NationStates Jolt Archive

"The suspected ringleader of the Al Qaeda car bombers is a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

So now it's doctors (and their potato-sack-wearing wives) who are leading attacks against the society that took them in and allowed them to thrive. Not uneducated gutter punks, not riffraff from "refugee" camps, not poor, hopeless, oppressed, marginalized, mistreated little Moslems, but doctors.

The forces of evil are recruiting from every level. The cancer is metastasizing before our eyes.

Action has to be taken and taken now.

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian. The same should be done with any children of other such terrorist scum. If they aren't afraid of dying themselves, maybe they'll be afraid of that.

"The suspected ringleader of the Al Qaeda car bombers is a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

So now it's doctors (and their potato-sack-wearing wives) who are leading attacks against the society that took them in and allowed them to thrive. Not uneducated gutter punks, not riffraff from "refugee" camps, not poor, hopeless, oppressed, marginalized, mistreated little Moslems, but doctors.

The forces of evil are recruiting from every level. The cancer is metastasizing before our eyes.

Action has to be taken and taken now.

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian. The same should be done with any children of other such terrorist scum. If they aren't afraid of dying themselves, maybe they'll be afraid of that.

Thats right because we all know that the only way to tend to this sort of stuff, is to inflict our own brand of religous bigotry onto them, yeah that will make everything a okay!;)

Raised as an atheist might be more effective. Just saying.

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian.
If you are going to be absurd, have them raised by atheists meat-eaters who hate PETA, then there is much less of a chance they will grow up to be crackpots.

This of course totally ignores the very obvious point that if their children are taken away from them they will have far less of a reason to not become suicide bombers against the people taking their children.

"The suspected ringleader of the Al Qaeda car bombers is a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

So now it's doctors (and their potato-sack-wearing wives) who are leading attacks against the society that took them in and allowed them to thrive. Not uneducated gutter punks, not riffraff from "refugee" camps, not poor, hopeless, oppressed, marginalized, mistreated little Moslems, but doctors.

The forces of evil are recruiting from every level. The cancer is metastasizing before our eyes.

Action has to be taken and taken now.

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian. The same should be done with any children of other such terrorist scum. If they aren't afraid of dying themselves, maybe they'll be afraid of that.

Yeah, I understand, Honky. But it's not like there aren't Christian terrorists. He might just firebomb an abortion clinic.

"The suspected ringleader of the Al Qaeda car bombers is a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

So now it's doctors (and their potato-sack-wearing wives) who are leading attacks against the society that took them in and allowed them to thrive. Not uneducated gutter punks, not riffraff from "refugee" camps, not poor, hopeless, oppressed, marginalized, mistreated little Moslems, but doctors.

The forces of evil are recruiting from every level. The cancer is metastasizing before our eyes.

Action has to be taken and taken now.

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian. The same should be done with any children of other such terrorist scum. If they aren't afraid of dying themselves, maybe they'll be afraid of that.

God you have managed to become even more of a troll ... I did not think it was possible

Or you know, just raised by the adoptive family like they would their own child, whatever religion (or lack of) that might be.

I see you people don't care that a person trying to cause mass-murder could have been performing a critical operation on a child the day before.

I see you people don't care that a person trying to cause mass-murder could have been performing a critical operation on a child the day before.

Did he do a good job operating on that child?

I see you people don't care that a person trying to cause mass-murder could have been performing a critical operation on a child the day before.

Yes, well, mass murder tends to undermine saving lives.

"The suspected ringleader of the Al Qaeda car bombers is a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS":

...

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian. The same should be done with any children of other such terrorist scum. If they aren't afraid of dying themselves, maybe they'll be afraid of that.


Does the word 'suspected' mean nothing to you?

Who needs a legal system when we got teh intertubes.

"The suspected ringleader of the Al Qaeda car bombers is a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

So now it's doctors (and their potato-sack-wearing wives) who are leading attacks against the society that took them in and allowed them to thrive. Not uneducated gutter punks, not riffraff from "refugee" camps, not poor, hopeless, oppressed, marginalized, mistreated little Moslems, but doctors.

The forces of evil are recruiting from every level. The cancer is metastasizing before our eyes.

Action has to be taken and taken now.

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian. The same should be done with any children of other such terrorist scum. If they aren't afraid of dying themselves, maybe they'll be afraid of that.


Emphasis on suspected.

Does the word 'suspected' mean nothing to you?

Who needs a legal system when we got teh intertubes.

LOL...We had like the same exact post, I didn't do it on puporse, honest! *hides*

Don't feed the (crappy) troll.

Isn't the Daily Mail a piece of crap or is that another British paper that I'm thinking of?

Isn't the Daily Mail a piece of crap or is that another British paper that I'm thinking of?

Yes, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything it says (much as it pains me to admit it).

Yes, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything it says (much as it pains me to admit it).

But it means we should take what it says with a grain of salt?

"The suspected ringleader of the Al Qaeda car bombers is a brilliant neurologist working for the NHS":


Obviously his brilliance doesn't extend to bombings. I've no idea what you're whining about really. You yanks have qualified Doctors supervising torture in your various torture centres. Thats not really "do no harm" either, is it?

Does the word 'suspected' mean nothing to you?



He's a "sodomise with baton first, evidence later" man.

According to the more steady Beeb....

Two of those being held by police are doctors.Dr Mohammed Asha, 26, who worked as a junior doctor at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital and the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford, was arrested on the M6 in Cheshire on Saturday night along with a 27-year-old woman thought to be his wife.

And an Iraqi man, Bilal Abdulla, suspected of the attack on Glasgow Airport worked as a doctor in Paisley.

It is believed he was employed as a locum at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, just two miles from the airport building attacked on Saturday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6261076.stm

Obviously his brilliance doesn't extend to bombings. I've no idea what you're whining about really. You yanks have qualified Doctors supervising torture in your various torture centres. Thats not really "do no harm" either, is it?

Yes, but they're torturing people for freedom!

That is sarcasm, btw

Well to New Mitanni, all "Moslems" are the same. He hates them all. So it doesn't matter if this one is "suspected," or even charged or convicted - he's "Moslem" and that's enough for him to post his hate-speech and get in those cute little digs about " "refugees" " (apparently there are no actual Muslim refugees, it's all part of a 5th column invasion force) or "potato-sacks" and "forces of evil" and "cancer."

It's all very cute of New Mitanni, but what he's really saying is "EEK! Help, they look different and believe a different God.... someone hold my hand, I'm scaaaared!"

Yes, but they're torturing people for freedom!

Thanks to reclassification of what constitutes torture and whats a bit of boyish fun,that would be Senor Gonzalez and Mr Cheneys 'Freedom tickling'.

Two of those being held by police are doctors.Dr Mohammed Asha, 26, who worked as a junior doctor at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital and the Princess Royal Hospital in Telford, was arrested on the M6 in Cheshire on Saturday night along with a 27-year-old woman thought to be his wife.

And an Iraqi man, Bilal Abdulla, suspected of the attack on Glasgow Airport worked as a doctor in Paisley.

It is believed he was employed as a locum at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, just two miles from the airport building attacked on Saturday.



Again with the believed and suspected. Get some evidence!

It's all very cute of New Mitanni, but what he's really saying is "EEK! Help, they look different and believe a different God.... someone hold my hand, I'm scaaaared!"

Well technically the same god, but yeah.

Well to New Mitanni, all "Jews" are the same. He hates them all. So it doesn't matter if this one is "suspected," or even charged or convicted - he's "Jewish" and that's enough for him to post his hate-speech and get in those cute little digs about " "refugees" " (apparently there are no actual Jewish refugees, it's all part of a 5th column invasion force) or "potato-sacks" and "forces of evil" and "cancer."

It's all very cute of New Mitanni, but what he's really saying is "EEK! Help, they look different and believe a different God.... someone hold my hand, I'm scaaaared!"

Whatdaya get now?

According to the more steady Beeb....



As any fule knoe the BBC is run by a cabal of leftist homosexual jews.

But it means we should take what it says with a grain of salt?
If you do it all the time you'll get hypernatremia.

The cancer is metastasizing before our eyes.
Erm, perhaps it's metastasizing in your eyes. Dude, get an eye exam. It might be retinoblastoma, or a cancer cell from your rectum. ;)

Raised as an atheist might be more effective. Just saying.

That's a good point, and one I thought of as well. An even better option would be to raise them as Jews, since jihadists seem to particularly hate the Jews. But Christians, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus--any non-infidel creed, or none at all, would all be good.

The point is to find out what these savages are afraid of, and exploit that fear against them. Since they don't care about their own lives any more than they care about the lives of bystanders, killing them isn't sufficient (although it both necessary and desirable). Since they're acting to advance Islam, removing their own offspring from that creed and raising them as non-infidels -- and even better, as future soldiers to fight against them -- seems mighty attractive. Sort of like janissaries in reverse.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Harmon_Rabb_photo.jpg
Harm says: "Yeah, do me."

Maybe he's just trying to take Dr. Kevorkian's ideas and make a franchise out of them.

Or maybe it really really really late term abortion.

Yeah, I understand, Honky. But it's not like there aren't Christian terrorists. He might just firebomb an abortion clinic.

For every "Christian terrorist" who has "firebombed an abortion clinic" (and caused how many fatalities?) there are hundreds of Moslem terrorist attacks. That old tired comparison didn't work when it was first propounded. Dragging it out now is just avoiding the real issue at hand.

And say "Honky" with a smile or I'll have your knees broken ;)

For every "Christian terrorist" who has "firebombed an abortion clinic" (and caused how many fatalities?)
Is that even relevant? Or is this a case of all terrorists are equal but some are more equal than others?

That's a good point, and one I thought of as well. An even better option would be to raise them as Jews, since jihadists seem to particularly hate the Jews. But Christians, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus--any non-infidel creed, or none at all, would all be good.

The point is to find out what these savages are afraid of, and exploit that fear against them. Since they don't care about their own lives any more than they care about the lives of bystanders, killing them isn't sufficient (although it both necessary and desirable). [B]Since they're acting to advance Islam, removing their own offspring from that creed and raising them as non-infidels -- and even better, as future soldiers to fight against them -- seems mighty attractive.[B] Sort of like janissaries in reverse.

Some Christians enjoy blowing up abortion clinics/killing abortion doctors, seems kinda like terrorism to me, and also in Northern Ireland it was seen just how viscous Catholics and Protestants are. No, not Christian.
Buddhists have formed guerilla movements in Tibet to overthrow the Chinese. Seems terroristic.
Hindu's could be similar to terrorists - you being a troll means Ill have to give you an example that pains me, due to my Indian heritage, but in the British eyes, Gandhi was a terrorist - a peaceful one though.

