: . . . ") and that His point is that God will deal harshly with those who reject Jesus and (eventually) put Him to death.

Still, a valid point. One could argue that approval of capital punishment includes an element of violence. If so, it then becomes a question of degree, and I maintain that the degree of violence and outright bloodthirstiness in the New Testament is insignificant at most, in comparison to that found in Islamic scripture and provides a clear basis for distinguishing between the two (and in my mind, for favoring one over the other).

One could also argue that passages like this one provided the basis for the charge of deicide against the Jews and a "justification" (wrong-headed, of course) for persecution of the Jews by Christians. All I can say to that is that the Catholic Church, at least, officially renounced the deicide charge in the early 1960's and has sought to make amends (however inadequate) and reconcile with the Jewish people ever since.
So, in other words, you acknowledge that Christianity's history is just as bloody and full of bigotry as Islam's present, and all of the crimes you accuse them of, have already been committed by your own religion. So, apparently, it's not just an Islamic problem, is it?

Yet another example of a Christian reformation, the likes of which, sadly, are unlikely ever to be implemented by Islam.
Oh, yeah, Christians burned witches and murdered Jews and tortured and executed heretics and waged holy war for generations, but we gave it up. But those Muslims, they'll never give it up. Even though they're doing everything Christianity did, that one last step they'll never take.

And you know this how? Being a Christian not only makes you a better human being, it also gives you psychic powers to predict the future? :rolleyes:

So, in other words, you acknowledge that Christianity's history is just as bloody and full of bigotry as Islam's present, and all of the crimes you accuse them of, have already been committed by your own religion. So, apparently, it's not just an Islamic problem, is it?


Oh, yeah, Christians burned witches and murdered Jews and tortured and executed heretics and waged holy war for generations, but we gave it up. But those Muslims, they'll never give it up. Even though they're doing everything Christianity did, that one last step they'll never take.

And you know this how? Being a Christian not only makes you a better human being, it also gives you psychic powers to predict the future? :rolleyes:
Well, a substantial number of Christians are now atheists or agnostics, and the remnants of the Church hardly engage in worldwide slaughter for religious reasons anymore. With the exception of a few places like Northern Ireland and Serbia, you don't hear much about Christians hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings.

Islam, on the other hand, seems to have substantial numbers of people going in the other direction - towards more sectarian violence.

Originally Posted by New Mitanni
Ah, still no response

For all those reading, presented for your musical enjoyment is one of my favorite spirituals:
Its known to be hard to score when the Goalposts move so frequently.

By the way, what would your Jesus say about your blanket treatment of muslims?
I have a favorite Christian song, too: "Drop Kick Me Jesus" by Bobby Bare.

Chorus:
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life
End over end neither left nor to right
Straight through the heart of them righteous uprights
Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life.

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." Matthew 25:11.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15-20.

Surely Christ had Islam, Mohammed and the deluded followers of the false prophet in mind when He spoke these words.
Oh, so apparently you do think that being a Christian gives you the power to predict the future. You must have magically inherited it from Jesus himself.

On the other hand, he might have been thinking of people like you. I'm not a Christian, but isn't pride a sin in your religion? And since everything you're saying is so totally at odds with everything every other Christian I know has ever told me, you don't seem like a true prophet to me.

This is a fun one.

He's willfully blind, obviously. He's caught up in the politically correct world of "non-judgmentalism".
So now you're not just admitting, but bragging that you've chosen to be a hateful bigot.

BTW, I'm not being non-judgmental. I've already judged you.

Just like so many others in the Western world who refuse to wake up and smell the Sharia. One of their problems is, they are convinced that Western civilization in general and the US in particular are bad, bad, bad, and so any and all enemies of Western civilization and the US must be good, good, good and thus immune from criticism.
Baseless assumption and deliberate demonization of your opponents. Anyone who disagrees with you must hate the US and love terrorism. Not only is that total bullshit, it's also a weak attack in lieu of an actual argument in support of your own argument.

Another of their problems is their complete lack of a moral compass. Moral relativism is their only guide, and that's no guide at all.
And now you expand the insults to be personal. Now, not only are we traitors and terrorist sympathizers, we also have no morals. I love it when people try to pull this shit. It proves that you have no actual way to justify your position, and it absolves me of any obligation to be polite to you.

Wrong again. You're dingbattin' a thousand today.

I'm not "picking on the writing," as you would have figured out by actually reading and thinking about what I wrote. I'm pointing out that your quotation is incomplete and misleading. The point Christ is making, which you've obviously missed, is not, repeat not, "don't ever make judgments", but "before you judge someone else, make sure you're not guilty of the same (or worse) behavior".
Are you a tort lawyer? That's some fancy squirming and hair-splitting there. the funny thing is, a judge in a court of law wouldn't buy it, and I'm kind of guessing your god won't either.

I'm not guilty of the evil behaviors that are approved of, indeed authorized, in Islamic scripture. That beam has never been in my eye. I will therefore judge Islam and will accept judgment by the same standard.
That's good, because that's how you are being judged with every word you type.

Well, a substantial number of Christians are now atheists or agnostics, and the remnants of the Church hardly engage in worldwide slaughter for religious reasons anymore. With the exception of a few places like Northern Ireland and Serbia, you don't hear much about Christians hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings.

Islam, on the other hand, seems to have substantial numbers of people going in the other direction - towards more sectarian violence.
Really? I think an increasing number of Christians are running backward as fast as they can to catch up, then. But in any event, how does that justify saying that Muslims will never change towards liberalism or secularism?

Wow, US soldiers killing an insurgent.
so, um, I should be disgusted by it?
ITS called war.
no it's not. it's called executing an injured fighter (who dropped his weapon on the floor) and is breaking the geneva convention but you don't care about it, do you? you prefer to have wars without any basic set of rules of respect for human suffering. of course, if it was the other way around, you would probably be accusing the insurgents as barbarians, for killing an injured american soldier. not that i expect you to admit it now...

We'll just see how much you'll love them when your world explodes thanks to another terrorist attack, in the name of Allah!
most of the explosions i hear about "in my world" are provoked by the american army, not insurgents. "my world" is planet earth, in case you don't know... how many thousands of bombs has the american army dropped over Iraq (never mind all the other places)? i'm sure that a lot more than the insurgents...

for me, they are all rotten seeds from the same bag; insurgents, terrorists, american army, the bush administration, the pentagon hawks... all rotten warmongers who thrive on spreading fear and death over the world...

barbarians, the whole lot... monkeys...

most of the explosions i hear about "in my world" are provoked by the american army, not insurgents. "my world" is planet earth, in case you don't know... how many thousands of bombs has the american army dropped over Iraq (never mind all the other places)? i'm sure that a lot more than the insurgents...

The problem with this line of thought is that you fail to distinguish between the legitimate military force of a soverign state with spurious bands of terror groups. Comparing any action by the military with a terrorist group is always going to commit the fallacy of questionable analogy.

Soverign states are afforded rights under the law that terrorist bands are not. These rights outline the rules of war. On the other hand, terrorist groups that set roadside bombs are legally identical to drug cartels that do the same thing. They are not military groups, but criminal organizations.

The problem with this line of thought is that you fail to distinguish between the legitimate military force of a soverign state with spurious bands of terror groups. Comparing any action by the military with a terrorist group is always going to commit the fallacy of questionable analogy.

Soverign states are afforded rights under the law that terrorist bands are not. These rights outline the rules of war. On the other hand, terrorist groups that set roadside bombs are legally identical to drug cartels that do the same thing. They are not military groups, but criminal organizations.
i accept military action for self defence; Iraq was not the case. also, sovereign states are not afforded the rights to torture prisoners, execute civilians in cold blood, execute injured fighters, infringe national sovereignty of their allied countries (the ones they call friends)... when the US administration does this, they become worse than the enemy they are fighting, because they were supposedly civilised and they came from a higher moral stand.

terrorists were always on my low stand but now i see that supposedly civilised nations, who claim to be a beacon of justice and freedom, are becoming just like them and their people are actually supporting it, turning a blind eye to all the crimes being committed inside and outside their country and self-deluding themselves as being justified and "inevitable". the american people are being deceived by a corrupt and criminal administration, are being thrown into the mud at the eyes of the rest of the world and – worse – they are sitting by like blind sheep and defending them, instead of defending their values and their flag. the flag doesn't represent the american government; it represents the people.

americans are no longer americans, they are bushists and pentagonists...

i accept military action for self defence; Iraq was not the case. also, sovereign states are not afforded the rights to torture prisoners, execute civilians in cold blood, execute injured fighters, infringe national sovereignty of their allied countries (the ones they call friends)... when the US administration does this, they become worse than the enemy they are fighting, because they were supposedly civilised and they came from a higher moral stand.

