Libya

[Sean the Nailer]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I must agree that the only way to stop any and all violence is nothing less than a Crusade to cleanse the lands of any and all who hold true to certain profits and books containing sharia law.
It's not genocide, it's total, complete, prejudiced theocracide of a single entity and belief system and people. Genocide is way too small of a word considering the multitude of tribes, peoples, and states. They all have one thing in common though. The system of sharia law that governs behavior. Remove that and every trace of that, and there will be peace.
I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>
Oh, I do SO want to agree with you. Alas,,,, is that the ONLY option? Read on:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: W54/XM-388</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While that option seems to be very popular with some,,,,,,(snip)

<span style="font-weight: bold">You could go back to simply carving out areas of the world like the old days and say this is ours, that's yours. You come here we kill you, we go there you kill us and banish everyone to their sides</span> & then get rid of anything that pops up. That was tried more recently in the whole India / Pakistan separation, but with modern travel it won't work <span style="font-size: 14pt">unless we almost totally shut down global trade.</span>

(snip) Even then,,,,,,, </div></div>
So, let's see now. What kind of vacation spot are these places? Popular amongst the Yuppie crowd, maybe? I think not. As for the oil, I'm sure there is some sort of arrangement that can be made with at least ONE of those countries over there. Somebody has to be a 'friend' of ours, considering what has taken place in the past 20 or so years. Start by looking at Kuwait. Then Saudi Arabia. They don't appear to be near as "enemy'ish" as does Iran, Iraq, Laybia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the others. Those countries where humanity seems to take a second, third, or even fourth place to PROFIT and/or POWER.

So screw-em. Those countries can be exempted from decent human dealings. When and IF they decide to be human, they're more than willing to come to the table and put something out for offer. Until then, 'they' can definitely be left unto their own devices. Not much can really be made with rocks and sticks, comparatively. I don't know of any/many appliance manufacturing centers, nor any for automobiles, housing, medical innovation and the like, over there.

Can anyone blame me if my patience has worn thin, dealing with BS like this for over half my life. Long ago I got to the point of "fuck'em" but am only recently actually stating it.

I've been trying to talk nice, and think better thoughts, but when one shows themself as "less than human" I naturally look for the bug-killer.

 

[Guy Montag]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...

"Extra ecclediam nulla salus"

Look up the Old Testament for your 'tolerance'... As for 'give unto' why not answer my points on intolerance as evidenced by how it's practiced... Look up the Gospel of Paul, the Epistles, and then good old Revelations for your warm and fuzziness...

You think the vatican for centuries exercised no political and economic power? Really? The ONLY reason why its power has faded is due to secularism, not the benevolence of the religion. Believe what you want, but when your argument ignores the evidence you're just trying to engage in a frame up rather than a debate. </div></div>

That's gonna leave a mark!!

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>

Advocating going to war with a billion+ Muslims is beyond batshit crazy.

Forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm for genocide.

</div></div>

I agree that would be batshit crazy.

But we still need to understand how an islamic state or faithful population thinks, how they see us, and why. If you study islam, its history and its doctrines it is clear there is an inevitable clash between it, and any Western democracy. They simply cannot co-exist as written. Viewing the US, it's freedoms, and its constitution through the prism of islam does not leave much space for compatibility or compromise. There is no such thing as radical or moderate islam. There is islam. The quantity of that compromise space is defined by how adherent to islam the body is.

Turkey = not governmentally adherent. We get along fine.

Iran = An islamic theocracy, extremely adherent.

--Fargo007
</div></div>

If you look at the US Constitution through the prism of ANY religion you'll come to the SAME conclusion... there are no religions that are tolerant of diversity. Why do you think the Founding Fathers put in freedom of (and from) religion...?!?!?

The blinkered bias is stunning, you think no other religion has used violence as its method of converts? Ever spoken to a Native American about the forced conversions to Christianity? BLah blah blah - so far, everything that's being used to downplay islam has been a tool box of 'Western' religions.
</div></div>

When was the last Crusade? 800 years ago?
The last witch trial was what 400 years ago?
The forced conversions by some Christians of Aboriginal peoples in the "Empires" ended over 150 years ago?

I'm sure even if the dates were certified it would be insufficient to move the Grand Platitudinous Ones to move off of the lofty heights of Mount Flawed Comparison. (See what I did there Event? A little creative alliteration to a metaphorical equivalent of My. Olympus, but for fools! )

Have the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians or any
one of the non-Muslim major religions remained committed to conversion by the sword over the last 500 years?

Islamic scumbags are the problem but Islam is most assuredly the tool they are effectively using.

Denying it is not a sign of loftiness, rather it is delusional and foolhardy.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...

"Extra ecclediam nulla salus"

Look up the Old Testament for your 'tolerance'... As for 'give unto' why not answer my points on intolerance as evidenced by how it's practiced... Look up the Gospel of Paul, the Epistles, and then good old Revelations for your warm and fuzziness...

You think the vatican for centuries exercised no political and economic power? Really? The ONLY reason why its power has faded is due to secularism, not the benevolence of the religion. Believe what you want, but when your argument ignores the evidence you're just trying to engage in a frame up rather than a debate. </div></div>

That's gonna leave a mark!!