And, raising kids as anti-muslim to kill muslims...Isn't that what terrorists are doing agains the west? So wouldnt that be like...terrorism?

We want to be better then the terrorists, prove we are not afraid. Terrorists want us to fear them. Glasgow and London just proves how incompetent they are becoming...

God you have managed to become even more of a troll ... I did not think it was possible

The report was properly cited for its content. My comments in view thereof are serious. And your opinion of me calls to mind the classic Star Trek episode "Friday's Child," in which Dr. McCoy stated, "What the Klingon says is unimportant, and we do not hear his words."

The report was properly cited for its content. My comments in view thereof are serious. And your opinion of me calls to mind the classic Star Trek episode "Friday's Child," in which Dr. McCoy stated, "What the Klingon says is unimportant, and we do not hear his words."

Hehe. Trekky. Got an outfit too, per chance? ;)

also in Northern Ireland it was seen just how viscous Catholics and Protestants are.

What, they ooze slowly?

Yeah, I'm childish. What you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what.

For every "Christian terrorist" who has "firebombed an abortion clinic" (and caused how many fatalities?) there are hundreds of Moslem terrorist attacks. That old tired comparison didn't work when it was first propounded. Dragging it out now is just avoiding the real issue at hand.

And say "Honky" with a smile or I'll have your knees broken ;)

Yo man, spell Muslim correctly, please. It is starting to offend me, considering the fact that my dad is a Muslim. Show me your post of these hundreds of terrorist attacks, please.

What, they ooze slowly?

Yeah, I'm childish. What you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what.

Pardon my spelling :( English isnt my first langwage. <- Purposeful

Viscous?

Anyway, you know what I mean. Catholics ooze quickly, Protestants less so

Yo man, spell Muslim correctly, please. It is starting to offend me, considering the fact that my dad is a Muslim. Show me your post of these hundreds of terrorist attacks, please.

Being Muslim, you should realise in the West you can spell it 'Muslim' or 'Moslem' as the translation from Arab -> English was more of a guess then anything else :p

For every "Christian terrorist" who has "firebombed an abortion clinic" (and caused how many fatalities?) there are hundreds of Moslem terrorist attacks.

Prove it now or lose the argument, kid.

And say "Honky" with a smile or I'll have your knees broken

I'm sorry: Prove it now or lose the argument, HONKY.

Some Christians enjoy blowing up abortion clinics/killing abortion doctors, seems kinda like terrorism to me, and also in Northern Ireland it was seen just how viscous Catholics and Protestants are. No, not Christian.
Buddhists have formed guerilla movements in Tibet to overthrow the Chinese. Seems terroristic.
Hindu's could be similar to terrorists - you being a troll means Ill have to give you an example that pains me, due to my Indian heritage, but in the British eyes, Gandhi was a terrorist - a peaceful one though.

And, raising kids as anti-muslim to kill muslims...Isn't that what terrorists are doing agains the west? So wouldnt that be like...terrorism?

We want to be better then the terrorists, prove we are not afraid. Terrorists want us to fear them. Glasgow and London just proves how incompetent they are becoming...

You don't even have to go that far, man. There have been attacks that could be construed as terrorism perpetrated by Hindus against Muslims in India, often in response to perceived violence from Muslims (for instance, violence against Muslims following the multiple bombings in Bombay in the summer of 2k3)

Some Christians enjoy blowing up abortion clinics/killing abortion doctors, seems kinda like terrorism to me, and also in Northern Ireland it was seen just how viscous Catholics and Protestants are. No, not Christian.
Buddhists have formed guerilla movements in Tibet to overthrow the Chinese. Seems terroristic.
Hindu's could be similar to terrorists - you being a troll means Ill have to give you an example that pains me, due to my Indian heritage, but in the British eyes, Gandhi was a terrorist - a peaceful one though.

Poor examples and hardly to the point. "Some" Christians? The percentage is so small as to be virtually unmeasurable, and the truly tiny number of such so-called Christians have been denounced and repudiated by essentially all of Christendom. The contrast with Moslem terrorists is stark.

Catholics vs Protestants in Northern Ireland: nasty, ugly, certainly terrorist activity on both sides. As I've said before, I condemn the IRA, and also the other side, for such acts. No excuses, and again, no valid comparison between what seems to me to be essentially tribal violence in one part of the world and a worldwide movement that targets all non-infidels.

As to Tibet, I've yet to see any Tibetan Buddhists drive exploding yaks into Chinese restaurants in Lhasa, still less in Beijing, still less in Bali, London, Glasgow or anywhere else. If they did form a resistance movement that sought to free Tibet from Chinese oppression, confined its activities to legitimate military targets and otherwise conformed to the international law of war, e.g., did not deliberately target civilians, refused to hide in civilian areas, etc., I would have no problem with that.

And as to Gandhi, what a preposterous comparison. Regardless of what he may or may not have been "in British eyes," Gandhi to my knowledge never took part, motivated, directed or inspired any violent attacks against civilians, or indeed against military targets.

So, your shabby trick of using strawmen to advance an untenable argument has been exposed and refuted. And as for your opinion of me, see my preceding post.


And, raising kids as anti-muslim to kill muslims...Isn't that what terrorists are doing agains the west? So wouldnt that be like...terrorism?

Perhaps you missed the "janissaries" reference. The implication was enlistment in the armed forces of some civilized nation to battle against Moslem terrorism.


We want to be better then the terrorists

You may want to be "better." I want to see them defeated and destroyed, by any means expedient.

Glasgow and London just proves how incompetent they are becoming...

Don't make the mistake of underestimating the enemy. Expect them to learn from their errors and refine their attacks.

Personally, I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian. The same should be done with any children of other such terrorist scum. If they aren't afraid of dying themselves, maybe they'll be afraid of that.

Ann Coulter, is that you?

Being Muslim, you should realise in the West you can spell it 'Muslim' or 'Moslem' as the translation from Arab -> English was more of a guess then anything else :p

Yet many times the word 'Moslem' is quickly changed to 'Muslim'. It's not MOSlem, yet rather MUSlim.

Hehe. Trekky. Got an outfit too, per chance? ;)

No, but I do have a "Star Fleet Academy" sweatshirt that I got at a convention once :D

Yo man, spell Muslim correctly, please. It is starting to offend me, considering the fact that my dad is a Muslim. Show me your post of these hundreds of terrorist attacks, please.

Moslem is a more archaic spelling of Muslim. A trend I've seen around the Intertubes is that many of those who hate Muslims spell it "Moslem". Perhaps it's so they can identify each other, although you'd think their bigoted rantings would do that.

The report was properly cited for its content. My comments in view thereof are serious. And your opinion of me calls to mind the classic Star Trek episode "Friday's Child," in which Dr. McCoy stated, "What the Klingon says is unimportant, and we do not hear his words."

How amusing. Your opinion of muslims seem the exact same. Ignoring any evidence that doesn't support what you've already decided to be true. IMS the term is confirmation bias.

You may want to be "better." I want to see them defeated and destroyed, by any means expedient.


So basically, you are admitting you have the moral stamina... of a terrorist.

So why are you pretending to take the moral high ground? You know, the "forces of evil" Bushovik speech you gave in the OP. I guess you wanted to be politically correct.

Moslem is a more archaic spelling of Muslim. A trend I've seen around the Intertubes is that many of those who hate Muslims spell it "Moslem". Perhaps it's so they can identify each other, although you'd think their bigoted rantings would do that.

Lolz. *points finger at New Mitanni* <_< calling people Moslems, how....evil. :p

Yo man, spell Muslim correctly, please. It is starting to offend me, considering the fact that my dad is a Muslim.

Yo, man, as I've said before, I will use any spelling and employ any vocabulary I choose. Anyone who finds it "offensive" is invited to deal with it in any manner they wish. As for your ancestry, you have my condolences.

Show me your post of these hundreds of terrorist attacks, please.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

8700+ Moslem terrorist incidents just since 9/11.

Moslem is a more archaic spelling of Muslim. A trend I've seen around the Intertubes is that many of those who hate Muslims spell it "Moslem". Perhaps it's so they can identify each other, although you'd think their bigoted rantings would do that.

Well, they learned through a darwinistic process that saying "raghead" tend to make them get taken even less seriously. So they wanted something that showed how much they hate Muslims, without being immediately dismissable as the bigoted, racist trash they are.

Poor examples and hardly to the point. "Some" Christians? The percentage is so small as to be virtually unmeasurable, and the truly tiny number of such so-called Christians have been denounced and repudiated by essentially all of Christendom. The contrast with Moslem terrorists is stark.

Catholics vs Protestants in Northern Ireland: nasty, ugly, certainly terrorist activity on both sides. As I've said before, I condemn the IRA, and also the other side, for such acts. No excuses, and again, no valid comparison between what seems to me to be essentially tribal violence in one part of the world and a worldwide movement that targets all non-infidels.

As to Tibet, I've yet to see any Tibetan Buddhists drive exploding yaks into Chinese restaurants in Lhasa, still less in Beijing, still less in Bali, London, Glasgow or anywhere else. If they did form a resistance movement that sought to free Tibet from Chinese oppression, confined its activities to legitimate military targets and otherwise conformed to the international law of war, e.g., did not deliberately target civilians, refused to hide in civilian areas, etc., I would have no problem with that.

And as to Gandhi, what a preposterous comparison. Regardless of what he may or may not have been "in British eyes," Gandhi to my knowledge never took part, motivated, directed or inspired any violent attacks against civilians, or indeed against military targets.

So, your shabby trick of using strawmen to advance an untenable argument has been exposed and refuted. And as for your opinion of me, see my preceding post.

Perhaps you missed the "janissaries" reference. The implication was enlistment in the armed forces of some civilized nation to battle against Moslem terrorism.

You may want to be "better." I want to see them defeated and destroyed, by any means expedient.

Don't make the mistake of underestimating the enemy. Expect them to learn from their errors and refine their attacks.

The percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is also truely minimal, and whats more, they also are excommunicated as a Muslim! I am one! Of course theres always minorites - Thelps family for example, Michael Hill, Ann Coulter!

Regarding Ireland, you dont think blowing up cars in central London is terrorism? You dont think killing innocents, from both sides, just because they believe in a slighty different version of Christianity is fucked up?

Buddhists can be surprisingly violent, if they believe it is right. Such as the Buddhist who set himself on fire whilst meditating, or those who wrote a letter in his own blood to the UN for aid.

Of course Gandhi never took part in violence! He was against it! He was the father of passive protest, yet terrorism doesnt have to be physical. It can be economic, or political.

Thank you for teaching me about janessires though...Ignore spelling, English is not my first language. In your eyes, no doubt I am already planning to kill alot of people because of my faith being a 'dirty little Muslim' you might not say it, but I get that feeling of aggression from you.