You're confusing the US administration with rogue soldiers. There is no policy of the US administration that endorses torture, execution in cold blood, etc. When individual solders have been caught for these things, they have been tried and convicted.

The fact remains, there are more accounts of 'war crimes', legal, and human rights violations from insurgents and terror groups than from the US military. Yet, you are applying a double standard (again, a fallacy) when comparing the actions of the two. Rogue US soldiers break the law, and suddenly the US administration becomes worse than the enemy, the latter of whom actually has the longer human rights violation record.

And, in all fairness, I voted against Bush twice and I don't support the war. I just try to give it an honest, objective evaluation. Something that I havn't seen from the Left in a long time.

terrorists were always on my low stand but now i see that supposedly civilised nations, who claim to be a beacon of justice and freedom, are becoming just like them and their people are actually supporting it, turning a blind eye to all the crimes being committed inside and outside their country and self-deluding themselves as being justified and "inevitable". the american people are being deceived by a corrupt and criminal administration, are being thrown into the mud at the eyes of the rest of the world and – worse – they are sitting by like blind sheep and defending them, instead of defending their values and their flag.

You're using hyperboile here. The US is not becoming like terror groups in any way. Nor does the US turn a blind eye to crimes committed by individual soldiers. I read about soldiers being tried or accused of war crimes almost every day in the headlines. Just like those in Reuters today - "US soldiers charged in another Iraqi killing (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-25T173610Z_01_COL532879_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-CRIME.xml&src=rss)." While awful and illegal things occur during the war, it is inaccurate to say that the US turns a blind eye. Rather, the only group that accounts for the justice and fair play of its own members right now in the war is the US. The Iraqi insurgents sure aren't holding trials for the war crimes of their members.

There is no such thing as a 'clean' war. Nor is the US military 'clean' in that respect. However, compared to the insurgents, the US military is as pure as the driven snow. The two are not even comparable.

Really? I think an increasing number of Christians are running backward as fast as they can to catch up, then. But in any event, how does that justify saying that Muslims will never change towards liberalism or secularism?

I'm not saying "never". I'm just saying that the incredible number of Muslims running backwards is a major problem, and the rise of fundamentalism amongst Muslims has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else in the world is doing, including the US.

Far more fundamentalist Muslims who are militant, than fundamentalist Christians who are militant. Which is why over 90 percent of the world's terrorist acts today are done by militant Islamics, more specifically salafists.

You're confusing the US administration with rogue soldiers. There is no policy of the US administration that endorses torture, execution in cold blood, etc. When individual solders have been caught for these things, they have been tried and convicted.

The fact remains, there are more accounts of 'war crimes', legal, and human rights violations from insurgents and terror groups than from the US military. Yet, you are applying a double standard (again, a fallacy) when comparing the actions of the two. Rogue US soldiers break the law, and suddenly the US administration becomes worse than the enemy, the latter of whom actually has the longer human rights violation record.

And, in all fairness, I voted against Bush twice and I don't support the war. I just try to give it an honest, objective evaluation. Something that I havn't seen from the Left in a long time.



You're using hyperboile here. The US is not becoming like terror groups in any way. Nor does the US turn a blind eye to crimes committed by individual soldiers. I read about soldiers being tried or accused of war crimes almost every day in the headlines. Just like those in Reuters today - "US soldiers charged in another Iraqi killing (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-25T173610Z_01_COL532879_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-CRIME.xml&src=rss)." While awful and illegal things occur during the war, it is inaccurate to say that the US turns a blind eye. Rather, the only group that accounts for the justice and fair play of its own members right now in the war is the US. The Iraqi insurgents sure aren't holding trials for the war crimes of their members.

There is no such thing as a 'clean' war. Nor is the US military 'clean' in that respect. However, compared to the insurgents, the US military is as pure as the driven snow. The two are not even comparable.
most of these trials are only happening because the soldiers were dum enough to commit these crimes in front of cameras (sometimes their own) and evidence is coming to light; leaving the administration in a dead end. if you really believe that the US administration does not condone torture or that it hasn't infringed national sovereignty of their allies, you are turning a blind eye.

americans have even turned a blind eye to national crimes, like wiretapping without court orders. clinton went through an impeachment process as a result of his affair with his secretary, yet Bush has walked away from much more serious crimes against his own people. talk about delusion....

I'm not saying "never". I'm just saying that the incredible number of Muslims running backwards is a major problem, and the rise of fundamentalism amongst Muslims has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else in the world is doing, including the US.

Far more fundamentalist Muslims who are militant, than fundamentalist Christians who are militant. Which is why over 90 percent of the world's terrorist acts today are done by militant Islamics, more specifically salafists.
you are so incredibly naive... who has been supporting the Bush administration all along? christian fundamentalists. yet, you don't think of them as accomplices to Bush's lies and crimes against civil rights in america, against national sovereignty of his allied countries, against civillians in iraq...

you know what is the difference between islamic fundamentalists and christian fundamentalists? the later have learned the lesson and are working from the shadows, offering their support and quite possibly funding very shady activities...

the ultimate deceit of the american people is that they believe they live in a secular state... i laugh at their blindness...

most of these trials are only happening because the soldiers were dum enough to commit these crimes in front of cameras (sometimes their own) and evidence is coming to light; leaving the administration in a dead end. if you really believe that the US administration does not condone torture or that it hasn't infringed national sovereignty of their allies, you are turning a blind eye.

Its a fact that the US administration doesn't condone torture. You can't produce a single document of US policy that condones such a thing. Rather, you think your conspiratorial and paranoid worldview that it occurs is fact, and call people who reject your conspiracy theories as those "turning a blind eye."

If you can show me an element of US policy that condones torture, I'd love to see it. If not, you (and everyone else) have no basis to accuse the US administration of such a thing.

americans have even turned a blind eye to national crimes, like wiretapping without court orders. clinton went through an impeachment process as a result of his affair with his secretary, yet Bush has walked away from much more serious crimes against his own people. talk about delusion....

No one has turned a blind eye to wiretapping. In fact, large corporations like AT&T put their foot down so it couldn't even occur on their watch. The fact that wiretapping is all over the media, in congress, and in the high courts refutes your claim that a "blind eye" is being turned to it. Not to mention that this is a red herring.

the ultimate deceit of the american people is that they believe they live in a secular state... i laugh at their blindness...

So, just out of curiousity, are you an American citizen? If not, where are you from?

Its a fact that the US administration doesn't condone torture. You can't produce a single document of US policy that condones such a thing. Rather, you think your conspiratorial and paranoid worldview that it occurs is fact, and call people who reject your conspiracy theories as those "turning a blind eye."

If you can show me an element of US policy that condones torture, I'd love to see it. If not, you (and everyone else) have no basis to accuse the US administration of such a thing.

No one has turned a blind eye to wiretapping. In fact, large corporations like AT&T put their foot down so it couldn't even occur on their watch. The fact that wiretapping is all over the media, in congress, and in the high courts refutes your claim that a "blind eye" is being turned to it. Not to mention that this is a red herring.
you fail to justify the infringement of national sovereignty of allied states, plus you fail to remember that the Bush administration is now saying they will backtrack on their wiretapping and set up a "secret federal court" to issue those orders. who controls the federal courts? my God, you are so blind. when people warn you of what is damn clear, you brand them as having a "conspiratorial and paranoid world-view". you have been spoon-fed this "conspiracy theory" bulshit, so that you don't believe any of it when people warn you about it. you forget that some of us have been through all this in our past and know the signs better than anyone. you are children, when it comes to understanding the signs. we can see what you cannot see, because we've been though some of it, while the american people haven't.

do you honestly believe the US administration would openly issue policies condoning torture, when they are trying to gather the help of allied countries (the ones they then deceive when it suits them?). that would be the political suicide. how bloody naive can you be?

do you honestly believe the US administration would openly issue policies condoning torture, when they are trying to gather the help of allied countries (the ones they then deceive when it suits them?). that would be the political suicide. how bloody naive can you be?

Political suicide? In a nation that has portrayed Arabs and Muslims like this for fifty years?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2515888478133627023

you fail to justify the infringement of national sovereignty of allied states, plus you fail to remember that the Bush administration is now saying they will backtrack on their wiretapping and set up a "secret federal court" to issue those orders. who controls the federal courts? my God, you are so blind. when people warn you of what is damn clear, you brand them as having a "conspiratorial and paranoid world-view". you have been spoon-fed this "conspiracy theory" bulshit, so that you don't believe any of it when people warn you about it. you forget that some of us have been through all this in our past and know the signs better than anyone. you are children, when it comes to understanding the signs. we can see what you cannot see, because we've been though some of it, while the american people haven't.