</div></div>

Just wanted to quote this so the absurd "little girl" quality of this childish post is preserved.

The oh snap flow chart...I'm sure he's bleeding out from the self inflicted gunshot by now. What with how withering the banality was of course.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

When was the last Crusade? 800 years ago?
The last witch trial was what 400 years ago?
The forced conversions by some Christians of Aboriginal peoples in the "Empires" ended over 150 years ago?

I'm sure even if the dates were certified it would be insufficient to move the Grand Platitudinous Ones to move off of the lofty heights of Mount Flawed Comparison. (See what I did there Event? A little creative alliteration to a metaphorical equivalent of My. Olympus, but for fools! )

Have the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians or any
one of the non-Muslim major religions remained committed to conversion by the sword over the last 500 years?

Islamic scumbags are the problem but Islam is most assuredly the tool they are effectively using.

Denying it is not a sign of loftiness, rather it is delusional and foolhardy.

</div></div>


Hmm.. ok. As I said, the influence of the institution has waned through the 18th Century period of Enlightenment, not because of any 'mia culpa' from the church. This is the same 'noble' institution that proteced DOZENS of child rapists for DECADES. THis is the same church that only 5 decades ago was all but silent in the face of the largest most organized mass slaughter on its very doorstep. This is the same church that sits and does nothing other than beseech the poor to give to the church in Mexico while it's 'flock' is murdered, butchered, kidnapped and tortured on a daily basis.

You want to point out the vile in islam? You're preaching to the fucking choir. I'm not ever going to defend it. But I will point out your bullshit, petty, transparent hypocrisy because if anything is going to ruin this country best is people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about and so push for asshole politicians to create policy that reflects the ignorance and bigotry of their constituents.

Also, please tell me who was the last forced convert to Islam?

You want to paint a false picture, well, here's the reality, ALL religions have hate speech somewhere in their texts. Here's some choice excerpts from the Talmud

"Since all Gentiles are only animals, all Gentile children are bastards (Yebamoth, 98a).
When a non-Jew robs a Jew, he has to pay him back, but if a Jew robs a non-Jew, he doesn't have to pay him back. Moreover, when a Gentile kills a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, but when a Jew kills a Gentile, "there is no death penalty" (Sanhedrin, 57a).
It is okay to "use subterfuges" in a court of law in order to cheat a non-Jew (Baba Kamma, 113a)."

See what I did there QQ? I took your examples and showed you you don't know what you're talking about.

Snap!

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Libya

and as for Zorastrians - well, when they held sway, it wasn't a good time for Jews or Christians in Persia... seems like killing and theology go hand in hand. I wonder who we'd be hating on right now if 9/11 never happened? Were any of you guys stressed about islam before that date? Truly?

From some of the pro-genocide bullshit lately on this site I'm more worried about some asshole thinking I'm too A-rab lookin' to be 'normal' than I am about Mahmoud the Mad Bomber. I guess that's why I've got my CCW because not all crackers are behind a keyboard.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya


Yes and the 12 imbeciles who actually look at those passages in THE OLD TESTAMENT!! and act on them are...wait, that's right there aren't even twelve of them...

You do see the difference between then and now right? Now as in <span style="font-size: 26pt">SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2012!!!</span> versus some ethereal historical time that is referred to ad nauseum as happening every 8 seconds by Timothy McVeigh clones...A person who, BTW was about as christian as my cat Felix who, while a decent enough cat, hasn't been to communion in...well he's never been to communion.

Anyway, the matter of Hundreds of years ago versus right fucking now! This is a grey area to you EH?

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and as for Zorastrians - well, when they held sway, it wasn't a good time for Jews or Christians in Persia... seems like killing and theology go hand in hand. I wonder who we'd be hating on right now if 9/11 never happened? Were any of you guys stressed about islam before that date? Truly?

From some of the pro-genocide bullshit lately on this site I'm more worried about some asshole thinking I'm too A-rab lookin' to be 'normal' than I am about Mahmoud the Mad Bomber. I guess that's why I've got my CCW because not all crackers are behind a keyboard. </div></div>

<span style="font-size: 8pt">Psst I'm half Armenian and and Half Maronite Lebanese so yeah, we were always more than a little stressed out about Islam before that date.</span>

 

[dbsinh2o]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, please tell me who was the last forced convert to Islam?
</div></div>

That giant sucking sound is moral relativism collapsing under it's own weight.

 

[Guy Montag]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbsinh20</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, please tell me who was the last forced convert to Islam?
</div></div>

That giant sucking sound is moral relativism collapsing under it's own weight.

</div></div>

Nicely played dbsinh20!

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbsinh20</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, please tell me who was the last forced convert to Islam?
</div></div>

That giant sucking sound is moral relativism collapsing under it's own weight.

</div></div>

Nicely played dbsinh20! </div></div>

Last one I know of was Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig of Fox News in 2006. I mean there were weapons involved, coercion, captivity and compliance under duress.