The terrorists, currently are getting worse. I can draw you a graph in loss of life per attack if you want ;)

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

8700+ Moslem terrorist incidents just since 9/11.

This site seems.....bigoted. Look on the left "got qur'an" with a terrorist with a knife. WWMD=What would Muhammad Do?

To me, this just looks like a site that a racist fucktart made up.

I want a news source, please.

As for your ancestry, you have my condolences.

Wait, I know the answer to that! It's... "Things Mitanni's son will hear!"

Moslem is a more archaic spelling of Muslim. A trend I've seen around the Intertubes is that many of those who hate Muslims spell it "Moslem". Perhaps it's so they can identify each other, although you'd think their bigoted rantings would do that.

Ah, yes, of course. Any opposition to Islam, philosophical or otherwise, or any expression of a thought less than approving of all things Islamic, must be the result of "hate" and reduce to "bigoted rantings." The B-word: the default response of the Moslem terrorist apologist, enabler and sympathizer, and the certain indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

8700+ Moslem terrorist incidents just since 9/11.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq%2C_2003%E2%80%93present

Shock and awe, extra judicial killings, uncountable numbers of Christian caused terror and terror enabling incidents since 9/11.

You're point? That one side happens to be wearing uniforms it automatically discounts them from terror?

Yeah, I realize that not every soldier there is a Christian or all of them committed crimes, but then again, I figure this Ann Coulter clone wouldn't realize the difference.

Ah, yes, of course. Any opposition to Islam, philosophical or otherwise, or any expression of a thought less than approving of all things Islamic, must be the result of "hate" and reduce to "bigoted rantings." The B-word: the default response of the Moslem terrorist apologist, enabler and sympathizer, and the certain indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

No. You ARE bigoted because you claim most of Islam supports terror, when it's been shown to you time and again not to be true. You don't "not approve of all things Islamic", you want GENOCIDE AGAINST ISLAM. It's different. Now, shoo. Juu nen hayaku. I'm ten years ahead of you.

As far as Ireland was concerned, "Catholic" and "Protestant" weren't so much religious identities as political ones. The conflict wasn't about which belief was right, it was really about Independence and Imperialism and all that.

You're point? That one side happens to be wearing uniforms it automatically discounts them from terror?

Yeah, I realize that not every soldier there is a Christian or all of them committed crimes, but then again, I figure this Ann Coulter clone wouldn't realize the difference.

Yes, it does discount them from terror, as being attacked by soldiers is legal under the Geneva Convention and Hague Convention.

If some reasonable modicum of care is made not to consistently target civilians for the sheer purpose of terrorizing them, it's perfectly legal.

Wearing a uniform really helps in that regard.

Ah, yes, of course. Any opposition to Islam, philosophical or otherwise, or any expression of a thought less than approving of all things Islamic, must be the result of "hate" and reduce to "bigoted rantings."

Oh, you poor, martyr'd, misunderstood emo kid. How cruelly you are being misrepresented. Clearly it's all a plot by Moslem terrorist enablers.

You look cute with your tinfoil hat on.

I don't have any logical points, or actual proof to back my statements, so I'm gonna throw up the "I'm so persecuted" argument.

Free translation.

No. You ARE bigoted because you claim most of Islam supports terror, when it's been shown to you time and again not to be true. You don't "not approve of all things Islamic", you want GENOCIDE AGAINST ISLAM. It's different. Now, shoo. Juu nen hayaku. I'm twenty years ahead of you.

True true. edited...xD

Wait, I know the answer to that! It's... "Things Mitanni's son will hear!"

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "What are some things Mitanni's son will hear."

I'd like to remind the contestants to please frame their answers in the form of a question.

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "What are some things Mitanni's son will hear."

I'd like to remind the contestants to please frame their answers in the form of a question.

I'll take Historical Genocides for 400, Deus.

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "What are some things Mitanni's son will hear."

I'd like to remind the contestants to please frame their answers in the form of a question.

Aww, man! What DIDN'T I win? :(

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "What are some things Mitanni's son will hear."

I'd like to remind the contestants to please frame their answers in the form of a question.


Oh oh, pick me! I wanna be the next contestant! *raises hand*

Aww, man! What DIDN'T I win? :(

cuz you ain't kewl, dat's y!

Yes, it does discount them from terror, as being attacked by soldiers is legal under the Geneva Convention and Hague Convention.

If some reasonable modicum of care is made not to consistently target civilians for the sheer purpose of terrorizing them, it's perfectly legal.

Wearing a uniform really helps in that regard.

So wearing a uniform allows you to use "I was just following orders" as an excuse? Really now?

As for modicum of care, seems to me that the current administrative branch in the US doesn't seem to even have that kind of effort in place. Any demands to is always met with "There's a war going on here", which can justify anything these days apparently.

Including randomly killing families who happen to be near you and claiming them to be insurgents. Especially little girls, boys and disabled people. Even after you stuffed them into closets.

True true. edited...xD

It'd be "nijuu nen hayaku" then. But I think the usual phrasing is with "ten" years. ;)

It'd be "nijuu nen hayaku" then. But I think the usual phrasing is with "ten" years. ;)

awww man. *snaps fingers*

Yes, it does discount them from terror, as being attacked by soldiers is legal under the Geneva Convention and Hague Convention.

If some reasonable modicum of care is made not to consistently target civilians for the sheer purpose of terrorizing them, it's perfectly legal.

Wearing a uniform really helps in that regard.

Under the Geneva convention, torture is illegal.

Wearing a uniform really doesn't help, in that regard. Get a better arguement, mate. You've basically just said that being attacked by soldiers is legal. Due to the Just War theory, which the Geneva Convention follows, it must be from a recognised Government, no overt force may be used, it must be for a true cause, other alternatives must have been tried first and an effort must be made to help re build the captured land.

In Iraq, I see only....2 of these occuring. A recognised Government, and an effort to help re build captured land.

I guess it's only an "evil cancer" when "Moslems" do it, but it's perfectly "civilized" for folks like New Mitanni to be sadistic, murdering and soulless.

This site seems.....bigoted. Look on the left "got qur'an" with a terrorist with a knife. WWMD=What would Muhammad Do?

Since you asked:

Buhkari Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas:

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.

Source:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/082.htm

But I suppose this is also just "a site that a racist fucktart made up."

I want a news source, please.

http://www.tkb.org/Category.jsp?catID=318&contentType=0&sortBy=3&sortOrder=1&x=42&y=4

Read for yourself.

I'd just shoot/hang/quaterize them, for what its worth. Fuck the moral high ground, right rarely makes might, and, frankly, short of appeasing all things Islamic, the west is unlikely to win over Islamic communities living therein.

Under the Geneva convention, torture is illegal.

Wearing a uniform really doesn't help, in that regard. Get a better arguement, mate. You've basically just said that being attacked by soldiers is legal. Due to the Just War theory, which the Geneva Convention follows, it must be from a recognised Government, no overt force may be used, it must be for a true cause, other alternatives must have been tried first and an effort must be made to help re build the captured land.

In Iraq, I see only....2 of these occuring. A recognised Government, and an effort to help re build captured land.

Since when did torture enter into this?

We're talking about attacks, and whether or not they represent terror.

Being attacked by soldiers IS legal. The rest is just window dressing, as you may have noticed.

I'll take Historical Genocides for 400, Deus.

This genocide was hailed as a Crusade against a heretic sect of Christianity in southern France. It is now believed, today, that the primary reasoning behind this Crusade was the acquisition of the lands of this sect, the Cathars, by French nobility.

You have 5 seconds to answer.

So now it's doctors (and their potato-sack-wearing wives) who are leading attacks against the society that took them in and allowed them to thrive. Not uneducated gutter punks, not riffraff from "refugee" camps, not poor, hopeless, oppressed, marginalized, mistreated little Moslems, but doctors.

Umm... don't know where you got that idea. the 9/11 hijackers paid for their flight lessions, went to school here and rented their rooms/apartments with their credit cards. hardly poor, Uneducated, nor hopless.

Some Christians enjoy blowing up abortion clinics/killing abortion doctors, seems kinda like terrorism to me, and also in Northern Ireland it was seen just how viscous Catholics and Protestants are. No, not Christian.
Buddhists have formed guerilla movements in Tibet to overthrow the Chinese. Seems terroristic.
Hindu's could be similar to terrorists - you being a troll means Ill have to give you an example that pains me, due to my Indian heritage, but in the British eyes, Gandhi was a terrorist - a peaceful one though.and you know what? All those Christians groups that cheered those bombings ARE being watched by the FBI and other agencies. why don't you hear about them? ask your media about it.
We want to be better then the terrorists, prove we are not afraid. Terrorists want us to fear them. Glasgow and London just proves how incompetent they are becoming... well, we keep killing the top guys, and the less competent ones will take their place. ;)

Now here's a question. if Blair's out, and Britian is in the process of withdrawing troops... why the "attack"? after all, isn't London doing what they want?

Aww, man! What DIDN'T I win? :(A year's supply of Rice-A-Roni! a copy of the Home game, and you don't get to come back next time. :p

This genocide was hailed as a Crusade against a heretic sect of Christianity in southern France. It is now believed, today, that the primary reasoning behind this Crusade was the acquisition of the lands of this sect, the Cathars, by French nobility.

You have 5 seconds to answer.

Wasnt that really the real hidden objective behind all the crusades, except for the gullible who thought it was for God and glory?

This genocide was hailed as a Crusade against a heretic sect of Christianity in southern France. It is now believed, today, that the primary reasoning behind this Crusade was the acquisition of the lands of this sect, the Cathars, by French nobility.

You have 5 seconds to answer.

What is the Albigensian crusade?

Aww, man! What DIDN'T I win? :(

It's Jeopardy, smartass. Money! :p

What is the Albigensian crusade?

Correct!

RO is now leading with $400. Your question.

Ah, yes, of course. Any opposition to Islam, philosophical or otherwise, or any expression of a thought less than approving of all things Islamic, must be the result of "hate" and reduce to "bigoted rantings." The B-word: the default response of the Moslem terrorist apologist, enabler and sympathizer, and the certain indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

Just a thought, but isn't the use of deliberately offensive language by definition bigoted?

Anyway not all Muslims are terrorists, my wife certainly isn't and neither are my in-laws (I'm a Christian) they are just as afraid of these people as anybody else 'cause they are also seen as infidels, for no better reason than that they disagree with the interpretation of jihad espoused by the terrorists.
People can and will use their religion to justify any form of violence against those who disagree with their particular interpretation of the faith.