You've yet to answer my question. I'll ask it again:

Can you show me a single element of US policy that endorses torture or any of the things you claimed?

As for the "national soverignity of allied states", this is again your unfounded claim. The war in Iraq hasn't infringed on the national soverignity of allied states. Although occupied, it has retained soverignity. In fact, its been a long time since the US has violated the soverignity of foreign states.

do you honestly believe the US administration would openly issue policies condoning torture, when they are trying to gather the help of allied countries (the ones they then deceive when it suits them?). that would be the political suicide. how bloody naive can you be?

Oh, I see. So are you admitting that you have no evidence of US policies that condone torture? Yet, somehow you know about them. You know about them, that they exist, yet you can't present any evidence that they exist. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

So, please, pretty please, just give me an honest answer to my honest question - can you show me any element of US policy that endorses torture or any of the things you claimed or not?

Political suicide? In a nation that has portrayed Arabs and Muslims like this for fifty years?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2515888478133627023
i was talking about world politics DK, not national politics... sorry if i didn't make it clear...

I'm not saying "never". I'm just saying that the incredible number of Muslims running backwards is a major problem, and the rise of fundamentalism amongst Muslims has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else in the world is doing, including the US.

Far more fundamentalist Muslims who are militant, than fundamentalist Christians who are militant. Which is why over 90 percent of the world's terrorist acts today are done by militant Islamics, more specifically salafists.
The person I was responding to was saying "never."

This is why, when you jump into a conversation (which is perfectly okay), you should read all of it.

<snip>
americans are no longer americans, they are bushists and pentagonists...
Not all of us. Some of us are trying to turn back the tide.

For lack of better words, you guy are totally insane!

An insurgency in Iraq does not equate to an Islamic uprising against the Christians, or that an American invasion of Iraq constitutes a Christian crusade against the Muslims... it just happens to be another one of those things that was either political or economic [I haven't settled on either or - it's probably both] that expanded into a overblown conspiracy of races and religions...


now this thread began as something to discuss the faults of the Islamic tradition - which is justifiable. But all you've guys have been doing is going from thread to thread, poking injury to injury about who's war is going on right now. Whether you would like it, you all are acting like kids [if you are, go on and enjoy your time].

examples:

you forget that some of us have been through all this in our past and know the signs better than anyone. you are children, when it comes to understanding the signs. we can see what you cannot see, because we've been though some of it, while the american people haven't.

you are so incredibly naive... who has been supporting the Bush administration all along? christian fundamentalists. yet, you don't think of them as accomplices to Bush's lies and crimes against civil rights in america, against national sovereignty of his allied countries, against civillians in iraq...

americans are no longer americans, they are bushists and pentagonists...

Stop showing compassion for these terrorists. We'll just see how much you'll love them when your world explodes thanks to another terrorist attack, in the name of Allah!

i won't waste my time with you anymore... you are really not worthy.

every american proclaims allegiance to God... of course they forget His word and one of his basic 10 commandements (you shall not kill, remember?) when it suits their interests.

OH, THE INNOCENTS! THE INNOCENTS!! 100,000 INNOCENTS!!!

Most of these are rude, hypocritical, and ultimately serve no purpose anyway. I'm quite surprised just exactly how bad this thread has gotten, but considering that nearly the same people are posting from thread to thread, I think my awe is dulled by the ignorance of the people in here.

I'm only writing this wake you people up. Instead of lambasting the other with nonsense, you could try to argue about something more worthwhile than "AMERICANS ARE ALL BUSHISTS!" or "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS". I can guarantee you that - as an American - I am not Bushist, and most - if not all - of my Muslim friends would smack yall for some of the things that you say in here. Yeah, so there's a freedom of speech, but it means absolutely nothing if you keep shouting obscenities and making piecemeal of an argument that serves no purpose but to promote some lost eccentric ideals of a system that I really don't want to get involved in [alas, I am...].

So, there's my spiel. Take it or leave it. If you're going to leave it, start a new thread, because there's probably some genuine people who do want to argue the errors of various kinds of faiths, but after seeing what kind of junk is waiting for them they opt against it. Start a new thread if you're going to remain ignorant to the purpose of this thread because you're wasting a brilliant mind talking about a war, about which most of you only superficially care.

My apologies to the moderators, to all of those who have a genuine interest in the former intentions of this thread, and to those who don't give a damn about what I just said.

Its a fact that the US administration doesn't condone torture. You can't produce a single document of US policy that condones such a thing. <snip>
TS, I respect you, but where have you been? A whole new book just came out that talks about this very subject, including documentary evidence. Dammit, I can't remember the title -- I think it's Susskind's new book -- The One Percent Solution? Plus there are several years of public statements from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and most recently Gonzalez, all defending special rendition, waterboarding, stress positions, beatings, humiliation, and other abusive practices -- some which are torture and all of which are human rights violations -- all the while claiming that none of it is torture. Are you going to support their game of "it's only torture if we admit it's torture"?

You've yet to answer my question. I'll ask it again:

Can you show me a single element of US policy that endorses torture or any of the things you claimed?
if you only believe in what you see, you can't believe secret services exist... do you honestly believe that the CIA hasn't used torture or do you prefer to believe that it's justified? at least admit it dammit, like so many people do here... how did torture happen in abu ghraib without superiors knowing about it? the only reason why it came out in the open was because soldiers were dumbasses to take pictures of it all and these pictures leaked... then, of course they used low-rank low-class soldiers as scapegoats. pawns...
As for the "national soverignity of allied states", this is again your unfounded claim. The war in Iraq hasn't infringed on the national soverignity of allied states. Although occupied, it has retained soverignity. In fact, its been a long time since the US has violated the soverignity of foreign states.
again, your ignorance astounds me. have you not heard of how the CIA ran unauthorised flights over european countries to transport prisoners for questioning? it has been all over the news in europe...
Oh, I see. So are you admitting that you have no evidence of US policies that condone torture? Yet, somehow you know about them. You know about them, that they exist, yet you can't present any evidence that they exist. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

So, please, pretty please, just give me an honest answer to my honest question - can you show me any element of US policy that endorses torture or any of the things you claimed or not?
you are so incredibly naive, to think they would come out in the open about it... they can't. they would loose public support all over the world and would become isolated. open your eyes... you are sleeping.

Not all of us. Some of us are trying to turn back the tide.
i'm praying for more of you coming out... i really am... for your own sake, first of all, since you are the ones who are becoming prime targets...

i'm praying for more of you coming out... i really am... for your own sake, first of all, since you are the ones who are becoming prime targets...
This just goes to show how unfair my country's situation is. Nearly half of the country has always opposed Bush and his policies -- more if you agree with those who say the elections were rigged. Now we all get tarred with the same brush. Not to mention every terrorist's favorite rallying cry.

TS, I respect you, but where have you been? A whole new book just came out that talks about this very subject, including documentary evidence. Dammit, I can't remember the title -- I think it's Susskind's new book -- The One Percent Solution? Plus there are several years of public statements from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and most recently Gonzalez, all defending special rendition, waterboarding, stress positions, beatings, humiliation, and other abusive practices -- some which are torture and all of which are human rights violations -- all the while claiming that none of it is torture. Are you going to support their game of "it's only torture if we admit it's torture"?

Actually I'm familiar with a lot of that. No one is saying torture doesn't occur, but that torture isn't US policy. And things like humiliation and stress positions aren't torture or human rights violations. They are legitimate tactics that we even used to interrogate US citizens. Rendition occurs, but that alone isn't illegal. What is questionable, and what we still have no solid evidence of, is if people are being exported to foreign soil to be tortured.

Beatings, etc. are torture. Though I'm not familiar with any US policy that condones those.

And the documentary evidence, when it all boils down, is people who claim to have been tortured and people in low-ranking positions (like military officers) who have supervised torture and admitted it. That doesn't equate to a US policy or act of the administration that actually condones torture.

OUR backyard, OUR rules - and zero backtalk tolerance.

OUR way, or the highway.


HERE HERE

if you only believe in what you see, you can't believe secret services exist... do you honestly believe that the CIA hasn't used torture or do you prefer to believe that it's justified? at least admit it dammit, like so many people do here... how did torture happen in abu ghraib without superiors knowing about it? the only reason why it came out in the open was because soldiers were dumbasses to take pictures of it all and these pictures leaked... then, of course they used low-rank low-class soldiers as scapegoats. pawns...