Isn't that still considered force in the Horse's ass universe in which you are King Montag?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210767,00.html

imeline: Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig's Ordeal
Published August 28, 2006
FoxNews.com
RELATED STORIES
Released Journalist Apologizes For Worrying Family, Father Reports
Captors Release Two FOX News Journalists Kidnapped in Gaza Aug. 14
Two FOX News journalists were released by their kidnappers Sunday, nearly two weeks after they were taken hostage in the Gaza Strip.
Here is a timeline of events that led to Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig's release:
August 27, 2006: FOX News correspondent Steve Centanni of Washington, D.C., and cameraman Olaf Wiig of New Zealand, are released after nearly two weeks in the Gaza Strip
Before the journalists' release, a new video was released, showing Wiig and Centanni dressed in beige Arab-style robes. The kidnappers claimed both men had converted to Islam. "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni later tells FOX.
August 26, 2006: With 72-hour deadline approaching, a senior Palestinian security official says he sees the "first promising signs" in efforts to free Centanni and Wiig.
August 24, 2006: Palestinian officials denounce the Holy Jihad Brigades, saying the kidnapping was harming Palestinian interests.
August 23, 2006: Previously unknown group calling itself the Holy Jihad Brigades release first video of Centanni and Wiig. Group demands that Muslims in U.S. jails be released within 72 hours. Group does not say what would happen if deadline passes unanswered
August 19, 2006: 30 members of Palestinian Journalists' Union gather outside parliamentary building in Gaza. They demand Centanni and Wiig be freed.
August 18, 2006: Wiig's wife, Anita McNaught, makes an emotional plea to his kidnappers to release him and Centanni.
August 14, 2006: Centanni and Wiig seize


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210767,00.html#ixzz26ftZibuk

 

[fargo007]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...

"Extra ecclediam nulla salus"

Look up the Old Testament for your 'tolerance'... As for 'give unto' why not answer my points on intolerance as evidenced by how it's practiced... Look up the Gospel of Paul, the Epistles, and then good old Revelations for your warm and fuzziness...

You think the vatican for centuries exercised no political and economic power? Really? The ONLY reason why its power has faded is due to secularism, not the benevolence of the religion. Believe what you want, but when your argument ignores the evidence you're just trying to engage in a frame up rather than a debate. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...</div></div>

Maybe we need to send you back there?

I'm impressed with the confidence, but without knowing the background of those you are engaging, it might be a little foolhardy.

That's because you keep redefining the tenets in order to provide room for a fallacy. That I call you on it doesn't mean I don't want to debate, it only means I want to deny you the opportunity to divert with orthogonal distractions.

You are still engaging in moral relativism in attempting to equate (now) the vatican (it's actions and influence in the past) against islam today. Not only does the vatican not execute its own people, it has not overcome by force or mob rule any government in the modern era. Comparing transgressions of centuries ago against those of today doesn't work. The argument is an anachronism.

It's not that people wearing the patch of a religion can't do evil things. The issue is what sanction they have from doctrine.

The evil acts I mentioned done under islam are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally commanded.</span>

The evil things you mentioned are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally condemned.</span>

It's a common argument to drag out "the crusades," and attempt to position islam as a victim. Let's remember that:

1 - the crusades were a defensive operation, against jihad.

2 - jihad is an offensive operation.

3 - the crusades lasted a fraction of the time.

4 - jihad has no finish line until there is only islam (it is still ongoing, after 1400 years)

5 - the body counts attributable to each are out of balance by many zeroes, and islam is far from finished.

If you want to have a relativist discussion, that's fine, but we need to keep it apples to apples. What islam is doing now, versus the others, and what the religious source of the action is.

Point out any homicidal or first degree crime type act you like in the 20th century or later perpetrated by a mainstream Christian religion, lean on your extensive education, and defend it using only the New Testament.

I can easily do the same with islam and only the koran, and I wouldn't be done typing by midnight tomorrow.

Cue the snap chicks?

--Fargo007

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

A little help to bring this back onto topic;

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/fools-and-knaves-part-3.php

 

[Victory]

Re: Libya

Oh sna... Oh yeah, forgot this was a shooting site, not a soapbox to debate your personal beliefs about religion.


Snaps withheld due to not being snap worthy.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

And really, can't we all agree that the whole snap thing is, well, you know, pretty effeminate.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Re: Libya

OHHHHSNAP! in befo da lock. Love the cracker comment EH you skin your ignorance with gusto.

Hang in there Queeq.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...

"Extra ecclediam nulla salus"

Look up the Old Testament for your 'tolerance'... As for 'give unto' why not answer my points on intolerance as evidenced by how it's practiced... Look up the Gospel of Paul, the Epistles, and then good old Revelations for your warm and fuzziness...

You think the vatican for centuries exercised no political and economic power? Really? The ONLY reason why its power has faded is due to secularism, not the benevolence of the religion. Believe what you want, but when your argument ignores the evidence you're just trying to engage in a frame up rather than a debate. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...</div></div>

Maybe we need to send you back there?

I'm impressed with the confidence, but without knowing the background of those you are engaging, it might be a little foolhardy.

That's because you keep redefining the tenets in order to provide room for a fallacy. That I call you on it doesn't mean I don't want to debate, it only means I want to deny you the opportunity to divert with orthogonal distractions.