The solution is for people of good will whatever their belief not to get sucked into the vortex and to stand together against the forces of hatred and intolerence wherever they spring from. :fluffle:

Wasnt that really the real hidden objective behind all the crusades, except for the gullible who thought it was for God and glory?

Well, yes, but this was Christians killing their own people. A bit different from Christians killing Muslims.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq%2C_2003%E2%80%93present

Shock and awe, extra judicial killings, uncountable numbers of Christian caused terror and terror enabling incidents since 9/11.

You're point? That one side happens to be wearing uniforms it automatically discounts them from terror?

Legitimate military action is not equivalent to terrorism, and all your silly Wikipedia citations and specious "Christian caused terror" blasts cannot change that fact.

Yeah, I realize that not every soldier there is a Christian or all of them committed crimes, but then again, I figure this Ann Coulter clone wouldn't realize the difference.

Now that you mention it, it's time for my secret meeting with Ann to continue planning the Final Crusade :p

Correct!

RO is now leading with $400. Your question.

I'll take historical genocide for $500, Deus.

Correct!

RO is now leading with $400. Your question.

I'll take "Arguing" for $600!

(Bear with me, I don't know the rules to Jeopardy. Not an American here.)

Since you asked:

Buhkari Hadith, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas:

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.

Source:
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/082.htm

But I suppose this is also just "a site that a racist fucktart made up."



http://www.tkb.org/Category.jsp?catID=318&contentType=0&sortBy=3&sortOrder=1&x=42&y=4

Read for yourself.

Buhkari Hadith is not a website. I am talking about how f***ed up that site is. Making Muslims seem low and like dirt. You like that, don't you?

I'd just shoot/hang/quaterize them, for what its worth. Fuck the moral high ground


So you would not mind it if from now on, I just called you a terrorist, right?

So you would not mind it if from now on, I just called you a terrorist, right?

If he has a uniform on, he's not a terrorist.

Hiding within a civilian community, blending in, and conducting surprise attacks against innocents with the goal of instilling terror is terrorism.

State soldiers or policemen executing convicted suspects by gruesome means with the goal of instilling terror is NOT terrorism.

Simple, eh?

A year's supply of Rice-A-Roni!

I hope it's not Condoleeza flavoured...

Buhkari Hadith is not a website. I am talking about how f***ed up that site is. Making Muslims seem low and like dirt. You like that, don't you?

I can find similar material at the websites of nationally recognized and accredited universities.

I'd just shoot/hang/quaterize them, for what its worth. Fuck the moral high ground, right rarely makes might, and, frankly, short of appeasing all things Islamic, the west is unlikely to win over Islamic communities living therein.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your apparently genocidal desires mirror those of the terrorists you so despise.

If he has a uniform on, he's not a terrorist.


I don't see any uniform. I do however see a stated willingness to be just as barbaric, brutal, immoral and stupid as terrorists. Same with New Mitanni. These two... persons... have hypocritically decreed terrorists to be "evil," and yet have clearly said they have no need nor desire to be any morally different whatsoever. So why should I distinguish between them if they do not?

To me, New Mitanni and The Blessed Chris are nothing but ... cancers on this planet.

I hope it's not Condoleeza flavoured...

>.>

<.<

o.O'

I wouldn't know... would you? :p

I can find similar material at the websites of nationally recognized and accredited universities.

Then I suppose you did not read what I said earlier? I said that that site is bigoted against Muslims. Read the left and right hand side if you want proof.

>.>

<.<

o.O'

I wouldn't know... would you? :p

Ew. Ew.Ew. Ew. EW!!!

Then I suppose you did not read what I said earlier? I said that that site is bigoted against Muslims. Read the left and right hand side if you want proof.

I see the same material at university historical sites.

Are you saying that major universities, like the University of Southern California, is bigoted against Muslims?

Are the writings of Zangi somehow complete inventions of people who hate Muslims? Are you throwing out hundreds of years of Islamic scholarly work on when, why, and how you should kill non-believers, while millions of other Muslims (not all, to be sure, but most Wahhabis) certainly ascribe to those beliefs with no omissions?

I see the same material at university historical sites.

Are you saying that major universities, like the University of Southern California, is bigoted against Muslims?

Are the writings of Zangi somehow complete inventions of people who hate Muslims? Are you throwing out hundreds of years of Islamic scholarly work on when, why, and how you should kill non-believers, while millions of other Muslims (not all, to be sure, but most Wahhabis) certainly ascribe to those beliefs with no omissions?

Youre Christian Old Testament is truly much more worse. Or have you not read your Bible? Not read the history of your violent rasisct God, who takes pleasure from killing those who don't follow him? Moses, who ordered his men to kill all, except young girls his men can lie with? Abraham, ready to kill his son? Or perhaps even the lowly priest, who one boards with a kind man, yet bandits come, and the boarder allows his wife and daughter to be used rather then the priest himself?

Christianity is just a violent and aggressive religion as Islam.

I see the same material at university historical sites.

Are you saying that major universities, like the University of Southern California, is bigoted against Muslims?

Are the writings of Zangi somehow complete inventions of people who hate Muslims? Are you throwing out hundreds of years of Islamic scholarly work on when, why, and how you should kill non-believers, while millions of other Muslims (not all, to be sure, but most Wahhabis) certainly ascribe to those beliefs with no omissions?

Don't ask me retorical questions, man, because all you are using are f'ed up sites and your racist opinions. Do you have an actual Qur'an besides you? No? Didn't think so.


ALSO, prove the bolded writing to me.

Don't ask me retorical questions, man, because all you are using are f'ed up sites. Do you have an actual Qur'an besides you? No? Didn't think so.


ALSO, prove the bolded writing to me.

Yes, I have my own copy, and I read Arabic.

Just in case I get it wrong, I have several Egyptian friends (and Sudanese friends) who read Arabic.

Care to try again?

>.>

<.<

o.O'

I wouldn't know... would you? :p

yech! no, i wouldn't touch that under ANY circumstances

Ew. Ew.Ew. Ew. EW!!!

*sniggers quietly to himself*
my work here is done

(as is this tedious thread methinks...)

I'll take historical genocide for $500, Deus.

Damnit. I was going to give another question, but Wikipedia's not working and I don't feel like actually going and getting a history book.

Ah, yes, of course. Any opposition to Islam, philosophical or otherwise, or any expression of a thought less than approving of all things Islamic, must be the result of "hate" and reduce to "bigoted rantings." The B-word: the default response of the Moslem terrorist apologist, enabler and sympathizer, and the certain indicator of intellectual bankruptcy.

Interesting choice of words. It's the "any opposition" to Islam or "any expression of a thought less than approving of all things Islamic" that gets you labeled as hateful and bigoted. It's your categorical opposition to all things Islamic and your insistance that Islam "must be defeated" that gets you labeled as hateful and bigoted. I quoted some of your more bigoted and hateful statements below, leaving the entire post to prevent accusations of taking them out of their context.

In fact, I agree that many interpretations of Islam are uncivilized. Islam did miss the boat when Christianity was going through the Enlightenment. However, what this means is that we should be providing support and assistance to to the progressive elements in Islam. By stooping to the level of Wahhabists and their ilk the West only damages any credibility it may have with moderate leaning Muslims.

It's funny that you call those who disagree with you a "terrorist apologist and enabler". I'd like you to refer to any statement I ever made "apologizing" for terrorist activity.

As for enabling, you are in fact the one that enables the terrorists. Terrorism is a crime, no different than flat out murder. However, people like Osama bin Laden laughably claim to be soldiers to try to gain some sort of moral legitimacy. The problem is that sending our soldiers to fight them like soldiers allows them to say "look, we're fighting against the US Army, we're soldiers!".

So, in wanting to send soldiers to fight terrorists, rather than exclusively through police action and the actions of intelligence agencies people like you are enabling the terrorists to claim a legitimacy that should never be able to claim.

That is an accurate summary of my position.

I don't contend that every last Moslem is a terrorist or enabler thereof. I'm sure that among the entire Moslem population there are a few good people here and there, just like among the entire Nazi Party there were a few Oskar Schindlers. There may even be a substantial minority of nominal Moslems that don't actually believe in the violent and oppressive teachings that are found everywhere one turns in Islam (which raises the question of why they keep calling themselves Moslems, but that's another issue). That's not enough.

It is my contention that the evil jihadist ideology is an integral and irremovable component of Islam, and that this renders Islam an implacable enemy of all non-infidels that must be defeated once and for all, for the sake of humanity.

The only "right" Moslem terrorists have is the right to a hot lead injection. As soon as they take a single step on the jihadist/terrorist path, they forfeit all rights as human beings. They become outlaws in the old sense of the term: those literally outside the protection of the law and thus targetable at will by anyone.

And it is the DEFENSE of terrorists, the finding of excuses for terrorists, the refusal to confront and destroy terrorists, that makes one "no better" than them. Hatred of Moslem terrorist evil, besides being completely appropriate, DOES make one "better than the terrorists you so despise."

Yes, I have my own copy, and I read Arabic.

Just in case I get it wrong, I have several Egyptian friends (and Sudanese friends) who read Arabic.

Care to try again?

Yes I will "care to try again". What is the 1st line in the Qu'ran, in english please, for the other NSers.


YOU still didn't answer my question "I see the same material at university historical sites.

Are you saying that major universities, like the University of Southern California, is bigoted against Muslims?"

Show me the university historical sites please, unless you are pulling that out of your ass.

Yes I will "care to try again". What is the 1st line in the Qu'ran, in english please, for the other NSers.

YOU still didn't answer my question "I see the same material at university historical sites.

Are you saying that major universities, like the University of Southern California, is bigoted against Muslims?"

Show me the university historical sites please, unless you are pulling that out of your ass.


In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Keep us on the right path.
The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not the path of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of the unbelievers.

I'm not pulling the university stuff out of my ass, either.

I'm looking at an Oxford University translation of Zangi's work right now, and it looks to me like there's hundreds of years of Islamic scholarship on how, when, and why you should kill all non-believers.

Now, that's for Sunnis - I'm sure the Shias have their own texts.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Keep us on the right path.
The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not the path of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of the unbelievers.

I'm not pulling the university stuff out of my ass, either.

I'm looking at an Oxford University translation of Zangi's work right now, and it looks to me like there's hundreds of years of Islamic scholarship on how, when, and why you should kill all non-believers.

Now, that's for Sunnis - I'm sure the Shias have their own texts.

Yup, I have the Sunni version of it

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Keep us on the right path.
The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not the path of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of the unbelievers.

I'm not pulling the university stuff out of my ass, either.

I'm looking at an Oxford University translation of Zangi's work right now, and it looks to me like there's hundreds of years of Islamic scholarship on how, when, and why you should kill all non-believers.

