Islam - a Religion like other Religions

[Max_!]

I find it hard to trust any opinion of people who believe in one or more gods.

> If people were brought up in modest societies, their sexual desires would not be fueled. Ask any rape victim, they will tell you that this is a good thing.

There's nothing erotic about most human bodies. It's only when you cover them that it starts being erotic.

Ergo: clothing is what fuels sexual desire.

If all women walked around nude all the time, only women that wore clothing would be raped.

[gum5h03]

A fanatic is a fanatic in any religion. Doesn't matter what religion you are as long as you're a decent human being. Running into a coffee shop and blowing yourself and others up is not what it is to be human. Christians have had their fair share of terrorists too however. Tim McVeigh, the Uni-bomber, etc. The difference however is that their acts are more politically motivated and they didn't blow themselves up in the process. Although the top-level leaders of terrorist organizations have political gains, they order people to blow themselves up in the name of religion.

Islamic fanatics so strongly believe in the brainwashing they've been receiving that they are willing to take their own lives in order to kill innocent people of other faiths. Anything Christians do to try to stop the violence is looked upon as segregation or anti Islamic sentiment. It's a vicious cycle that I fear we will not recover from any time soon.

Hitler hated and feared the Jews so much that he killed millions of them. Think that won't happen again with some other religious or cultural sect? Think again.I just wish that these people that make so much hate and violence would be obliterated from the earth and let the rest of us try to live out our lives peacefully. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc are all th I fear that as soon as the violence approaches U.S shores Muslims will be rounded up as the Japanese were during WWII. I see no good for either side if that happens. The Islamic community needs to step up their anti terrorism campaign and come together to help stop the scourge before it escalates any further.

[Max_!]

> Islamic fanatics so strongly believe in the brainwashing they've been receiving that they are willing to take their own lives in order to kill innocent people of other faiths.

Not really - they're dead already. Their lives suck and the approved suicide is an easy way out.

One does not think about blowing up ones self while sitting next to the pool, drinking a (hareem) martini, contemplating wether one should drive the porsche or the ferrari today.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I have yet to experience you answering any type of question in a satisfactory manner. .

you meant any type about the lunatic in the WH...

Originally Posted by ganeil

Don't try to pawn off your inability to substantiate your assertions or answer questions on the positions you take on newspapers or TV news shows, just admit you do not have the answersSix-carrier TD-SCDMA. Gains can be optimized as explained in earlier sections.Six-carrier TD-SCDMA. Gains can be optimized as explained in earlier sections.

I am not "trying" to do anything.
I can waste my time here explaining why China improved in last 15 years, but to waste my time explaining to you IF the Iraq war is World justified, if Bush and his commanders are doing a good job, if Bush knew there were absolutely no WMD, if wasted $Trillion could have been used more wisely, if Al Qaeda is regrouping and more numbered, more popular and stronger than in 2001...I don't think so.

There is this thing called "Google", you can type anything you wish in there and something will pop up... Try:
"Bush approval ratings", "Is Bush doing a good job", "Who's the biggest threat to world peace", "bush lies", "Al Qaeda regrouping"...and so on.

THose articles have the same value and meaning to me as the ones published by Bush monkies (Gov't) have for you...

I used to post you the links and C/P articles, but I realized that anything not signed by the idiot himself is not relevant to you, so...we'll see you in 2 years...


EDIT: Why are we posting this under this specific topic???

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

you meant any type about the lunatic in the WH...



I am not "trying" to do anything.
I can waste my time here explaining why China improved in last 15 years, but to waste my time explaining to you IF the Iraq war is World justified, if Bush and his commanders are doing a good job, if Bush knew there were absolutely no WMD, if wasted $Trillion could have been used more wisely, if Al Qaeda is regrouping and more numbered, more popular and stronger than in 2001...I don't think so.

There is this thing called "Google", you can type anything you wish in there and something will pop up... Try:
"Bush approval ratings", "Is Bush doing a good job", "Who's the biggest threat to world peace", "bush lies", "Al Qaeda regrouping"...and so on.

THose articles have the same value and meaning to me as the ones published by Bush monkies (Gov't) have for you...

I used to post you the links and C/P articles, but I realized that anything not signed by the idiot himself is not relevant to you, so...we'll see you in 2 years...


EDIT: Why are we posting this under this specific topic???

That is the biggest problem you have, you believe Google substitutes for actual thought and analysis on this issue.

Bush's approval ratings are irrelevant to this discussion as is China's economic growth.

Why don't you try to form and express your own opinions based on facts rather than emoting based on someone else's conjecture?

[gum5h03]

Originally Posted by Max_!

>

Not really - they're dead already. Their lives suck and the approved suicide is an easy way out.

One does not think about blowing up ones self while sitting next to the pool, drinking a (hareem) martini, contemplating wether one should drive the porsche or the ferrari today.