You're still avoiding the question. Do you have any evidence of torture being condoned in US policy or not?

Now, even though you're avoiding the question (and I think we all know why), I'll answer yours. Of course tortured occured at Abu Gharib. And, most likely, the CIA has used torture at times as well. However, neither equate to torture being endorsed by the administration or US policy. The superiors in Abu Gharib aren't part of the administration. They are essentially low to low-medium ranking military officers. In the same respect, CIA cells operate semi-autonomously. I don't think you'll find any overall CIA policy that condones torture, either.

again, your ignorance astounds me. have you not heard of how the CIA ran unauthorised flights over european countries to transport prisoners for questioning? it has been all over the news in europe...

Sure, thats called rendition. Rendition isn't torture or illegal. Nor has there been any solid evidence that torture has actually occured. Thats just the big suspicion. Its one thing to have suspicions, and its another to claim those suspicions are fact, like you're doing. The latter is called conspiracy theories.

you are so incredibly naive, to think they would come out in the open about it... they can't. they would loose public support all over the world and would become isolated. open your eyes... you are sleeping.

Is this your half-hearted way of admitting that you have no evidence of the US administration endorsing policies that support torture? I thought not.

You've also avoided my other question. Are you a US citizen or not? If you are, have you ever lived outside of the US and for how long?

Most of these are rude, hypocritical, and ultimately serve no purpose anyway. I'm quite surprised just exactly how bad this thread has gotten, but considering that nearly the same people are posting from thread to thread, I think my awe is dulled by the ignorance of the people in here.

I'm only writing this wake you people up. Instead of lambasting the other with nonsense, you could try to argue about something more worthwhile than "AMERICANS ARE ALL BUSHISTS!" or "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS". I can guarantee you that - as an American - I am not Bushist, and most - if not all - of my Muslim friends would smack yall for some of the things that you say in here. Yeah, so there's a freedom of speech, but it means absolutely nothing if you keep shouting obscenities and making piecemeal of an argument that serves no purpose but to promote some lost eccentric ideals of a system that I really don't want to get involved in [alas, I am...].

So, there's my spiel. Take it or leave it. If you're going to leave it, start a new thread, because there's probably some genuine people who do want to argue the errors of various kinds of faiths, but after seeing what kind of junk is waiting for them they opt against it. Start a new thread if you're going to remain ignorant to the purpose of this thread because you're wasting a brilliant mind talking about a war, about which most of you only superficially care.

My apologies to the moderators, to all of those who have a genuine interest in the former intentions of this thread, and to those who don't give a damn about what I just said.
Alif, i did not say "ALL". i'm sorry if i generalised at that particular time, i shouldn't have done. i really am sorry. but you seem to fail to take into account the times I defended american muslims and peace-loving americans or the time i've actually defended american values and the american flag.

unfortunately, at the time of some of those comments, i was alone arguing against two americans who who were here throwing mud at islamic innocent people (one of them called american muslims "enemies") and that just infuriated me. shame you didn't arrive before. i know there are good americans (i have been to the states and i do have good friends there) but my view is that, while there are good people in the US, i get the feeling they are still not coming out enough; the evidence being that Bush is still not going through an impeachement process, as he should by now (and using clinton as a precendent) and getting away with murder.

again... i'm sorry for have failed to make the distinction but at the time i was alone arguing against a religious biggot and another american who, while not so radical, prefered to side with the biggot.

Ahhhh... this whole tourture argument:

Here's my ideas.

Question: Would Iraq have been better off without the US invasion?
Leftist answer: NO!!!!

Question: In that case, harsh order would be better than anarchiac chaos?
Leftist answer: Exactly. Saddam managed to keep the peace. That's why even though Iraq was oppressed, it was at least better off with a dictator in peace time than leaderless in war.

Question: So U.S. forces should emulate Saddam's methods (i.e. torture to prevent terrorism) in order to help keep the peace?
Leftist answer: Ummm... Uhhh... anyway, BushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushlied
BushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushlied
BushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushlied
BushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushlied
BushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushlied
BushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushlied
BushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushliedBushlied

So in other words, either:

Free chaos is better than peace.
Dictatorial order is better than liberated war.

Either way, the right is rightl. :)

Actually I'm familiar with a lot of that. No one is saying torture doesn't occur, but that torture isn't US policy. And things like humiliation and stress positions aren't torture or human rights violations. They are legitimate tactics that we even used to interrogate US citizens. Rendition occurs, but that alone isn't illegal. What is questionable, and what we still have no solid evidence of, is if people are being exported to foreign soil to be tortured.

Beatings, etc. are torture. Though I'm not familiar with any US policy that condones those.

And the documentary evidence, when it all boils down, is people who claim to have been tortured and people in low-ranking positions (like military officers) who have supervised torture and admitted it. That doesn't equate to a US policy or act of the administration that actually condones torture.
Well, then, that just supports my belief that Bush and his administration are criminals, because if their policies are not US policies, then they are violating both US policy and US law. Because frankly, I consider it naive to think that this administration is not committing acts that are, in fact, torture and/or human rights violations. One can try to make excuses for Abu Ghraib (if one can stomach to do so), but the GITMO buck stops at Bush's desk. As long as they refuse to open that facility to independent inspection, as long as they continue to hold prisoners there in a legal limbo without proccessing them, and as long as they continue to get caught out in lie after lie about nearly everything they say or do, I will not take their word for it that reports of torture and illegal mistreatment at GITMO are lies.

You're still avoiding the question. Do you have any evidence of torture being condoned in US policy or not?

Now, even though you're avoiding the question (and I think we all know why), I'll answer yours. Of course tortured occured at Abu Gharib. And, most likely, the CIA has used torture at times as well. However, neither equate to torture being endorsed by the administration or US policy. The superiors in Abu Gharib aren't part of the administration. They are essentially low to low-medium ranking military officers. In the same respect, CIA cells operate semi-autonomously. I don't think you'll find any overall CIA policy that condones torture, either.
you admit that both the CIA and the american army have used torture, but you don't believe that the Pentagon knew about it??? what world do you live in? and you call me delusional...
Sure, thats called rendition. Rendition isn't torture or illegal. Nor has there been any solid evidence that torture has actually occured. Thats just the big suspicion. Its one thing to have suspicions, and its another to claim those suspicions are fact, like you're doing. The latter is called conspiracy theories.
you just admited they used torture! what were the rendition flights for? why did they need to transport prisioners out of their original countries into eastern european and middle eastern countries where torture is commonplace? for God's sake, are you really this naive or are you playing devil's advocate?
Is this your half-hearted way of admitting that you have no evidence of the US administration endorsing policies that support torture? I thought not.
first: i never used the word "policies". that's you placing words in my mouth. second: condoning torture doesn't require an official "policy". there are many ways to condone something and the best way to condone torture is turning a blind eye or issuing orders like "do what's necessary". again, do you honestly believe that the Pentagon didn't know about it? if you do, again you are being incredibly naive. do you think countries that use torture come out in the open saying they use it? of course not. does that mean it's not condoned? of course not. you either have no clue of how these things work or you are playing dumb to defend the Bush administration. if you are, there is little point continuing this argument. if you support the bush administration as blindly as this, lets end this conversation since we're both wasting our time. keep voting republican and sending your children to slaughter...
You've also avoided my other question. Are you a US citizen or not? If you are, have you ever lived outside of the US and for how long?
what difference does my nationality make? what's your point?

Well, then, that just supports my belief that Bush and his administration are criminals, because if their policies are not US policies, then they are violating both US policy and US law. Because frankly, I consider it naive to think that this administration is not committing acts that are, in fact, torture and/or human rights violations. One can try to make excuses for Abu Ghraib (if one can stomach to do so), but the GITMO buck stops at Bush's desk. As long as they refuse to open that facility to independent inspection, as long as they continue to hold prisoners there in a legal limbo without proccessing them, and as long as they continue to get caught out in lie after lie about nearly everything they say or do, I will not take their word for it that reports of torture and illegal mistreatment at GITMO are lies.

Well, I agree that Bush's administration has quite a bit of criminal history under its belt, and that Bush could be impeached for at least a few things as well. It just doesn't lend support in my opinion to claims that there is a mass terror conspiracy endorsed as the highest levels of government.

I also don't take the govt's word that there is no torture. In fairness, I don't take the claims that there is the vast torture conspiracy occuring either. There isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another at this point, and that is why I think its absurd when people create these huge conspiracy webs, with little to no evidence, based solely on suspicion, and then claim them as the undisputed fact that no sane person would reject.