Now, that's for Sunnis - I'm sure the Shias have their own texts.
Except when the Muslims took over and spread, they didn't kill all non-believers. Unlike the Christians who, when they took over and spread, retaliated against their former oppressors and the Jews through death and destruction.

PS. Let me highlight the comma for you.

Yup, I have the Sunni version of it

I've seen quite a few start their prayers with that surah.

Yea I had some of that in my AIM profile. I don't know if I still have it on there though.... :(

Just a thought, but isn't the use of deliberately offensive language by definition bigoted?

Actually, no, it isn't.

Anyway not all Muslims are terrorists, my wife certainly isn't and neither are my in-laws (I'm a Christian) they are just as afraid of these people as anybody else 'cause they are also seen as infidels, for no better reason than that they disagree with the interpretation of jihad espoused by the terrorists.
People can and will use their religion to justify any form of violence against those who disagree with their particular interpretation of the faith.

I appreciate the reasoned response. So I will explain how I see it:

First, I don't believe that it's a tiny minority who are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. For example, when almost a quarter of young American male Muslims (to use your spelling for the sake of this response) think any circumstances excuse homicide bombings, I find that indicative of a much larger percentage of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers being present:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278334,00.html

And that's just in America.

If only 10% of the worldwide Islamic population shares these views, that's 100 million terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Hardly a tiny minority. If it's only 5%, that's still 50 million. And so on.

Second, I don't believe any Muslims who make the argument, "We don't really believe this," in view of the violent teachings which saturate the Koran (which I have read, by the way), Hadith, Sharia law, etc., and further in view of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, which encourages and legitimizes lying about the true nature of Islamic beliefs to outsiders. I especially don't believe it when Muslims who live in nations where they are not the controlling majority make such statements. Actions speak louder than words. See, e.g., the latest Hamas attacks on the tiny Christian minority in Gaza.

Third, although there may be a few equivalents of Oskar Schindler among the entire world of Muslims, I don't see them as having any meaningful influence.

Fourth, even if there are large numbers of so-called "moderates," I don't see them taking any effective action to defeat the so-called "extremists" or whatever you want to call them. Rather, I see them just going along and allowing the "extremists" to call the shots. And if the "extremists" eventually prevail, then they won't oppose them. Effectively, therefore, they don't exist in any meaningful way. The only exception I'm aware of is in Turkey, and I'm not at all optimistic about future developments in that country.

I conclude that Islam has been since its inception, is, and will remain an implacable enemy of anyone who doesn't follow that creed, and must be dealt with accordingly.


The solution is for people of good will whatever their belief not to get sucked into the vortex and to stand together against the forces of hatred and intolerence wherever they spring from. :fluffle:

That's a nice platitude, but it begs the question of whether there are an effective number of "people of good will" in the Islamic world, and also falsely tries to equate "the forces of hatred and intolerance wherever they spring from", when they are not the same in intent or in practice.

I've seen quite a few start their prayers with that surah.
Oh no, a prayer to Allah to be good Muslims! Whatever shall we do?
Oh I know, pray the Christian prayers that say the same thing, that will save us from the 3b1l Mu5l1m5!!!

Actually, no, it isn't.


Fourth, even if there are large numbers of so-called "moderates," I don't see them taking any effective action to defeat the so-called "extremists" or whatever you want to call them. Rather, I see them just going along and allowing the "extremists" to call the shots. And if the "extremists" eventually prevail, then they won't oppose them. Effectively, therefore, they don't exist in any meaningful way. The only exception I'm aware of is in Turkey, and I'm not at all optimistic about future developments in that country.

I conclude that Islam has been since its inception, is, and will remain an implacable enemy of anyone who doesn't follow that creed, and must be dealt with accordingly.



You know what? I've had enough of this bigotry from you. I am a muslim, do you see me blowing up buildings or SUPPORTING the terrorists for that matter? Stop saying that all Muslims are terrorists, because your arguments=phail


EDIT: Bolded for phail

You know what? I've had enough of this bigotry from you. I am a muslim, do you see me blowing up buildings or SUPPORTING the terrorists for that matter? Stop saying that all Muslims are terrorists, because your arguments=phail


EDIT: Bolded for phail

You know what? Write again when you learn to read everything that's in the posts you reply to. And no, I don't see you "blowing up buildings". Of course, if you had, you wouldn't be here posting, now would you?

And BTW: before you complain again about the lack of links to acceptable sources, check the one in my sig.

I see the same material at university historical sites.

Are you saying that major universities, like the University of Southern California, is bigoted against Muslims?

Are the writings of Zangi somehow complete inventions of people who hate Muslims? Are you throwing out hundreds of years of Islamic scholarly work on when, why, and how you should kill non-believers, while millions of other Muslims (not all, to be sure, but most Wahhabis) certainly ascribe to those beliefs with no omissions?

I hate these stupid rants...
Lets look at history, the muslims had control over the Middle East for quite some time before the Crusades, then the Crusaders come in, take over cities, slaughter and rape random people, and you expect Zangi to like them?
WTF?

Of course Zangi is going to be pissed at non-believers, why the hell wouldn't he be, come on, he wasn't Gandhi. And as for people that believe in killing non-believers, the only muslims that believe that are the ones raised in Saudi funded madrassas. The same madrassas that the U.S. gave money to Saudi Arabia for, those madrassas were supposed to train fighters to attack the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, but after they were done with the Soviets, what were they going to do. People trained to hate like that don't just stop, they pick a new target, the U.S., so it all kind of backfired. As for Wahabis, the only people that like Wahabis are Wahabis. Wahabis are not a reflection on Islam, they are just stupid people filled with loads of hate.

Youre Christian Old Testament is truly much more worse. Or have you not read your Bible? Not read the history of your violent rasisct God, who takes pleasure from killing those who don't follow him? Moses, who ordered his men to kill all, except young girls his men can lie with? Abraham, ready to kill his son? Or perhaps even the lowly priest, who one boards with a kind man, yet bandits come, and the boarder allows his wife and daughter to be used rather then the priest himself?

Christianity is just a violent and aggressive religion as Islam.

In case you haven't heard, Christians regard the New Testament as primary. Find me teachings from the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, that are equivalent to what you complain about, and you may have an argument. Of course, you won't, because such teachings don't exist.

The practice of Christianity, in contrast to its teachings, certainly has not been exemplary at all times throughout history. Christianity, however, has reformed itself. The same cannot be said for Islam, and I see little if any likelihood that it will ever be said.

Since when did torture enter into this?

We're talking about attacks, and whether or not they represent terror.

Being attacked by soldiers IS legal. The rest is just window dressing, as you may have noticed.

Actually we were talking about torture because laughing boy was getting sanctimonious in his title. It was pointed out that US doctors oversee totrure regimes in various centres. For some reason he seems to have become caught up in his own trolling frenzy and missed that point....can't imagine why....

I see the same material at university historical sites.

Are you saying that major universities, like the University of Southern California, is bigoted against Muslims?

Are the writings of Zangi somehow complete inventions of people who hate Muslims? Are you throwing out hundreds of years of Islamic scholarly work on when, why, and how you should kill non-believers, while millions of other Muslims (not all, to be sure, but most Wahhabis) certainly ascribe to those beliefs with no omissions?


Just wanted to mention, anybody remember the scene in Borat with the college boys from USC?
Bigoted? -Is that a word?

You know what? Write again when you learn to read everything that's in the posts you reply to. And no, I don't see you "blowing up buildings". Of course, if you had, you wouldn't be here posting, now would you?

And BTW: before you complain again about the lack of links to acceptable sources, check the one in my sig.

I already have. There are many versions to the Qu'ran so don't go like, "OMFG here is 1 version. It's eviL!!! lulz!11111"

Trust me, racist boy, I know how to Write again when you learn to read everything that's in the posts you reply to. so don't worry about me. You on the otherhand, have shown and proven to be an ill-conceived, ill-logical, brat who hates Islam. Case closed.

Except when the Muslims took over and spread, they didn't kill all non-believers. Unlike the Christians who, when they took over and spread, retaliated against their former oppressors and the Jews through death and destruction.

PS. Let me highlight the comma for you.

You need to read your history. Muslims did a number on each other in that regard (Sunnis vs. Shias). They also did a good job through mere oppression of other religious beliefs of stamping out other populations that they took over.

One might also add that today, there are millions (not all) of Muslims who believe that the only way Islam will survive is to destroy the West entirely.

There are not millions of Christians today who appear to be of the same mind - Western secularism is here to stay in countries where Christianity exists, and there are no comparable movements with millions of members who would overthrow Western secularism.

I hate these stupid rants...
Lets look at history, the muslims had control over the Middle East for quite some time before the Crusades, then the Crusaders come in, take over cities, slaughter and rape random people, and you expect Zangi to like them?
WTF?

Of course Zangi is going to be pissed at non-believers, why the hell wouldn't he be, come on, he wasn't Gandhi. And as for people that believe in killing non-believers, the only muslims that believe that are the ones raised in Saudi funded madrassas. The same madrassas that the U.S. gave money to Saudi Arabia for, those madrassas were supposed to train fighters to attack the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, but after they were done with the Soviets, what were they going to do. People trained to hate like that don't just stop, they pick a new target, the U.S., so it all kind of backfired. As for Wahabis, the only people that like Wahabis are Wahabis. Wahabis are not a reflection on Islam, they are just stupid people filled with loads of hate.


That and the Crusaders killed and raped more Muslims than the other way around...

Except when the Muslims took over and spread, they didn't kill all non-believers. Unlike the Christians who, when they took over and spread, retaliated against their former oppressors and the Jews through death and destruction.

PS. Let me highlight the comma for you.

Well they did, actually. Unless they were Christians and Jews. In that case they got to pay a tax to be exempt from the military and otherwise obtained the right to live as .75 of a citizen.

As for Gandhi being a terrorits, I'm quite sure the British were terrified of losing one of their wealthiest colonies.

I hate these stupid rants...
Lets look at history, the muslims had control over the Middle East for quite some time before the Crusades, then the Crusaders come in, take over cities, slaughter and rape random people, and you expect Zangi to like them?
WTF?

"Let's look at history, the muslims had control over the Middle East" . . . how? By invading and occupying it!

The Ottomans come in, take over cities, and you expect Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos (to whom Pope Benedict XVI referred, to the annoyance of tolerant, peace-loving Moslems worldwide) to like them?

As you say, WTF?

"Let's look at history, the muslims had control over the Middle East" . . . how? By invading and occupying it!

The Ottomans come in, take over cities, and you expect Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos (to whom Pope Benedict XVI referred, to the annoyance of tolerant, peace-loving Moslems worldwide) to like them?

As you say, WTF?