You are still engaging in moral relativism in attempting to equate (now) the vatican (it's actions and influence in the past) against islam today. Not only does the vatican not execute its own people, it has not overcome by force or mob rule any government in the modern era. Comparing transgressions of centuries ago against those of today doesn't work. The argument is an anachronism.

<span style="color: #FF0000">you're making the wrong assumption that those who commit murder in the name of islam are true and whole representatives of it. They are not and there are billions of muslims who've never committed murder and who have no intention of doing so and who would call themselves good muslims. </span>

It's not that people wearing the patch of a religion can't do evil things. The issue is what sanction they have from doctrine.

The evil acts I mentioned done under islam are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally commanded.</span>

The evil things you mentioned are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally condemned.</span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">again you're showing your ignorance. There are plenty of passages in the Talmud (which you conveniently ignored from my previous post) and the bible and other religious texts that say non-believers are not worthy of life. What's that if it isn't doctrinally condoned and commanded?</span>

It's a common argument to drag out "the crusades," and attempt to position islam as a victim. <span style="color: #CC0000">something which I have never done. My point AGAIN is everything you are saying about islam is present and clear in other religions. Also, again, you've not responded to my question - how afraid/concerned/bothered were you about islam prior to 9/11?</span> Let's remember that:

1 - the crusades were a defensive operation, against jihad.

2 - jihad is an offensive operation. <span style="color: #CC0000">jihad is a term that is open to many interpretations. To those inconveniently peaceful ordinary muslims who've never killed anyone or attended flight school jihad is a term akin to 'deliver us from temptation'. It's the constant fight to stay a good person.</span>

3 - the crusades lasted a fraction of the time.

4 - jihad has no finish line until there is only islam (it is still ongoing, after 1400 years) <span style="color: #CC0000">see my point above.</span>

5 - the body counts attributable to each are out of balance by many zeroes, and islam is far from finished. <span style="color: #CC0000">please provide your sources and current number count. Have you tallied the dead from all the wars in europe over religion? How about the dead in South and Central America? Or in China/Indonesia/Philippines? What about Australia and the slaughter of the aborigines by the 'Christian' colonists who believe they were superior and could murder with impunity?</span>

If you want to have a relativist discussion, that's fine, but we need to keep it apples to apples. What islam <span style="color: #CC0000">is islam a person? Is it a country? Is it anything real other than an idea/faith? No. It's not doing anything. You are writing as those it's like the Borge where every member is committed to doing the same thing, the same way for the same reason.</span>is doing now, versus the others, and what the religious source of the action is.

Point out any homicidal or first degree crime type act you like in the 20th century or later perpetrated by a mainstream Christian religion, lean on your extensive education, and defend it using only the New Testament - <span style="color: #CC0000">there's plenty to go on, but why just the New Testament? Pray tell? Is it because you can't defend half of the holy book of Christians? You told me I underestimated you, prove it...</span>

I can easily do the same with islam and only the koran, and I wouldn't be done typing by midnight tomorrow. <span style="color: #CC0000">someone said given enough monkeys, enough time, each with a typewriter and one of them will type the complete works of Shakespeare... I'll start you off... "When shall we three meet again In thunder, lightning, or in rain?</span>

Cue the snap chicks?

<span style="color: #CC0000">did you say fat chicks?</span>
--Fargo007 </div></div>

 

[Polytrauma]

Re: Libya

"Somebody has to be a 'friend' of ours, considering what has taken place in the past 20 or so years. Start by looking at Kuwait. Then <span style="font-weight: bold">SAUDI ARABIA</span>. They don't appear to be near as "enemy'ish" as does Iran, Iraq, Laybia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the others". Sean the Nailer

Who do you think is the largerst financer both monetarily and in membership of Al-Queda? 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/01 were Saudi citizens! We must remember the origins of Al-Queda "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." As far as allies of the US on more than just paper, I consider those who are fighting along side us in Afghanistan.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Libya

I don't really give a hoot who they are. The Embassy is American property same as any Navel Vessel or any of the 50 states and should be treated as such.

Ok let the host country secure the premeter but once the walls are breeched or crossed, the security should fall under the Military commander on the scene. NOT THE EMBASTOR.

We need some old style China Marines manning the embassy's in charge of security .............

AND LET THEM DO THEIR JOB

 

[dbsinh2o]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Polytrauma</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We must remember the origins of Al-Queda "Al-Qaida, literally <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #FF0000">'the database'</span></span>, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."</div></div>

That didn't come from Jesse Ventura, by chance?

 

[fargo007]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you're making the wrong assumption that those who commit murder in the name of islam are true and whole representatives of it. They are not and there are billions of muslims who've never committed murder and who have no intention of doing so and who would call themselves good muslims. </div></div>

Nope, only that I can connect their murderous activity to a doctrinal command. Something you have failed upon challenge to do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
again you're showing your ignorance. There are plenty of passages in the Talmud (which you conveniently ignored from my previous post) and the bible and other religious texts that say non-believers are not worthy of life. What's that if it isn't doctrinally condoned and commanded?</div></div>

Christians consider the New Testament (you know, from your extensive Christian education, the part that Jesus is in) to interpret the old testament. e.g.
<span style="font-style: italic">
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".</span> Your points about the Talmud might be better made if you left out the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Christian</span></span> in your argument of doctrinally equivalent violence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
please provide your sources and current number count. Have you tallied the dead from all the wars in europe over religion? How about the dead in South and Central America? Or in China/Indonesia/Philippines? What about Australia and the slaughter of the aborigines by the 'Christian' colonists who believe they were superior and could murder with impunity?</div></div>

If you're unfamiliar, do your own research. There are videos referenced in this thread that lay out the statistics and numbers quite clearly.