To be fair, in the American tradition, we should make objective judgments based on any strong evidence we have at hand. Not emotionally charged judgments based on little to no evidence and pure suspicion.

you admit that both the CIA and the american army have used torture, but you don't believe that the Pentagon knew about it??? what world do you live in? and you call me delusional...

The pentagon knowing about it and the pentagon endorsing it are two different things. You've yet to demonstrate any US administration endorsement of such things.

you just admited they used torture! what were the rendition flights for? why did they need to transport prisioners out of their original countries into eastern european countries where torture is commonplace? for God's sake, are you really this naive or are you playing devil's advocate?

No, I said "most likely" the CIA has used torture in the past. In addition, assuming this occured at some point in the past, it does not carry over to rendition flights or your current claims of torture. Basing your argument on the premise that they used torture in the past is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

first: i never used the word "policies". that's you placing words in my mouth. second: condoning torture doesn't require an official "policy". there are many ways to condone something and the best way to condone torture is turning a blind eye or issuing orders like "do what's necessary". again, do you honestly believe that the Pentagon didn't know about it? if you do, again you are being incredibly naive. do you think countries that use torture come out in the open saying they use it? of course not. does that mean it's not condoned? of course not. you either have no clue of how these things work or you are playing dumb to defend the Bush administration. if you are, there is little point continuing this argument. if you support the bush administration as blindly as this, lets end this conversation since we're both wasting our time. keep voting republican and sending your children to slaughter...

You said the US administration. Thats the body that makes policies. What it does and carries out is policy. You've yet to actually demonstrate that there are any policies of torture coming from the US administration. Just like you've yet to demonstrate that the US admin condoned anything you claimed.

If you have evidence, I'd love to see it. I hope actual facts and evidence aren't foreign concepts to you. I go by facts and evidence, not suspicion and conspiracy theory.

Saying "you have no clue" "you're niave" etc., aside from being fallacies (ad hominem), don't support your point. Conspiracy theorists say the same thing about people who don't believe in the Illuminati or that the moon landing was faked. Again, if you have evidence, I'd love to see it. If not, it is a conspiracy theory, by definition.

what difference does my nationality make? what's your point?

Well, you're talking about "the Americans" in the third person. Are you a US citizen or not? There is a current trend among the pseudo-intellectual American youths today to refer to "the Americans" as if they are some distinct body from themselves. Thus, your usage of terms and analysis is reflected in your citizenship.

The fact that you dodged this question, instead of just answer "yes I'm a citizen" or "no, I'm from <here>" makes me even more suspicious of where you're actually from. You really do sound like one of th pseudo-intellectual American youth who likes to set themselves aside from other Americans due to trendiness.

Well, I agree that Bush's administration has quite a bit of criminal history under its belt, and that Bush could be impeached for at least a few things as well. It just doesn't lend support in my opinion to claims that there is a mass terror conspiracy endorsed as the highest levels of government.

I also don't take the govt's word that there is no torture. In fairness, I don't take the claims that there is the vast torture conspiracy occuring either. There isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another at this point, and that is why I think its absurd when people create these huge conspiracy webs, with little to no evidence, based solely on suspicion, and then claim them as the undisputed fact that no sane person would reject.

To be fair, in the American tradition, we should make objective judgments based on any strong evidence we have at hand. Not emotionally charged judgments based on little to no evidence and pure suspicion.
who said anything about a "mass terror conspiracy endorsed as the highest levels of government"? don't put words in my mouth please. your attitude says everything; you can't accept when a friend of the american people and fundamental values (which i am) tries to open your eyes but the moment an american challenges you, you lower your defenses. this is precisely the attitude that is damaging the US in the eyes of the rest of the world.

you know what a friend is? it's someone who tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.

i'm not anti-american. if you read my posts without prejudice, you should realise it. i've been to the states. i've worked with an american film director. i really want to see an america that embraces peace and justice, for the sake of my friends who live there. one of them nearly died in the WTC attack. take my words as you wish. i'm not saying one more word on this thread since i'm tired and i need sleep.

God bless america with the light that it needs, to get out of the dark hole where the bush administration has thrown it.

who said anything about a "mass terror conspiracy endorsed as the highest levels of government"? don't put words in my mouth please. your attitude says everything; you can't accept when a friend of the american people and fundamental values (which i am) tries to open your eyes but the moment an american challenges you, you lower your defenses. this is precisely the attitude that is damaging the US in the eyes of the rest of the world.

You didn't have to say those words. It is exactly what you described. Except for terror, that should be torture. Its massive because it reaches throughout the administration, as you described. Torture is the key issue, that is a given. Its a conspiracy, by definition. You can look the word up. Its at the highest levels of government, according to you, because you said it was the US administration. That is the highest levels of the government. You even referred to the Pentagon and Bush explictly.

i'm not anti-american. if you read my posts without prejudice, you should realise it. i've been to the states. i've worked with an american film director. i really want to see an america that embraces peace and justice, for the sake of my friends who live there. one of them nearly died in the WTC attack. take my words as you wish. i'm not saying one more word on this thread since i'm tired and i need sleep.

God bless america with the light that it needs, to get out of the dark hole where the bush administration has thrown it.

You've still avoided saying if you're a US citizen or not. Like I said, you're starting to make me very suspicious that you're one of the pseudo-intellectual American youth who likes to pretend that they aren't American. Because its not trendy to be an American these days.

The pentagon knowing about it and the pentagon endorsing it are two different things. You've yet to demonstrate any US administration endorsement of such things.
i give up. stick to your blindness and vote republican.
No, I said "most likely" the CIA has used torture in the past. In addition, assuming this occured at some point in the past, it does not carry over to rendition flights or your current claims of torture. Basing your argument on the premise that they used torture in the past is the fallacy of poisoning the well.
i give up. stick to your blindness and vote republican.
You said the US administration. Thats the body that makes policies. What it does and carries out is policy. You've yet to actually demonstrate that there are any policies of torture coming from the US administration. Just like you've yet to demonstrate that the US admin condoned anything you claimed.

If you have evidence, I'd love to see it. I hope actual facts and evidence aren't foreign concepts to you. I go by facts and evidence, not suspicion and conspiracy theory.
i give up. stick to your blindness and vote republican.
Saying "you have no clue" "you're niave" etc., aside from being fallacies (ad hominem), don't support your point. Conspiracy theorists say the same thing about people who don't believe in the Illuminati or that the moon landing was faked. Again, if you have evidence, I'd love to see it. If not, it is a conspiracy theory, by definition.
i give up. stick to your blindness and vote republican.
Well, you're talking about "the Americans" in the third person. Are you a US citizen or not? There is a current trend among the pseudo-intellectual American youths today to refer to "the Americans" as if they are some distinct body from themselves. Thus, your usage of terms and analysis is reflected in your citizenship.

The fact that you dodged this question, instead of just answer "yes I'm a citizen" or "no, I'm from <here>" makes me even more suspicious of where you're actually from. You really do sound like one of th pseudo-intellectual American youth who likes to set themselves aside from other Americans due to trendiness.
i'll answer this one: if you had read my posts with your eyes open, you would have realised that i am not american.
you forget that some of us have been through all this in our past and know the signs better than anyone. you are children, when it comes to understanding the signs. we can see what you cannot see, because we've been through some of it, while the american people haven't.
i'm off to sleep. good night.

p.s. one last word: you better learn quickly how to discern this "grand conspiracy theory" bullshit from the corruption of your fundamental values at government level... there is a very thin line and "conspiracy theories" are making that line less visible by the year.

p.s. one last word: you better learn quickly how to discern this "grand conspiracy theory" bullshit from the corruption of your fundamental values at government level... there is a very thin line and "conspiracy theories" are making that line less visible by the year.

I'm well aware of the corruption. Yet, all you've given is conspiracy theories. Its one thing to point out facts, supported by evidence, (of which you've presented none), and another thing to assert your radical suspicions as fact.

And you've still refused to tell me if you're a US citizen or not. Only confirming my suspicion that you're whats known as a "fake foreigner."

Well, I agree that Bush's administration has quite a bit of criminal history under its belt, and that Bush could be impeached for at least a few things as well. It just doesn't lend support in my opinion to claims that there is a mass terror conspiracy endorsed as the highest levels of government.

I also don't take the govt's word that there is no torture. In fairness, I don't take the claims that there is the vast torture conspiracy occuring either. There isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another at this point, and that is why I think its absurd when people create these huge conspiracy webs, with little to no evidence, based solely on suspicion, and then claim them as the undisputed fact that no sane person would reject.