Actually, I understand Emperor Manuel Palaeologos's fear of muslims, since he was getting his a** kicked by them!

"Let's look at history, the muslims had control over the Middle East" . . . how? By invading and occupying it!

The Ottomans come in, take over cities, and you expect Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos (to whom Pope Benedict XVI referred, to the annoyance of tolerant, peace-loving Moslems worldwide) to like them?

As you say, WTF?

What about Great Britains empire? and Napoleans!?! OMFG, THEY TOOK OVER CITITES TOO!!!!

Shut up. What about Great Britains empire? and Napoleans!?! OMFG, THEY TOOK OVER CITITES TOO!!!!

As I recall, people didn't take too kindly to that, either.

You need to read your history. Muslims did a number on each other in that regard (Sunnis vs. Shias).
Oh please, Inquisition anyone? The Catholics couldn't even get along with themselves, much less other branches.

They also did a good job through mere oppression of other religious beliefs of stamping out other populations that they took over.
They hardly did anything compared to the Christians who not only oppressed but killed anyone who wasn't Christian.

One might also add that today, there are millions (not all) of Muslims who believe that the only way Islam will survive is to destroy the West entirely.
Oh no radicals, no other religion has radicals!

There are not millions of Christians today who appear to be of the same mind
How would you know? You obviously focus all your racist studies on Muslim "history," which you suck at by the way.

As I recall, people didn't take too kindly to that, either.

Exactly! And yet, we are still great friends with these people although they invaded countless nations to create their empires.

Well they did, actually. Unless they were Christians and Jews. In that case they got to pay a tax to be exempt from the military and otherwise obtained the right to live as .75 of a citizen.

Please explain how they were .75 of a citizen.

The practice of Christianity, in contrast to its teachings, certainly has not been exemplary at all times throughout history. Christianity, however, has reformed itself.

Well, the US is mostly christian, and it had no problem carpet bombing the Cambodians..that was in the 1960's....And then there was the whole "sponsor a nun raper" thing with Ronnie Raygun in the 1980's...and he was a christian....So when did this reform thing happen again?

Oh please, Inquisition anyone? The Catholics couldn't even get along with themselves, much less other branches.


They hardly did anything compared to the Christians who not only oppressed but killed anyone who wasn't Christian.


Oh no radicals, no other religion has radicals!


How would you know? You obviously focus all your racist studies on Muslim "history," which you suck at by the way.

Quote for truth. Also, the Chinese Red Guard, Remote Observer. Ever hear of them? RADICALS!!!!!!

Actually we were talking about torture because laughing boy was getting sanctimonious in his title. It was pointed out that US doctors oversee totrure regimes in various centres. For some reason he seems to have become caught up in his own trolling frenzy and missed that point....can't imagine why....

Sorry, I must have missed all those reports of US doctors overseeing all those rackings, breakings on wheels, Iron Maidens, blindings with hot branding irons, maimings, eviscerations, and all that.

Or, I was ignoring posts that failed to address the issue at hand and weren't worthy of being taken seriously.

Exactly! And yet, we are still great friends with these people although they invaded countless nations to create their empires.

I think my point is this:

Currently, there are millions of militant Muslims (not all Muslims).

These militant Muslims see that the only way out of their problems is to destroy the West.

They exist in the millions, as a dispersed, decentralized, largely headless organization designed to fight in the only way they can against the West - fielding a regular army would only be useless and suicidal.

They have only one goal - to destroy the West and bring dar al-Islam to the entire world.

There isn't a comparable Christian, Buddhist, Communist, or other organization on the face of the planet (well, North Korea, but they seem to be tightly contained in a benighted corner of the world of their own accord).

Denying that these militant Islamics exist is pretty silly.

Sure, the Christian Bible (and the Jewish Torah) are full of obscene mandates to kill unbelievers, etc. But there aren't millions of Christians and Jews just waiting to kill as many people as they can get their hands on, to rid the world of Western secularism.

Well they did, actually. Unless they were Christians and Jews. In that case they got to pay a tax to be exempt from the military and otherwise obtained the right to live as .75 of a citizen.
Which was more than can be said for the Christians.

Why are so many people attempting to argue with New Mitanni? All he does is state over and over how horrible Muslims are, and how Islam should be stamped out. Don't you get tired of hearing the same bigoted arguments used and reused?

New Mitanni, you should consider reading up on other religions. One day you may understand that Islam is by no means the only violent religion with a violent past out there. Your attempts to stamp it out because of your paranoia regarding terrorists is laughable. I've seen young children with more common sense.

I think my point is this:

Currently, there are millions of militant Muslims (not all Muslims).

These militant Muslims see that the only way out of their problems is to destroy the West.

They exist in the millions, as a dispersed, decentralized, largely headless organization designed to fight in the only way they can against the West - fielding a regular army would only be useless and suicidal.

They have only one goal - to destroy the West and bring dar al-Islam to the entire world.

There isn't a comparable Christian, Buddhist, Communist, or other organization on the face of the planet (well, North Korea, but they seem to be tightly contained in a benighted corner of the world of their own accord).

Denying that these militant Islamics exist is pretty silly.

Sure, the Christian Bible (and the Jewish Torah) are full of obscene mandates to kill unbelievers, etc. But there aren't millions of Christians and Jews just waiting to kill as many people as they can get their hands on, to rid the world of Western secularism.


If they wish to destroy the West, they why were/are they having a civil war? You aren't making sense.

"Let's look at history, the muslims had control over the Middle East" . . . how? By invading and occupying it!

The Ottomans come in, take over cities, and you expect Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos (to whom Pope Benedict XVI referred, to the annoyance of tolerant, peace-loving Moslems worldwide) to like them?

As you say, WTF?

Didn't the crusades start at least a hundred years before the beginnings of the Ottoman empire, or is that just some evil liberal fact I should ignore in favour of Jesus, mom, and apple pie?

Why are so many people attempting to argue with New Mitanni? All he does is state over and over how horrible Muslims are, and how Islam should be stamped out? Don't you get tired of hearing the same bigoted arguments used and reused?

New Mitanni, you should consider reading up on other religions. One day you may understand that Islam is by no means the only violent religion with a violent past out there. Your attempts to stamp it out because of your paranoia regarding terrorists is laughable. I've seen young children with more common sense.



You got your answer, now hush....:p

If they wish to destroy the West, they why were/are they having a civil war? You aren't making sense.

Iraq is only a sideshow in all of this.

Most international terrorists nowadays subscribe to Wahabbi Islam, or a close variant thereof.

Iran isn't even part of that - they only want their own regional hegemony (and what nation does not?).

I'm making plenty of sense.

In case you haven't heard, Christians regard the New Testament as primary. Find me teachings from the New Testament, and the Gospels in particular, that are equivalent to what you complain about, and you may have an argument. Of course, you won't, because such teachings don't exist.

The practice of Christianity, in contrast to its teachings, certainly has not been exemplary at all times throughout history. Christianity, however, has reformed itself. The same cannot be said for Islam, and I see little if any likelihood that it will ever be said.

Revelations.

I think my point is this:

Currently, there are millions of militant Muslims (not all Muslims).

These militant Muslims see that the only way out of their problems is to destroy the West.

They exist in the millions, as a dispersed, decentralized, largely headless organization designed to fight in the only way they can against the West - fielding a regular army would only be useless and suicidal.

They have only one goal - to destroy the West and bring dar al-Islam to the entire world.

There isn't a comparable Christian, Buddhist, Communist, or other organization on the face of the planet (well, North Korea, but they seem to be tightly contained in a benighted corner of the world of their own accord).

Denying that these militant Islamics exist is pretty silly.

Sure, the Christian Bible (and the Jewish Torah) are full of obscene mandates to kill unbelievers, etc. But there aren't millions of Christians and Jews just waiting to kill as many people as they can get their hands on, to rid the world of Western secularism.
So there are terrorists who are Muslims? Oh of course, because right now in time there is a focus on terrorists who are Muslim radicals, we must blame the religion and point to all the things in their holy text about killing unbelievers and can dismiss all of the same things said about killing unbelievers in the Jewish and Christian holy texts because there are no important Christian or Jewish radical terrorists right now.

You got your answer, now hush....:p

Oops. That was supposed to be a period at the end, not a question mark. Sorry.

Iraq is only a sideshow in all of this.

Most international terrorists nowadays subscribe to Wahabbi Islam, or a close variant thereof.

Iran isn't even part of that - they only want their own regional hegemony (and what nation does not?).

I'm making plenty of sense.

Wow, your making sense because you are the one saying it. If you didn't make sense in your own mind, then I feel sorry for you.

So Iraq is only a "sideshow"? So there are no international terrorists in Iraq? Is taht you are saying?

Well, the US is mostly christian, and it had no problem carpet bombing the Cambodians..that was in the 1960's....And then there was the whole "sponsor a nun raper" thing with Ronnie Raygun in the 1980's...and he was a christian....So when did this reform thing happen again?

:rolleyes:

Military activities over Cambodia, like military activities over Nazi Germany, were legitimate, so the comparison fails for this reason alone.

Furthermore, neither were carried out explicitly in the name of the Christian religion. US foreign policy in Central America in the 1980's likewise was not carried out explicitly in the name of the Christian religion. Nor were they formulated by any Christian church.

Comparisons like this lead me to the conclusion that you are willfully obtuse.

Sorry, I must have missed all those reports of US doctors overseeing all those rackings, breakings on wheels, Iron Maidens, blindings with hot branding irons, maimings, eviscerations, and all that.


Well we've had the equivalent of the rack with being shackled in various positions, not to mention the beatings, and rapes, the various deprivation techniques.....

I must say I never knew it was part of the "American dream" to work ones way through medical school from humble beginnings and oversee a man ramming objects up anothers mans arse while he screamed for mercy, but fuck, that just shows my ignorance.

Wow, your making sense because you are the one saying it. If you didn't make sense in your own mind, then I feel sorry for you.

So Iraq is only a "sideshow"? So there are no international terrorists in Iraq? Is taht you are saying?

No, I'm not saying there are "no international terrorists" in Iraq.

But, most of them (or nearly all of them) are on one side. The Shias have their own agenda, and are not international in nature (i.e., they aren't coming to Europe to bomb the shit out of it).

The "al-Qaeda in Iraq" crew, on the other hand, are all Sunnis (all Wahabbis), and are international in scope and operation.

The "al-Qaeda in Iraq" crew, on the other hand, are all Sunnis (all Wahabbis), and are international in scope and operation.

If you haven't noticed, those guys are in Iraq and are international. al-Qaeda is prettyyyyyy big.

Thus, I prove my point that there are a lot of international terrorists in Iraq.

:rolleyes:

Military activities over Cambodia, like military activities over Nazi Germany, were legitimate, so the comparison fails for this reason alone..