I plainly point out that the difference between islamic violence and the Christian ones you do is that the islamic ones are <span style="font-style: italic">justified by koranic doctrine. </span> The Christians who committed those acts cannot point to the bible and say "right here is where I was commanded to do this." Show me a CHRISTIAN doctrinal justification to match any of your CHRISTIAN atrocities and I will back off.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
... My point AGAIN is everything you are saying about islam is present and clear in other religions. Also, again, you've not responded to my question - how afraid/concerned/bothered were you about islam prior to 9/11? </div></div>

So show me the religious doctrine in Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity that commands acts of violence they are committing. All kinds of people do all kinds of bad things, but only the islamic acts of violence are doctrinally justifiable.

I was very concerned before 9-11. Especially so when one of my best friends had to carry milk jugs full of pure nitroglycerin down flights of stairs after the arrest of the first muslims that attempted to destroy the WTC. 9-11 taught me that I needed to study islam. I wanted to know what was in the playbook that could make them do this. I have been studying since then.

Present and clear in other religions... heh.. Where are the Hindu suicide bombers?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
is islam a person? Is it a country? Is it anything real other than an idea/faith? No. It's not doing anything. You are writing as those it's like the Borge where every member is committed to doing the same thing, the same way for the same reason.
</div></div>

Are you asking seriously? It's a totalitarian political system. It goes far beyond religion and enters politics, describes how government should be shaped, establishes law, finance, and many other extra-religious things. I am not alleging that there is a singular consciousness of action among all muslims, but there IS a singular doctrine with stated, singular goals. And we can plainly read what it says. That doctrine is the source of the violence they commit, and is also used to defend their actions. I'm still waiting to hear all the "good muslims" stand up against violence and police their own ranks but it will never happen. Why? Because the ones advocating peace and tolerance lose the debate every time when it goes to their holy books.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

there's plenty to go on, but why just the New Testament? Pray tell? Is it because you can't defend half of the holy book of Christians? You told me I underestimated you, prove it...</div></div>

I never said you underestimated me. I only pointed out that your opinion of your own capabilities might be overinflated.

If there's plenty, give me <span style="font-style: italic">ONE</span> thing. Christians are named that because of Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the New Testament. A correct answer to a Christian doctrinal question must start with the New Testament first because that's where CHRIST is. I know you cannot find any such thing so stop tap dancing and just admit it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
someone said given enough monkeys, enough time, each with a typewriter and one of them will type the complete works of Shakespeare... I'll start you off... "When shall we three meet again In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
</div></div>

Still waiting for one contemporary act of homicidal violence doctrinally justified and defended by the New Testament. I know I'm not going to get one. Get one of the monkeys to type it.

--Fargo007

 

[dbateman]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't really give a hoot who they are. The Embassy is American property same as any Navel Vessel or any of the 50 states and should be treated as such.

Ok let the host country secure the premeter but once the walls are breeched or crossed, the security should fall under the Military commander on the scene. NOT THE EMBASTOR.

We need some old style China Marines manning the embassy's in charge of security .............

AND LET THEM DO THEIR JOB </div></div>

This pretty much sums it up.

 

[dbateman]

Re: Libya

Oh one more thing I want riot rounds filled with pigs blood.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you're making the wrong assumption that those who commit murder in the name of islam are true and whole representatives of it. They are not and there are billions of muslims who've never committed murder and who have no intention of doing so and who would call themselves good muslims. </div></div>

Nope, only that I can connect their murderous activity to a doctrinal command. Something you have failed upon challenge to do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

again you're showing your ignorance. There are plenty of passages in the Talmud (which you conveniently ignored from my previous post) and the bible and other religious texts that say non-believers are not worthy of life. What's that if it isn't doctrinally condoned and commanded?</div></div>

Christians consider the New Testament (you know, from your extensive Christian education, the part that Jesus is in) to interpret the old testament. e.g.
<span style="font-style: italic">
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".</span> Your points about the Talmud might be better made if you left out the <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Christian</span></span> in your argument of doctrinally equivalent violence.

<span style="color: #FF0000">sorry to burst your bubble but I made it clear my view was ALL religions have dirty laundry. YOu latched onto Christianity thinking it's faultless and I suggested you chose the wrong one to prove your point. Read up on the thread if you don't remember...</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
please provide your sources and current number count. Have you tallied the dead from all the wars in europe over religion? How about the dead in South and Central America? Or in China/Indonesia/Philippines? What about Australia and the slaughter of the aborigines by the 'Christian' colonists who believe they were superior and could murder with impunity?</div></div>

If you're unfamiliar, do your own research. There are videos referenced in this thread that lay out the statistics and numbers quite clearly.