To be fair, in the American tradition, we should make objective judgments based on any strong evidence we have at hand. Not emotionally charged judgments based on little to no evidence and pure suspicion.
Who said anything about vast conspiracies? Not me. I'm a little hurt that you would try that tactic on me.

Bush is the boss. The buck stops with him. He is responsible for everything the people under his command do. He has taken little or no action to punish abuses that have happened which we do have clear and firm evidence about, and has done little or nothing about new abuses that have been alleged since those incidents. On the contrary, he has done nothing but make speeches that, quite frankly, in the light of those incidents, are nothing but attempts at ass-coverage. His inaction added to the overt statements of people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Gonzalez create legitimate suspicion that the Bush administration is not only condoning torture and illegal mistreatment of prisoners, but actually authorizing it -- with or without a supporting policy.

I have the freedom to rush to judgment as long as I keep it to my own opinions and within the fair limits of free speech. I am allowed to voice my suspicions. All I demand based on them are independent and full investigations. I am confident that my suspicions would be proved right by a competent prosecutor, but that does not mean these people do not deserve their day in court and the best defense they can mount.

Are you a tort lawyer?

As a matter of fact, although not a tort lawyer, I am a lawyer. A lawyer who has the courage to stand up for his Western American culture and against the idiocy of political correctness and the implacable threat that Islam poses. Deal with it.

As a matter of fact, although not a tort lawyer, I am a lawyer. A lawyer who has the courage to stand up for his Western American culture and against the idiocy of political correctness and the implacable threat that Islam poses. Deal with it.

Ah yes... such courage. The courage that can only be found in, oh, I dunno... the KKK, or Al Queda...

You always go on and on about how you will be victorious, how you're courageous, making like you're an actual soldier. Instead of a leech who hates people based on religion. It's kinda sad and even embarassing, since you talk about "civilized nations" even though you're a clear example of barbaric regression. Oh well, I guess you can deal with it too eh.

Are you actually denying your obvious hatred?

It reeks in every word you manage to punch onto the keyboard. You can't even take being called out on your nazi bullshit without ranting about "leftists" or "euro-wimps" or "Christian-haters." You betray your own obvious rage and apparently, don't even know you do it. Too easy.

Not only do I not deny it, I proclaim it. My country is at war with an implacable and evil political ideology. I hate that evil political ideology. I want to see it defeated and destroyed. Much like I hated the evil political ideology of communism, and was happy to see it defeated and substantially destroyed. Much like I am happy that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were defeated and destroyed.

It never ceases to amaze me how people such as you think that uttering the magic words "Nazi!" and "bigot!" will somehow silence your opposition and end all debate. What you fail to realize is that I am not running for public office, so all your accusations of "Nazism" and "bigotry" are of no concern to anyone. Nothing you say about my views has any significance to anyone but you. I don't give a rat's ass about your characterizations of my views. I'm sure other targets of your puerile insults and vapid abuse feel likewise.

Have a nice day :)

Not only do I not deny it, I proclaim it.

Sieg Heil!

As long as we've established that your sole motive is hatred of Islam, none of your bullshit 'arguments' have any meaning. They only carry weight with people who already agree with you.

My country is at war with an implacable and evil political ideology

By which you mean Islam? Sorry, no. The War on Terror doesn't excuse, justify or support your hatred. It's not the War on Islam.


It never ceases to amaze me how people such as you think that uttering the magic words "Nazi!" and "bigot!" will somehow silence your opposition and end all debate.

I don't think you will be silenced. All I'm doing is making you highlight and emphasize your own bigotry, so you become discredited and people understand what you are all about.

I'm sure that, long after anyone else loses interest, you'll still be around, ranting and foaming at the mouth.

What you fail to realize is that I am not running for public office, so all your accusations of "Nazism" and "bigotry" are of no concern to anyone.

Except you, since you react so strongly about it. Whipping out your book of Ann Coulter insults-in-a-can, hoping that I'm either a "Euro-wimp" or a "leftist" or whatever bullshit. Shooting in the dark, and shooting blanks....

Nothing you say about my views has any significance to anyone but you. I don't give a rat's ass about your characterizations of my views. I'm sure other targets of your puerile insults and vapid abuse feel likewise.

Have a nice day :)

Thanks, I will. Showing another fucking goose-stepper to be what he is puts a smile on my face. But do carry on with the old "I don't care" tactic - it's almost convincing other nazis! ;)

This post should be renamed "Problems with RELIGION" Not just Islam, but then again, I doubt this forum is big enough to list all of them problems with religion.



-Ben

I'm well aware of the corruption. Yet, all you've given is conspiracy theories. Its one thing to point out facts, supported by evidence, (of which you've presented none), and another thing to assert your radical suspicions as fact.
show me my "conspiracy theory" please or stop using the term; you're sounding like a propaganda megaphone trying to slander me because you have no arguments left, like when you mentioned stuff like the moon landing being faked. it's so pathetic that actually makes you look ridiculous and you don't even notice it. i've been talking about corruption of fundamental values at government level all along and threats to civil rights.

as to "evidence" you've already admited being aware of some of my accusations being true:
Well, I agree that Bush's administration has quite a bit of criminal history under its belt
The pentagon knowing about it and the pentagon endorsing it are two different things.
No, I said "most likely" the CIA has used torture in the past.
Actually I'm familiar with a lot of that. No one is saying torture doesn't occur.
And the documentary evidence, when it all boils down, is people who claim to have been tortured.
really? maybe you should start paying a bit more attention to the news.
Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush
Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03

The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism.

[...]

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."


maybe you prefer this one:
American attitudes

The American decision to engage in counterterrorism beyond the reach of national or international law arose from a desire - a need as Washington saw the matter - to avoid the restrictions of the US law and constitution, which protect individual rights.

It therefore built not only Guantanamo Bay, but a series of "black sites", or secret prisons around the world. In these black sites, senior al-Qaeda suspects were held and interrogated, sometimes by so-called "enhanced" methods.

For the Bush administration, authority for this came from a congressional resolution passed on 14 September 2001.

Under this resolution "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

[...]

Poland and Romania

The most serious charge Mr Marty makes in his report is against Poland and Romania, both of which he all but accuses of having allowed the CIA to run black sites.

These suspected secret prisons were in fact exposed by the Washington Post in an article in November 2005."

this one is my favourite:
AFX News Limited
CIA allegedly hid evidence of detainee torture - report
11.13.2005, 12:31 PM

WASHINGTON (AFX) - CIA interrogators apparently tried to cover up the death of an Iraqi 'ghost detainee' who died while being interrogated at Abu Ghraib prison, Time magazine reported today, after obtaining hundreds of pages of documents, including an autopsy report, about the case.

The death of secret detainee Manadel al-Jamadi was ruled a homicide in a Defense Department autopsy, Time reported, adding that documents it recently obtained included photographs of his battered body, which had been kept on ice to keep it from decomposing, apparently to conceal the circumstances of his death.

The details about his death emerge as US officials continue to debate congressional legislation to ban torture of foreign detainees by US troops overseas, and efforts by the George W. Bush administration to obtain an exemption for the CIA from any future torture ban.
you are so in denial...
And you've still refused to tell me if you're a US citizen or not. Only confirming my suspicion that you're whats known as a "fake foreigner."
again???? how many times will i have to requote myself before you learn how to open your eyes before trying to read something? you're just showing how blind you are, that you cannot even read what is blatantly clear:

i'll answer this one: if you had read my posts with your eyes open, you would have realised that i am not american.
you forget that some of us have been through all this in our past and know the signs better than anyone. you are children, when it comes to understanding the signs. we can see what you cannot see, because we've been through some of it, while the american people haven't.

there's this one as well:
BBC News examines the investigations, accusations and legal implications of the claims.

What have investigators found?

Swiss senator Dick Marty has reported to the Council of Europe that 14 European governments have colluded with the CIA over the transport of terror suspects around the world for interrogation - a practice known as "extraordinary rendition".

Spain, Turkey, Germany and Cyprus provided "staging posts" for rendition operations, while the UK, Portugal, Ireland and Greece were "stop-off points", the report said.

Italy, Sweden, Macedonia and Bosnia allowed the abduction of residents from their soil, it said.

Mr Marty also said there was evidence to back suspicions that secret CIA camps are or were located in Poland and Romania - allegations both countries deny.

His conclusions are based on air traffic logs, satellite photos and accounts of prisoners who say they were abducted.

As a matter of fact, although not a tort lawyer, I am a lawyer. A lawyer who has the courage to stand up for his Western American culture and against the idiocy of political correctness and the implacable threat that Islam poses. Deal with it.
Well that explains your squirminess.