Actually, if you didn't spend your life ranting about muslims, you might know that they were illegal under US and international law. Not authorised by congress, apparently.
:
Furthermore, neither were carried out explicitly in the name of the Christian religion. US foreign policy in Central America in the 1980's likewise was not carried out explicitly in the name of the Christian religion. Nor were they formulated by any Christian church. .

O. Ok then. What part of the koran has the line that says "Bomb Glasgow" in it, specifically...and why hasn't anyone tried it before...are they only getting to that page now?

If you haven't noticed, those guys are in Iraq and are international. al-Qaeda is prettyyyyyy big.

Thus, I prove my point that there are a lot of international terrorists in Iraq.

I didn't say there weren't. I am saying that not all people fighting against the US in Iraq are international terrorists.

Oh, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is all on one side... So they aren't having a civil war amongst themselves.

I'm making plenty of sense.

...I don't see four horsemen a-riding......

Well we've had the equivalent of the rack with being shackled in various positions, not to mention the beatings, and rapes, the various deprivation techniques.....

I must say I never knew it was part of the "American dream" to work ones way through medical school from humble beginnings and oversee a man ramming objects up anothers mans arse while he screamed for mercy, but fuck, that just shows my ignorance.

QFT

Why is everyone ignoring the political reasons behind all this? This isn't so much about religion (Wahabis are a tiny tiny tiny group), this is all about politics. You can't bomb someone, kill their family members, and expect love can you. It just doesn't work that way, they don't randomly hate the U.S. or European nations, they hate them because of their actions in the Middle East and all the negative things they have done there, and that's the truth! The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't about religion, it's about land! The Iraq war isn't about freeing Iraqis, it's about giving U.S. corporations more money and more profit. It's all politics.

I didn't say there weren't. I am saying that not all people fighting against the US in Iraq are international terrorists.

Oh, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is all on one side... So they aren't having a civil war amongst themselves.

I know that al-Qaeda in Iraq in on one side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that al-Qaeda in Iraq in on one side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, by itself.

I know that al-Qaeda in Iraq in on one side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought you just insisted that they were in a civil war...

I thought you just insisted that they were in a civil war...

>_<

Why are so many people attempting to argue with New Mitanni? All he does is state over and over how horrible Muslims are,

To the extent they adhere to and practice the violent precepts of Islam, or approve of such, they are exactly that.

and how Islam should be stamped out.

A "Protestant Reformation" thereof would be an acceptable, if unlikely, alternative.

Don't you get tired of hearing the same bigoted arguments used and reused?

Is there any reasoned opposition to Islam that you don't trot out the old B-word against? Read and repeat: Opposition =/= bigotry.

New Mitanni, you should consider reading up on other religions.

Since you know nothing about me, you obviously wouldn't be expected to know that I have in fact "read up" on more than a few religions. I find the Zarathustri religion especially fascinating, as well as Zen Buddhism.

One day you may understand that Islam is by no means the only violent religion with a violent past out there.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. In any event, it is the only violent religion which is presently actively inflicting violence in its name on non-infidels worldwide.

Your attempts to stamp it out because of your paranoia regarding terrorists is laughable. I've seen young children with more common sense.

I've seen pictures of young children who were victims of Moslem terrorists. I'm sure their parents have more common sense than you about "paranoia regarding terrorists." The threat is real, and your response is the one deficient in "common sense".

Damnit. I was going to give another question, but Wikipedia's not working and I don't feel like actually going and getting a history book.

These peoples were massacred by the Turks around the turn of the 19th century.

These peoples were massacred by the Turks around the turn of the 19th century.

Who are the Kurds?

Didn't the crusades start at least a hundred years before the beginnings of the Ottoman empire, or is that just some evil liberal fact I should ignore in favour of Jesus, mom, and apple pie?


A valid question. I am actually referring to two different historical events and should have made that more clear. The Crusades began in 1093 IIRC, after about twenty years of invasion and occupation of lands of the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Turks. The Ottoman (Osmanli) Turks were another Turkish group who arose sometime in the 1300's IIRC and went on to overrun the remainder of the Byzantine Empire and eventually despoil Constantinople.

I'm sure you recognize, however, what the two groups have in common.

I'm sure you recognize, however, what the two groups have in common.
They are referred to as turks?

A valid question. I am actually referring to two different historical events and should have made that more clear. The Crusades began in 1093 IIRC, after about twenty years of invasion and occupation of lands of the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Turks. The Ottoman (Osmanli) Turks were another Turkish group who arose sometime in the 1300's IIRC and went on to overrun the remainder of the Byzantine Empire and eventually despoil Constantinople.

I'm sure you recognize, however, what the two groups have in common.

The ability to kick Byzantine a**.

Well we've had the equivalent of the rack with being shackled in various positions, not to mention the beatings, and rapes, the various deprivation techniques.....

Coercive interrogation =/= "torture."

"the equivalent of the rack with being shackled in various positions": sorry, no such equivalence.

"not to mention the beatings, and rapes,": such abuses =/= torture, but should also not be permitted.

"the various deprivation techniques": again, coercive interrogation =/= "torture."

But I suppose you would prefer to obtain information from terrorists by just asking nicely, "Please, please Mr. Jihadist Terrorist, please tell us when you plan to blow up the next airport! Please! Pretty please!! I'll be your best friend if you do!!" Please, indeed :rolleyes:

I must say I never knew it was part of the "American dream" to work ones way through medical school from humble beginnings and oversee a man ramming objects up anothers mans arse while he screamed for mercy, but fuck, that just shows my ignorance.

Apparently so.

Coercive interrogation =/= "torture."

"the equivalent of the rack with being shackled in various positions": sorry, no such equivalence.

"not to mention the beatings, and rapes,": such abuses =/= torture, but should also not be permitted.

snipo.

How are beatings not torture?

Coercive interrogation =/= "torture."


If by coercive interrogation you mean "tell us or we will hurt you", then yes that is torture.

For every "Christian terrorist" who has "firebombed an abortion clinic" (and caused how many fatalities?) there are hundreds of Moslem terrorist attacks. That old tired comparison didn't work when it was first propounded. Dragging it out now is just avoiding the real issue at hand.

Umm...not really.

Coercive interrogation =/= "torture."

Actually (as Ollieland already pointed out), coercive interrogation = torture

"not to mention the beatings, and rapes,": such abuses =/= torture, but should also not be permitted.


Rape isn't torture? Fascinating. Tell me then, why is rape not torture?

The Crusades began in 1093 IIRC, after about twenty years of invasion and occupation of lands of the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Turks. The Ottoman (Osmanli) Turks were another Turkish group who arose sometime in the 1300's IIRC and went on to overrun the remainder of the Byzantine Empire and eventually despoil Constantinople.

I'm sure you recognize, however, what the two groups have in common.

"despoil constantinople" eh? You ever been in Venice?

Actually, if you didn't spend your life ranting about muslims, you might know that they were illegal under US and international law. Not authorised by congress, apparently.

North Vietnam's using Cambodia as a base for operations against us made the operation perfectly legitimate. The President had full authority as commander-in-chief to conduct appropriate military operations. And I'll argue that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution implicitly provided any additional authority that the President may have needed.

You may now return to listening to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's "Ohio" on your I-Pod ;)


O. Ok then. What part of the koran has the line that says "Bomb Glasgow" in it, specifically...and why hasn't anyone tried it before...are they only getting to that page now?

"Specifically" mentioning Glasgow? Please, don't be an ass. :rolleyes:

But for a nice, all-purpose endorsement of terrorism against the "pagans" and "idolators", here's one of my favorite quotes, as rendered by three different translators:

Sura 9:5

YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Source: the Respected scholars at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

So, not just terrorism, but conversion under duress, explicitly endorsed.

Fast-forward to the 21st Century and we have this endorsement of homicide bombing by major Moslem religious authorities:

The following are excerpts from a panel discussion at the counter-terrorism conference of religious scholars at Sharm Al-Sheikh, Egypt. The discussion aired on Iqra TV on August 22, 2005. (To view this clip and obtain this transcript, visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=822 )

Dr. Muhammad Rafat 'Othman, Egyptian professor of Islamic law: "According to another opinion, a person who blows himself up is committing suicide. This opinion is based on sources that categorically forbid self-killing. The Koran says: 'Do not kill yourself, surely Allah is ever merciful to you.' There are also such sources in the Sunna and in the general consensus of scholars. No text in Islamic religious law permits a person to kill himself. Even in the case of Jihad, which is the pinnacle of religious duties, Islam does not permit a person to kill himself.

"What Islamic religious law does permit is for a person to wage Jihad, facing one of two options – victory or martyrdom. He may risk being killed by someone else, but may not kill himself."

[...]

Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: "Dr. Said Ramadhan [Al-Bouti] stressed the legitimacy of defense, saying it is a legitimate right in Palestine and Iraq. I think that saying it is a legitimate right is not enough, because a right is something that can be relinquished. It is a duty. All scholars say that defending an occupied homeland is an individual duty applying to every Muslim. Reducing this duty to a 'right,' which can be relinquished, is a kind of depreciation.

"We must stress this point, and emphasize that it is the rights of those defending their homeland. It is not only a right, but also their duty. I am amazed by what Dr. Muhammad Rafat 'Othman said.

"This has nothing to do with suicide. This man does not want to commit suicide, but rather to cause great damage to the enemy, and this is the only method he can use to cause such damage. Since this method did not exist in the past, we cannot find rulings about it in the ancient jurisprudence. We may find rulings about plunging into the [ranks of the] enemy and risking one's life, even in cases of certain death – so be it. The truth is that we should refrain from raising this issue, because doubting it is like joining the Zionists and Americans in condemning our brothers in Hamas, the Jihad, the Islamic factions, and the resistance factions in Iraq. It is as if we are joining them.

"We all condemn violence or terrorism, although, to tell the truth, I personally don't like the word 'terrorism.' I always say 'violence.' I have written a book called Islam and Violence. But since this word is so widespread, I use it. We all condemn the [terrorist] operations. We condemned them before we came to this conference. We condemned the bombings in London, Madrid, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Egypt. We condemned them as individuals and as institutions. This is something everyone agrees on. We cannot say we pat these misguided boys on the back, but we do want to listen to them. They have gone astray, so we want to treat them in a way that will set them straight, and bring them closer to us. We don't want to be like prosecutors, demanding their execution. We want to treat them the way clerics treat their students, the way fathers treat their sons."
[...]