I plainly point out that the difference between islamic violence and the Christian ones you do is that the islamic ones are <span style="font-style: italic">justified by koranic doctrine. </span> The Christians who committed those acts cannot point to the bible and say "right here is where I was commanded to do this." Show me a CHRISTIAN doctrinal justification to match any of your CHRISTIAN atrocities and I will back off.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
... My point AGAIN is everything you are saying about islam is present and clear in other religions. Also, again, you've not responded to my question - how afraid/concerned/bothered were you about islam prior to 9/11? </div></div>

So show me the religious doctrine in Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity that commands acts of violence they are committing. All kinds of people do all kinds of bad things, but only the islamic acts of violence are doctrinally justifiable.

I was very concerned before 9-11. Especially so when one of my best friends had to carry milk jugs full of pure nitroglycerin down flights of stairs after the arrest of the first muslims that attempted to destroy the WTC. 9-11 taught me that I needed to study islam. I wanted to know what was in the playbook that could make them do this. I have been studying since then.

Present and clear in other religions... heh.. Where are the Hindu suicide bombers?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
is islam a person? Is it a country? Is it anything real other than an idea/faith? No. It's not doing anything. You are writing as those it's like the Borge where every member is committed to doing the same thing, the same way for the same reason.
</div></div>

Are you asking seriously? It's a totalitarian political system. It goes far beyond religion and enters politics, describes how government should be shaped, establishes law, finance, and many other extra-religious things. I am not alleging that there is a singular consciousness of action among all muslims, but there IS a singular doctrine with stated, singular goals. And we can plainly read what it says. That doctrine is the source of the violence they commit, and is also used to defend their actions. I'm still waiting to hear all the "good muslims" stand up against violence and police their own ranks but it will never happen. Why? Because the ones advocating peace and tolerance lose the debate every time when it goes to their holy books.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

there's plenty to go on, but why just the New Testament? Pray tell? Is it because you can't defend half of the holy book of Christians? You told me I underestimated you, prove it...</div></div>

I never said you underestimated me. I only pointed out that your opinion of your own capabilities might be overinflated.

If there's plenty, give me <span style="font-style: italic">ONE</span> thing. Christians are named that because of Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the New Testament. A correct answer to a Christian doctrinal question must start with the New Testament first because that's where CHRIST is. I know you cannot find any such thing so stop tap dancing and just admit it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
someone said given enough monkeys, enough time, each with a typewriter and one of them will type the complete works of Shakespeare... I'll start you off... "When shall we three meet again In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
</div></div>

Still waiting for one contemporary act of homicidal violence doctrinally justified and defended by the New Testament. I know I'm not going to get one. Get one of the monkeys to type it.

--Fargo007
</div></div>

Here you go...

Here you go...

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay before me."

If the Old Testament is so irrelevant then why is it in the bible? Which religion does the old testament belong to then? Because whatever religion it is, it's down right loony tunes... I'll answer for you, because in the New Testament it's referenced numerous times that JC was the prophet foretold in the Old... see, they're inextricably linked and don't serve your purpose of trying to edit out half the teachings of Christianity... If you don't believe me, then perhaps you'll believe Mathew 5:17

" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Here's your peace loving Hindus

"Convert or we will kill you…

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure you can!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Do you feel that if you are capable of understanding the potential of Islam / Jihad as a source of future violence, there are professional soldiers of rank (Joint Chief level) that have understood the same during the last 30 yrs?
</div></div>

Some, but not all. Actually probably quite few, because to get to that rank and those billets you are more of a politician than a soldier. Such a person will cheerfully swallow most political notions put on his plate, including the naive shibboleth: <span style="font-style: italic">"we are not at war with islam."</span> I offer General Wesley Clark as a walking example. And those that understand it aren't going to say it. For those that have, I am sure it has been career suicide.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you really think each administration is 'a separate political system'? ?Why does each successive admin effectively pursue legacy policy doctrine? Why do they each by and large refuse to listen to those who should know?
</div></div>

Well first of all, it didn't stick its finger in our eye with sufficient strength to even awaken the average US citizen until 9-11, and the US has only existed for a little more than 200 years. Our playbook does have an old page in it (Jefferson) but it won't be followed.

What's the number one job of a politician?

The narrative in most of the western world has been set such that islam cannot officially be recognized as a cause, or be targeted in any way. It has been incorrectly posited as a religion (constitutionally protected) when in actuality it is a totalitarian political system (not constitutionally protected). For the history aspects, watch the video posted prior by Bill Warner. It is chock full of statistics.

I think you have to go back to Jimmy Carter (6 admins) to really learn how not to deal with the roots of it in the modern era. Go all the way back to the Barbary Pirates (islamic slave traders) Thomas Jefferson thus far was the only American president that dealt with them properly. IMHO.

Back into it from the other direction. If you were an islamic force, what would you be doing differently to bring about the goals laid out in your doctrines? I say nothing. They are moving in line with their playbook.

It's not that we don't see their playbook; it's that we won't admit that we do.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

Best post of the thread...Fargo, you get it!! Every paragraph spot on...from the description of senior officers, the subjugation of sound strategy in the name of suicidal political correctness, to the willful self-deception. Oh for a leader with the courage to acknowledge and apply the simple wisdom of your post.