I hope you're nice to your secretary/assistant. I was a legal secretary/assistant for many years (I quit earlier this year). A pissed-off secretary can ruin your career, you know. :p

Not only do I not deny it, I proclaim it. My country is at war with an implacable and evil political ideology. I hate that evil political ideology. I want to see it defeated and destroyed. Much like I hated the evil political ideology of communism, and was happy to see it defeated and substantially destroyed. Much like I am happy that Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were defeated and destroyed.

It never ceases to amaze me how people such as you think that uttering the magic words "Nazi!" and "bigot!" will somehow silence your opposition and end all debate. What you fail to realize is that I am not running for public office, so all your accusations of "Nazism" and "bigotry" are of no concern to anyone. Nothing you say about my views has any significance to anyone but you. I don't give a rat's ass about your characterizations of my views. I'm sure other targets of your puerile insults and vapid abuse feel likewise.

Have a nice day :)
You forgot to include the stage directions that would allow us to visualize you jumping up and down on your desk as you shout that diatribe.

Post 403 and Post 404
Well played, sir!

Well played, sir!
oh, i'm sure he'll find a way to say the washington post and forbes are becoming infected by the "conspiracy theory" bug... and then he'll blame me for passing it on to them... :D

oh, i'm sure he'll find a way to say the washington post and forbes are becoming infected by the "conspiracy theory" bug... and then he'll blame me for passing it on to them... :D
Oh, please, that Washington Post? They're a bunch of commiepinko amurika-hating homos. And Forbes? He flies around in balloons. We all know what that means -- terrorist sympathizer! :D

Its a fact that the US administration doesn't condone torture. You can't produce a single document of US policy that condones such a thing. Rather, you think your conspiratorial and paranoid worldview that it occurs is fact, and call people who reject your conspiracy theories as those "turning a blind eye."
who is the one with a "conspiratorial and paranoid worldview" now? next time, be sure of what you are saying before throwing mud at people based on lies or ignorance. now, you are the one exposed to ridicule...

are you going to continue to be a blind sheep or are you going to drop the sheep skin and show the wolf underneath?

show me my "conspiracy theory" please or stop using the term; you're sounding like a propaganda megaphone trying to slander me because you have no arguments left, like when you mentioned stuff like the moon landing being faked. it's so pathetic that actually makes you look ridiculous and you don't even notice it. i've been talking about corruption of fundamental values at government level all along and threats to civil rights.

I've already shown you your conpsiracy theory. I actually broke it down for you, definition to definition, in a previous post. You've claimed that there is the endorsement of torture at the highest levels of government (US administration) without any evidence. Again, that is a conspiracy theory by definition. You can look the term up if you don't believe that fits the criteria.

as to "evidence" you've already admited being aware of some of my accusations being true:

No, that is the fallacy of equivocation. Stating "the pentagon knowing and the pentagon endorsing" does not logically imply that I believe that either is true. Please, stop with the fallacies already. Lets go through and evaluate your fallacies:

Well, I agree that Bush's administration has quite a bit of criminal history under its belt

Yes, I said the Bush administration has criminal history. I didn't say that your assertions of his crimes are true. Equivocation.

The pentagon knowing about it and the pentagon endorsing it are two different things.

Yes, I said the pentagon knowing it and the pentagon endorsing it are two different things. I didn't say that the pentagon did know about it. Equivocation.

No, I said "most likely" the CIA has used torture in the past.

I explained this in the previous post, too. For one, I never said that the CIA did use torture, like you claimed. Nor did I claim that it was most likely in this situation. Nowhere did I affirm anything you said. You keep slipping into the fallacy of equivocation!

Actually I'm familiar with a lot of that. No one is saying torture doesn't occur.

And no one is saying torture occurs that is endorsed by the US administration, like you claimed. I've repeatedly stated that torture has occured at low military levels. This doesn't affirm your claims at all, however. Again, equivocation.

And the documentary evidence, when it all boils down, is people who claim to have been tortured.

And? I never stated that their claims were true. Nor do their claims actually state that torture was endorsed at high levels of government.

You've taken every one of my quotes out of context and claimed, falsely, that they somehow support your wild conspiracy theories. This much can be proven logically, because your usage of each quote commits the fallacy of equivocation. Not once did I say anything that affirms your claim - that the US administration endorsed torture.

really? maybe you should start paying a bit more attention to the news.


maybe you prefer this one:


this one is my favourite:

you are so in denial...

Alright, lets start with your original claim - that the US administration endorses torture - and see if any of these news articles actually assert that:

The first article from the Washington Post never said that the US administration endorsed torture. It said that it "may be justified." Again, you've slipped into a fallacy of equivocation here. You're attempting to confuse a conditional with an absolute. It doesn't say that the US administration endorses it.

The second BBC article only states that there are renditions and prisons around the world. And that "necessary force" may be used. It doesn't say anything about torture at all. So obviously it doesn't support your claim.

The third article from Forbes states that Bush is trying to gain exemption from laws. It doesn't say that the US administration currently endorses torture, either. In fact, it does say that Bush doesn't have exemption from such laws, which is actually contrary to your crazy conspiracy theories that Bush is endorsing torture.

again???? how many times will i have to requote myself before you learn how to open your eyes before trying to read something? you're just showing how blind you are, that you cannot even read what is blatantly clear:

You're just not answering. You're requoting something that isn't the answer to my question. I didn't ask if you were an "American", I asked if you were a citizen of the United States, and if you arent, where you are a citizen.

Its one thing to say "I'm not an American", as the pseudo-intellectual kiddies like to claim, the 'fake foreigners', and its another to honestly admit if you have citizenship or not, and where you do have citizenship. So instead of responding with a non-answer about you being an "American", how about you answer the real question - are you a citizen of the United States?

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
what can you see, clarisse, what can you see?

oh, i'm sure he'll find a way to say the washington post and forbes are becoming infected by the "conspiracy theory" bug... and then he'll blame me for passing it on to them... :D

Actually, the Post and Forbes didn't say what you claimed. Neither article said that the Bush administration is endorsing torture. The word "torture" didn't even occur in all of the articles you posted, in fact. Some talked about rendition, which we all know occurs. Like this BBC article you posted:

"Mr Marty also said there was evidence to back suspicions that secret CIA camps are or were located in Poland and Romania - allegations both countries deny.

His conclusions are based on air traffic logs, satellite photos and accounts of prisoners who say they were abducted."

Great, so we know that there are secret CIA camps and renditions. Does this prove torture, like you claimed? Nope. Is it evidence for torture, outside of a conspiratorial worldview? No again. Because the BBC article doesn't even claim torture, its amazing that you would use it as evidence to support your torture conspiracy theory.

blah-blah-blah
i won't even bother answering to you anymore, since the Washington Post, the BBC and Forbes have already done all the work for me...

you're just like a wounded animal, biting desperately in pain...

give it up...

let it go...

You're just not answering. You're requoting something that isn't the answer to my question. I didn't ask if you were an "American", I asked if you were a citizen of the United States, and if you arent, where you are a citizen.

Its one thing to say "I'm not an American", as the pseudo-intellectual kiddies like to claim, the 'fake foreigners', and its another to honestly admit if you have citizenship or not, and where you do have citizenship. So instead of responding with a non-answer about you being an "American", how about you answer the real question - are you a citizen of the United States?
you can't add even add 1+1 can you?
"i'm not american" + "i've been to the states" = 2

Oh, please, that Washington Post? They're a bunch of commiepinko amurika-hating homos. And Forbes? He flies around in balloons. We all know what that means -- terrorist sympathizer! :D
what did i tell you?

I just thought I'd give a more in depth refutation of your references, Assis, since you went out of your way to cut and paste them for me. Here was your original claim, back a few pages:

"Iraq was not the case. also, sovereign states are not afforded the rights to torture prisoners, execute civilians in cold blood, execute injured fighters, infringe national sovereignty of their allied countries (the ones they call friends)... when the US administration does this, they become worse than the enemy they are fighting, because they were supposedly civilised and they came from a higher moral stand."

You have accused the US administration of four things:

1. Torturing prisoners
2. Executing civilians in cold blood
3. Executing injured fighters
4. Infringing on the national soveriginity of allied countries

So far, you've presented zero evidence of any. Lets examine the articles you cut and pasted for me against your accusations:

Originally Posted by Washington Post
Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush
Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03

The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism.

[...]

An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."

Its from the Justice Department, so it does refer to the US administration. Thats about the only place it even remotely refers to your claims.

1. It doesn't say that the US administration tortured prisoners anywhere. In fact, it states that it is analytical and not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques. It also doesn't say that torture is justified, just that the analysis revealed that it may be justified. Only via the fallacy of equivocation can you confuse may with is.