Professor 'Abla Kahlawi, Al-Azhar University, Egypt: "We must be united in condemning this behavior, this terrorism or violence – call it what you will. We must declare loud and clear that resisting the aggression, and resisting the enemy is a legitimate right, and that a fighter who risks his life has that right. When he perishes along with his enemy, this is a resounding cry of truth, through which the martyr declares: 'This was mine and it has been plundered – let the whole world see.' This is how a Muslim should act when he defends what is his, and I don't accept anything else."

[...]

Iraqi Cleric Ahmad Al-Qubeisi: "Does any Islamic government have the right to prevent individuals from resisting the occupiers? This is what happens. There are young people who thought it was bad that the Americans were occupying the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. So they started the resistance, which might have been exaggerated, but this was an operational error. In principle, these are people who are trying to drive out the occupier, which is deemed legitimate by all earthly and divine laws. People are in dispute over the methods. Listen to what happens worldwide – things you may have forgotten: The officer who killed 400 children in the Bahr Al-Baqr elementary school in Egypt many years ago – they said he was depressed, and pardoned him.

[...]

"The arch-killer who murdered, at the Al-Aqsa Mosque many years ago in the days of Yitzhak Rabin, 38 people in the middle of prayer – they said he was depressed, and was pardoned.

[...]

"The pilot who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and killed 700,000 got a medal. Rustum and the Americans killed 700 prisoners in an Afghan prison – no one demanded they be held accountable. My question is: Why can't you show some mercy and say that these mujahideen are depressed, and pardon them? Thank you."

Sudanese Minister of Religious Endowments 'Issam Ahmad Al-Bashir: "The mujahideen are not depressed. Their faces shine."

Al-Qubeisi: " But you are accusing them of heresy, here. If you had to choose between depression and heresy, which would you choose?"

[...]

Saudi scholar Abd Al-Muhsen Al-'Abikan: "The suicide operations that are called 'martyrdom operations' are forbidden by Islamic law. Those who carry them out, committing suicide, cannot be called martyrs, and their actions cannot be called martyrdom. It was forbidden even in cases of Jihad by a number of prominent Muslim scholars."

[...]

Al-Bashir: "We have agreed that resisting the occupier is a sacred right and an obligatory duty, approved by Islamic religious law and by [international] conventions. It has nothing to do with forbidden terrorism. Moreover, it is legitimate. As proposed by Sheikh Al-Bouti, we emphasize this point in this concluding statement."

Participant: "And one cannot call their deaths suicide."

Al-Bashir: "Yes."

Participant: "It is an obligatory duty."

Al-Bashir: "Yes. I've already said that. It is an obligatory duty and a legitimate right. Someone who carries out this duty cannot be said to have committed suicide."

SO, homicide bombings are OK if "Islamic law" says so. Explain [I]that away.

If by coercive interrogation you mean "tell us or we will hurt you", then yes that is torture.

Keep believing that. Fortunately for us, appropriate techniques will continue to be used to extract vital information from terrorists. Just ask Khaled Sheik Mohammed :D

Blowing yourself up to kill others is suicide, therefore, it is not legal in Islam, regardless of how you or a terrorist would spin it.

As for fighting idolators and pagans, the sura is talking about not fighting battles during specific times of the year, then re-engaging in the pre-existing warfare. It is not telling muslims to randomly declaring war on pagans and idolators. Basically the sura is saying not too fight during the holy times, and then after the times are over that they may continue the war. People interpret suras to justify their arguments, you are doing it for yours, and i will do so for mine.

Keep believing that. Fortunately for us, appropriate techniques will continue to be used to extract vital information from terrorists. Just ask Khaled Sheik Mohammed :D


Heh heh....not funny

North Vietnam's using Cambodia as a base for operations against us made the operation perfectly legitimate.
.

Shame the majority in congress at the time didn't agree with you. Which was why it was done covertly.


You may now return to listening to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's "Ohio" on your I-Pod.

Don't care for that kind of thing, nor do I own an i-pod.



"Specifically" mentioning Glasgow? Please, don't be an ass. .

Well, christians attack something and its nothing to do with christianity according to you, but when muslims do it its all to do with Islam. There must therefore be a difference....There also must be a reason, seeing as theres this 'great fault' with Islam, why they're only starting to do this now....I just want to know why they havent gotten to the part about blowing up glasgow airport before now...and why not more of them too....


But for a nice, all-purpose endorsement of terrorism against the "pagans" and "idolators", here's one of my favorite quotes, as rendered by three different translators (snip):.

O look, its "debate by C&P flood". I thought it was extinct but here it is, alive and...there.

If this is the official outlook of Islam, why hasn't there been any of this violence before now? Is this the authors "extended edition" Koran thats only coming out now.....?

Keep believing that. Fortunately for us, appropriate techniques will continue to be used to extract vital information from terrorists. Just ask Khaled Sheik Mohammed :D

Its not just me, its civilised people in general. And by posting that lovely smiley face with that comment just goes to show your level of civilisation. "Appropriate techniques"? ooo-kaay

Keep believing that. Fortunately for us, appropriate techniques will continue to be used to extract vital information from terrorists. Just ask Khaled Sheik Mohammed :D

There you go again, proving without a doubt that you have no morals and are, in fact, fapping furiously at the thought of pain. You're a terrorist, New Mitanni - the only difference is you haven't ever had the stones to do anything but type.

There you go again, proving without a doubt that you have no morals and are, in fact, fapping furiously at the thought of pain. You're a terrorist, New Mitanni - the only difference is you haven't ever had the stones to do anything but type.

Another member of the fighting 101st Keyboarders?

Another member of the fighting 101st Keyboarders?

Oh, he's the major general of that lauded group. Fighting for barbarism and bigotry, no matter the cost to his brave fingers.

Being attacked by soldiers IS legal. The rest is just window dressing, as you may have noticed.

So Carte Blanche being attacked by soldiers is legal? So soldiers can bust in your house, riddle you full of holes, and nobody says a thing?

I guess those Colombian death squads are doing everything nice and legal then.

Legitimate military action is not equivalent to terrorism, and all your silly Wikipedia citations and specious "Christian caused terror" blasts cannot change that fact.

How is extra judicial killings of unarmed civilians who had no role in any combat legitimate just cause the killers were wearing uniforms? Seems to becoming more and more commonplace these days.

And lets not forget the Iraqi death squads while in uniform.

All that is on the hands of Christians, who either committed it, or enabled it.

Just as much as how you seem to think that current terror is the fault of Muslims as a whole.


Now that you mention it, it's time for my secret meeting with Ann to continue planning the Final Crusade :p


I'd like to see the two-year-old son of these monsters taken away from them, adopted out to some civilized family and raised as a Christian.


"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

A lesser clone, but a clone nevertheless. Must be from the damaged genetic stock.

Who are the Kurds?

I'm sorry, we were looking for Armenians. Pick a category.

I'm sorry, we were looking for Armenians. Pick a category.

Oppressed Peoples for 500, Alex.

Oppressed Peoples for 500, Alex.

VIDEO DAILY DOUBLE

These peoples were oppressed for over fifty years, with their government taking away their religion and imposing partiality.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/100.gif

VIDEO DAILY DOUBLE

These peoples were oppressed for over fifty years, with their government taking away their religion and imposing partiality.

http://www.fukung.net/v/1518/100.gif

Who are the Oppressed Christians of America?

Who are the Oppressed Christians of America?

Correct. The Categories remaining are British Rock Bands, Oppressed Peoples, Bad Thread Titles, and A Petit Dejeuner; which is about French words, so we'll just skip it.

Correct. The Categories remaining are British Rock Bands, Oppressed Peoples, Bad Thread Titles, and A Petit Dejeuner; which is about French words, so we'll just skip it.

I'll take Potent Potables for 300.

I'll take Potent Potables for 300.

This is a sound a doggy ma -- oops, wrong card.

This drink, made of fruits from Florida, won't be found in your toolbox. Unless you're an alcoholic.

This is a sound a doggy ma -- oops, wrong card.

This drink, made of fruits from Florida, won't be found in your toolbox. Unless you're an alcoholic.

*looks in toolbox*

Ah, "What is a Screwdriver?" (incidentally, my favorite drink)

I think we should probably stop.

*looks in toolbox*

Ah, "What is a Screwdriver?" (incidentally, my favorite drink)

I think we should probably stop.

Please pick a category. BONUS CATEGORY: Trolls who Somehow Don't Ever Get Reported

EDIT:No. This will diffuse an already way offtopic discussion.

Please pick a category. BONUS CATEGORY: Trolls who Somehow Don't Ever Get Reported

EDIT:No. This will diffuse an already way offtopic discussion.

I'll go with Bad Thread titles for 100

I'll go with Bad Thread titles for 100

This thread title is currently the only sexually suggestive title on the first page.
10:52PM EST

This thread title is currently the only sexually suggestive title on the first page.
10:52PM EST

What is "First, Do Harm"?

What is "First, Do Harm"?

I'm sorry, we were looking for "oh, the horrible itching"

Now let's move on to Final Jeopardy. This will be comprise of two questions and Categories:

Geography and Canned Meats

1. Name the one of the two doubly landlocked nations located in Europe. Please admit to use of wiki.

2. How long will Flecky be banned for spamming? How much will it increase from his first time ban of three days?

*jeopardy music nears end*

Then I suppose you did not read what I said earlier? I said that that site is bigoted against Muslims. Read the left and right hand side if you want proof.

You are aware this guy's the latest screen name for the lovely group of people including Deep Kimchi? You know, the genius behind "We Need to Sterilize All The Moslems!"

Well, it's up to three doctors now:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287634,00.html

You know, the genius behind "We Need to Sterilize All The Moslems!"

That's disgusting.

How many incarnations has this guy had, anyway!?

1. Name the one of the two doubly landlocked nations located in Europe. Please admit to use of wiki.

There are only two doubly landlocked nations in the world. Only one is in Europe.

What are Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan?

There are only two doubly landlocked nations in the world. Only one is in Europe.

What are Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan?

I thought the other was Paraguay...

I thought the other was Paraguay...

No, Paraguay is surrounded by some countries that are not land-locked (Argentina and Brazil).

That's disgusting.

How many incarnations has this guy had, anyway!?

Whispering Legs, Sierra something, Deep Kimchi, Eve Online, and Remote Observer. So five.

Whispering Legs, Sierra something, Deep Kimchi, Eve Online, and Remote Observer. So five.

Does he keep getting deleted, or does he keep making new accounts to try and "fool" everybody?

Does he keep getting deleted, or does he keep making new accounts to try and "fool" everybody?

Eve Online was deleted, and I'm pretty sure the first two were. I think Deep Kimchi just died, because he was away for maybe a year. Everyone ended up hating him.

Eve Online was deleted, and I'm pretty sure the first two were. I think Deep Kimchi just died, because he was away for maybe a year. Everyone ended up hating him.

I see. Thanks.