Your view is the sum total of my experience in this ten year war. The Islamists see this struggle clearly for what it is, but we choose to deceive ourselves for political expediency. We must fight the real opponent or disengage entirely- anything else is madness. Until there is real leadership in Washington we are never going to defeat this threat. The strategy of the past ten years has been akin to aggressively treating a cold while ignoring the fact we are dying of cancer. Lately we have been pretending that we don't even have the cold.

In early 2004 I had this same discussion around a fire in an unnamed middle eastern desert...and I remember hoping to myself then that the worst fears I was expressing about our focus and infant strategy was just an expression of my own inexperience and cynicism. It turns my stomach that years later those early intuitions were more correct than I could even imagine, and worse, that the national self delusions are more grandiose than ever. Its like we are the national reincarnation of the later years of Howard Hughes, the epitome of greatness wasted on trivialities, the picture of wasted potential due to the inability to acknowledge fact.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...

"Extra ecclediam nulla salus"

Look up the Old Testament for your 'tolerance'... As for 'give unto' why not answer my points on intolerance as evidenced by how it's practiced... Look up the Gospel of Paul, the Epistles, and then good old Revelations for your warm and fuzziness...

You think the vatican for centuries exercised no political and economic power? Really? The ONLY reason why its power has faded is due to secularism, not the benevolence of the religion. Believe what you want, but when your argument ignores the evidence you're just trying to engage in a frame up rather than a debate. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...</div></div>

Maybe we need to send you back there?

I'm impressed with the confidence, but without knowing the background of those you are engaging, it might be a little foolhardy.

That's because you keep redefining the tenets in order to provide room for a fallacy. That I call you on it doesn't mean I don't want to debate, it only means I want to deny you the opportunity to divert with orthogonal distractions.

You are still engaging in moral relativism in attempting to equate (now) the vatican (it's actions and influence in the past) against islam today. Not only does the vatican not execute its own people, it has not overcome by force or mob rule any government in the modern era. Comparing transgressions of centuries ago against those of today doesn't work. The argument is an anachronism.

It's not that people wearing the patch of a religion can't do evil things. The issue is what sanction they have from doctrine.

The evil acts I mentioned done under islam are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally commanded.</span>

The evil things you mentioned are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally condemned.</span>

It's a common argument to drag out "the crusades," and attempt to position islam as a victim. Let's remember that:

1 - the crusades were a defensive operation, against jihad.

2 - jihad is an offensive operation.

3 - the crusades lasted a fraction of the time.

4 - jihad has no finish line until there is only islam (it is still ongoing, after 1400 years)

5 - the body counts attributable to each are out of balance by many zeroes, and islam is far from finished.

If you want to have a relativist discussion, that's fine, but we need to keep it apples to apples. What islam is doing now, versus the others, and what the religious source of the action is.

Point out any homicidal or first degree crime type act you like in the 20th century or later perpetrated by a mainstream Christian religion, lean on your extensive education, and defend it using only the New Testament.

I can easily do the same with islam and only the koran, and I wouldn't be done typing by midnight tomorrow.

Cue the snap chicks?

--Fargo007 </div></div>

Again Fargo, spot on. You are on a roll.

We should understand the difference between Christians who do evil things contrary to the doctrine they purport to believe and Muslims who do evil things because they are acting in concert with their beliefs. Are we supposed to believe that the only reason Christians don't murder in the name of Christ in the same way Muslims do for Mohammed, despite the continual insults to Jesus in our society, is a lack of commitment or real faith?

There are examples from each faith of equally morally destitute individuals...but there is no moral equivalency between the two value systems.

Every Muslim I have met who didn't agree that with the idea that I should be subjugated to pay tribute or forced to convert at the point of a sword is apostate by definition. That is possibly the only thing on which Bin Laden and I have ever agreed.

In the longest war in America history, we ignore such facts at our peril. It is impossible to devise winning strategy without accounting for the nature of the enemy's motivation.

 

[High Binder]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pushing an egalitarian, inaleinable rights agenda in the Middle East <span style="color: #3333FF">comes across like trying to sell hard candies to industrial robots.</span> There's just no market for the product. Those people are not like us; so unlike us that interaction allows for only a very small common frame of reference.

Greg</div></div>


'But we'll keep on trying.

 

[mlw332]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...

"Extra ecclediam nulla salus"

Look up the Old Testament for your 'tolerance'... As for 'give unto' why not answer my points on intolerance as evidenced by how it's practiced... Look up the Gospel of Paul, the Epistles, and then good old Revelations for your warm and fuzziness...

You think the vatican for centuries exercised no political and economic power? Really? The ONLY reason why its power has faded is due to secularism, not the benevolence of the religion. Believe what you want, but when your argument ignores the evidence you're just trying to engage in a frame up rather than a debate. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...</div></div>

Maybe we need to send you back there?

I'm impressed with the confidence, but without knowing the background of those you are engaging, it might be a little foolhardy.

That's because you keep redefining the tenets in order to provide room for a fallacy. That I call you on it doesn't mean I don't want to debate, it only means I want to deny you the opportunity to divert with orthogonal distractions.