2. It doesn't say anything about the US administration executing civilians in cold blood

3. It doesnt say anything about the US administration executing injuried fighters

4. It doesnt say anything abou the US administration infringing on the rights of a soverign state.

Originally Posted by bbc
American attitudes

The American decision to engage in counterterrorism beyond the reach of national or international law arose from a desire - a need as Washington saw the matter - to avoid the restrictions of the US law and constitution, which protect individual rights.

It therefore built not only Guantanamo Bay, but a series of "black sites", or secret prisons around the world. In these black sites, senior al-Qaeda suspects were held and interrogated, sometimes by so-called "enhanced" methods.

For the Bush administration, authority for this came from a congressional resolution passed on 14 September 2001.

Under this resolution "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

[...]

Poland and Romania

The most serious charge Mr Marty makes in his report is against Poland and Romania, both of which he all but accuses of having allowed the CIA to run black sites.

These suspected secret prisons were in fact exposed by the Washington Post in an article in November 2005."

To begin, this isn't about the US administration. It is about the CIA. The CIA is not part of the administration, by definition. Especially if we're referring to agents. You've already failed when you picked an article about the CIA to support your argument about the administration. The CIA, quite often, acts semi-autonomously. Not that the article would support your claim anyway...

1. This doesn't state anything about torture at all. It states that there are renditions, interrogations using "enhanced methods", and that the most serious charge made is not torture, but the black sites themselves. The fact that the article, and Mr Marty, doesn't say anything about torture should tip you off. If the article isn't using the term "torture", its probably a cue that you're being a bit extreme when you use it. In the same respect, since the article doesn't claim to have any evidence of torture, its probably a cue that you're a bit extreme to use the article itself as evidence.

2. It doesn't say anything about the US administration executing civilians in cold blood

3. It doesnt say anything about the US administration executing injuried fighters

4. It doesnt say anything abou the US administration infringing on the rights of a soverign state.

Originally Posted by Forbes
AFX News Limited
CIA allegedly hid evidence of detainee torture - report
11.13.2005, 12:31 PM

WASHINGTON (AFX) - CIA interrogators apparently tried to cover up the death of an Iraqi 'ghost detainee' who died while being interrogated at Abu Ghraib prison, Time magazine reported today, after obtaining hundreds of pages of documents, including an autopsy report, about the case.

The death of secret detainee Manadel al-Jamadi was ruled a homicide in a Defense Department autopsy, Time reported, adding that documents it recently obtained included photographs of his battered body, which had been kept on ice to keep it from decomposing, apparently to conceal the circumstances of his death.

The details about his death emerge as US officials continue to debate congressional legislation to ban torture of foreign detainees by US troops overseas, and efforts by the George W. Bush administration to obtain an exemption for the CIA from any future torture ban.

Now, this one is my favorite too.

1. This doesn't say anything about torture occuring. It only states that the Bush admin is attempting to get an exemption for torture to occur. This would go against your conspiracy theory - after all, if torture were already occuring, why would the Bush admin need an exemption? They didn't need one before? Relying on this article pushes your conspiracy theory into the realm of fallacious internal inconsistency.

2. It doesn't say anything about the US administration executing civilians in cold blood

3. It doesnt say anything about the US administration executing injuried fighters

4. It doesnt say anything abou the US administration infringing on the rights of a soverign state.

you can't add even add 1+1 can you?
"i'm not american" + "i've been to the states" = 2

Yes, I know what you're claiming. And, like I stated, it sound exactly like the internet "fake foreigner" syndrome. Its become more and more clear that you're a disgruntledd US youth that thinks its neat to pretend to be not an American.

what did i tell you?
You must be psychic. :D

Yes, I know what you're claiming. And, like I stated, it sound exactly like the internet "fake foreigner" syndrome. Its become more and more clear that you're a disgruntledd US youth that thinks its neat to pretend to be not an American.
i think you should see a psychiatrist... you are obviously suffering from paranoid delusion and "conspiracy theory syndrome".

i think you should see a psychiatrist... you are obviously suffering from paranoid delusion and "conspiracy theory syndrome".

Well, there you go with the ad hominems again. Don't you have some more websites that don't claim what you're asserting to post for me? How about telling me if you're a US citizen or not, instead of dodging?

Oh, and can I use news media sources that say that there is no torture, or that we have no evidence? Or are news media sources only valid when you think (falsely) that they support your conspiracy theories?

Well, there you go with the ad hominems again. Don't you have some more websites that don't claim what you're asserting to post for me? How about telling me if you're a US citizen or not, instead of dodging?
if i tell you "i am not american" + "i have been to the states" then the obvious conclusion (to anyone but a paranoid delusioned mind like yours) is "no".

Oh, and can I use news media sources that say that there is no torture, or that we have no evidence? Or are news media sources only valid when you think (falsely) that they support your conspiracy theories?
ahahahaha... give me a sec and i'll answer again and expose you to ridicule again...

It is not racist to dislike Islam - as it is a religion and not a race. I dislike it because of the content.

Islam means submission. I don't believe humans should submit to God as I believe in reason as opposed to blind faith. Muslims also believe Allah controls their destiny, such a deterministic view of life discourages individual responsibility and an idea I personally find very depressing. Such beliefs are common to many religions.

What is worrying however is the conviction with which muslims hold their beliefs. They believe Islam should permeate every aspect of society, making know distiction between church and state. As a result Islam is at odds with free speech, free religion and free dress.

The punishments set in Islamic countries are determined by what it says in the Qu'ran. Apparently because Allah spoke it word for word to Mohammed the book is infallible. Therefore Hadd crimes, such as adultery, are automatically punished with death.

Shariah law contains many outright contradictions to human/individual rights, but the left is always far more reluctant to crticise these than when such violations are made from a secular or Christian base - why?

The Qu'ran also contains passages which could arguably sanction terrorism as part of Jihad, but as the vast majority of mainstream muslims do not interpret them such I won't. Mainstream muslims do, however, see the state as a vehicle for enforcing the will of Allah - and that is therefore open to criticism, just as most rational people criticise Christianity when it forces morals on others.

i wont feed you your trolling..all i can say..is that religion is capable of infinite beauty...and infinite hate...take your pick!

i love my fellow man,and no book needs to tell me that!

Oh, and can I use news media sources that say that there is no torture, or that we have no evidence? Or are news media sources only valid when you think (falsely) that they support your conspiracy theories?
since i'm having to rewrite my reply again and we've been digressing from the original subject, you've inspired me to start a new thread... watch the general page.... it may take a while though...

Well that explains your squirminess.

I hope you're nice to your secretary/assistant. I was a legal secretary/assistant for many years (I quit earlier this year).

Not only am I "nice" to my secretaries and assistants, I have fought on their behalf for higher salaries.

A pissed-off secretary can ruin your career, you know. :p

The first lesson I learned while clerking. Sorry things didn't work out for you. ;)

I also don't take the govt's word that there is no torture. In fairness, I don't take the claims that there is the vast torture conspiracy occuring either. There isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion one way or another at this point, and that is why I think its absurd when people create these huge conspiracy webs, with little to no evidence, based solely on suspicion, and then claim them as the undisputed fact that no sane person would reject.

To be fair, in the American tradition, we should make objective judgments based on any strong evidence we have at hand. Not emotionally charged judgments based on little to no evidence and pure suspicion.

Yet Amnesty international and HRW are anti-semites because a right wing think tank says so, according to you......

Yet, all you've given is conspiracy theories..

Sez Mr "anti-semites under the bed".


The problem with this line of thought is that you fail to distinguish between the legitimate military force of a soverign state with spurious bands of terror groups. Comparing any action by the military with a terrorist group is always going to commit the fallacy of questionable analogy..

Well the results are often similar. And as the war was initially launched without UN mandate "outside the charter" and thus illegally, I wouldnt go downthat road, were I you.

Its a fact that the US administration doesn't condone torture. You can't produce a single document of US policy that condones such a thing.
..

The Gonzalez documents go into the level of beatings/pain that are "acceptable" in order to avoid prosecution. Sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation are defined as Torture internationally btw. Thats why they changed the name to "sleep adjustment".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf


A lawyer who has the courage to stand up for his Western American culture
..

Big white Donny Osmond teeth and death squads....?

Not only am I "nice" to my secretaries and assistants, I have fought on their behalf for higher salaries.



The first lesson I learned while clerking. Sorry things didn't work out for you. ;)
Things worked out perfectly, thanks. I earned enough to pursue my real career in the arts, full time. I didn't need that work anymore.