You are still engaging in moral relativism in attempting to equate (now) the vatican (it's actions and influence in the past) against islam today. Not only does the vatican not execute its own people, it has not overcome by force or mob rule any government in the modern era. Comparing transgressions of centuries ago against those of today doesn't work. The argument is an anachronism.

It's not that people wearing the patch of a religion can't do evil things. The issue is what sanction they have from doctrine.

The evil acts I mentioned done under islam are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally commanded.</span>

The evil things you mentioned are <span style="font-style: italic">doctrinally condemned.</span>

It's a common argument to drag out "the crusades," and attempt to position islam as a victim. Let's remember that:

1 - the crusades were a defensive operation, against jihad.

2 - jihad is an offensive operation.

3 - the crusades lasted a fraction of the time.

4 - jihad has no finish line until there is only islam (it is still ongoing, after 1400 years)

5 - the body counts attributable to each are out of balance by many zeroes, and islam is far from finished.

If you want to have a relativist discussion, that's fine, but we need to keep it apples to apples. What islam is doing now, versus the others, and what the religious source of the action is.

Point out any homicidal or first degree crime type act you like in the 20th century or later perpetrated by a mainstream Christian religion, lean on your extensive education, and defend it using only the New Testament.

I can easily do the same with islam and only the koran, and I wouldn't be done typing by midnight tomorrow.

Cue the snap chicks?

--Fargo007 </div></div>

Again Fargo, spot on. You are on a roll.

We should understand the difference between Christians who do evil things contrary to the doctrine they purport to believe and Muslims who do evil things because they are acting in concert with their beliefs. Are we supposed to believe that the only reason Christians don't murder in the name of Christ in the same way Muslims do for Mohammed, despite the continual insults to Jesus in our society, is a lack of commitment or real faith?

There are examples from each faith of equally morally destitute individuals...but there is no moral equivalency between the two value systems.

Every Muslim I have met who didn't agree that with the idea that I should be subjugated to pay tribute or forced to convert at the point of a sword is apostate by definition. That is possibly the only thing on which Bin Laden and I have ever agreed.

In the longest war in America history, we ignore such facts at our peril. It is impossible to devise winning strategy without accounting for the nature of the enemy's motivation.

</div></div>



+1
very well said

 

[fargo007]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Again Fargo, spot on. You are on a roll.

We should understand the difference between Christians who do evil things contrary to the doctrine they purport to believe and Muslims who do evil things because they are acting in concert with their beliefs. Are we supposed to believe that the only reason Christians don't murder in the name of Christ in the same way Muslims do for Mohammed, despite the continual insults to Jesus in our society, is a lack of commitment or real faith?

There are examples from each faith of equally morally destitute individuals...but there is no moral equivalency between the two value systems.

Every Muslim I have met who didn't agree that with the idea that I should be subjugated to pay tribute or forced to convert at the point of a sword is apostate by definition. That is possibly the only thing on which Bin Laden and I have ever agreed.

In the longest war in America history, we ignore such facts at our peril. It is impossible to devise winning strategy without accounting for the nature of the enemy's motivation.

</div></div>

Thank you.

If we are going to attribute violence to a religion, connecting it to that religion's doctrines is necessary. Otherwise you have not made a connection to religion, but to people acting independently. <span style="font-style: italic">Extra Ecclesiam. </span>

I'm done attempting to persuade EH into the light. He will never come out. Here's the broken logic of his analogy in which he keeps bringing up acts of violence by Christians:

Christians engaging in widespread slaughter of civilians are doing a doctrinally provable non-Christian thing. We know this because we can go back to the doctrine (the New Testament, where Christ is) and plainly see that. So this blames patently non-Christian acts on Christianity. It's a non-sequitur.

EH takes that incorrectly attributed blame, and applies it as an equal to a muslim performing doctrinally commanded and defended violence, and attempts to arrive at the conclusion that all religions have equally bad stuff in them. It's a broken comparison at its foundation.

I just can't work with a choo choo train that's got a square logic wheel on its caboose. I love him as a brother and friend, but this is now degenerated to a circular debate. Six pages is enough for me. I thank all for the polite, lively, and educational discussion.

I can't remember by whom, but it's been said that:

<span style="font-style: italic">"Christianity sounds like a wonderful thing.... it's a shame that it's never been tried." </span>

--Fargo007

 

[Shooter McGavin]

Re: Libya

Just some old history between the US and Tripoli:


In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [19]

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: Libya

Haha well done QQ.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: Libya

These are stolen form The PJ Tatler at PJ Media.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/16/nakoula-arrest-photoshops-best-of-the-best/

It was too good not to steal some of them! I apologize for not pointing that out earlier.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Re: Libya

Well I am gonna say it...NAZI GERMANY. Now who wants to argue?
How can you argue?
Just let's sit around thankful they aren't "siezing" us today and this will all be over so very soon.

 

[The Mechanic]

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These are stolen form The PJ Tatler at PJ Media.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/16/nakoula-arrest-photoshops-best-of-the-best/

It was too good not to steal some of them! I apologize for not pointing that out earlier.

</div></div>
I laughed pretty hard at those until I thought how true they were. Not a good day for the birthday of our Constitution.