Some yes, but some no. Do you remember Mohamed Atta? Western educated, fairly well off family. Not exactly dirt poor either. The poor stigma is by and large forced upon Western society in an attempt to make us feel guilty. Look at the racing videos from the middle east. Lots of M5's, Porsche's, etc on the streets. There is a lot poverty in Islamic states, but a lot of wealth too. It's their own corrupt governments that bring hardship on them and their political leaders try to blame the West for all their troubles. Then they use religion as their crutch to avoid taking responsibility for their own mess. If it were up to me I'd take out the governments in all of the Islamic states (starting with Saudi Arabia) and give the countries back to the people.

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by ganeil

This statement by the President was accurate according to the Social Security Board of Trustees. Their report can be found here.

Not accurate at all. 'Bankrupt' is a gross, fear-inspiring exageration. If you read the report Highlights and Conclusions, it states the OASI and DI Trust Funds will be depleted by 2043. After that time, social security benefits will be paid at a reduced rate, if no other changes are made to payroll tax rates. The Report states that 'the projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers.'

Originally Posted by ganeil

The administration did not, as your selected quote implies, that the UAV's could reach the US from Iraq. Their position was explained by Sec of State Powell, "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States."

A number of these small UAV's have been recovered.

Very clearly, Bush said that Iraq's drones were a threat to the U.S.:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

Complete exageration. Iraq's drones, the Bush administration later admitted, had a maximum range of several hundred miles. They could reach the United States only if flown from a warship stationed off America's coast (a virtually impossible scenario given Iraq's nonexistent navy).

Originally Posted by ganeil

The IAEA report issued in 1998 did say that Iraq had been 6-24 months from developing a nuclear weapon. The White House spokesman erred when he claimed this was a 1991 rather than a 1998 report.

Are you lying now too? The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

Originally Posted by ganeil

Now this is really stretching it. The President was referring to a dispute over whether or not DHS employees should be protected by civil service work rules. Here is what he said, We need flexibility to deal with emerging threats. The Customs Service, for example, decided to require inspectors at the Nation's 301 ports to wear radiation detection devices. The world changed. We are worried about weapons of mass destruction coming into our country, and so the Customs Service said, "Why don't we have our folks wear radiation detection devices to be able to pick up any possible signal." The devices work, and they're an important part of somebody being able to do their job. Under the rules that some Senators support, the union that represents the Customs would be able to say, "You can't do that. That must be voluntary." For the-that doesn't make any sense to me, that we not--that we have to work through a process that would enable our hard-working Customs officials to be able to do that which they think is necessary to protect America. And we can't afford sitting around for a year debating whether or not wearing devices ought to be voluntary or not."

This quote is from a fundraiser. Bush is saying that the proposed Department of Homeland Security's union employees should lose their collective bargaining rights. He describes union members' refusal to wear radiation badges as an example of why collective bargaining rights should be eliminated. Specifically, the National Treasury Employees Union never refused to implement the policy, and it would have been illegal for them to do so. The NTEU raised concerns about wheter the program would work because of inadequate training, the availability of detectors, and the more effective, alternate technology. Eventually (before the fundraiser) the union said it would have no problem with making the program mandatory.

Originally Posted by ganeil

The President made those comments in an interview on May 29, 2003. At that time the Pentagon did believe that the mobile labs were used for biological warfare. The report that determined they were not was released two weeks later.

Washington Post 4/12/06: "A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement."

Originally Posted by ganeil

The VP was clearly referring to a nuclear weapons program as the entire interview clearly shows, "I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program."

Good point.

But the fact remains, there is (and was) very little evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program, in the months leading up to the invasion, a notion that was repeated by every admin official.

Wy wife does that a lot too, stating a possibility as a hard fact.

Originally Posted by ganeil

Maybe next time you should.

I will. I learned a lot about that shitbag Bush and his CEO Cheney. :rocks:

[gum5h03]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

I learned a lot about that shitbag Bush and his CEO Cheney. :rocks:

You mean CFO right?

[FloridaBoy]

I do have some respect for peace loving Muslim people but I have pretty much lost all respect for Islam and it's teachings. There is a lot of confusion in America over the "westernized" version of Islam vs. the global version. If you travel to other countries or talk with missionaries from overseas Christian churches or women who have been subject to the culture of hate and racism that goes hand in hand with Islam then you will start to see the true face of Islam and it's not pretty.

Go to a Muslim country like the Marshall Islands and try to spread the Gospel of Christ on the street, or try to have a teen outreach Bible program in Saudi Arabia and you will see just how "tolerant," these people really are. Frankly, with all that's going on in the world today I can't believe anyone would actually get on a forum like this and defend such a doctrine. Jesus said you shall know them by their fruits. I'm not angry at anyone here, but that's the way I feel.

My sincere hope is that we can all get along in peace. And I think Muslims need to take stock; the world is watching you closer every day, and people are getting fed up. Your character and your actions are under a magnifying glass. If the wholesale terror continues; everyone—all Muslims included—will feel the backlash.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24886
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...r/10_11_4.html

[Max_!]

> Look at the racing videos from the middle east. Lots of M5's, Porsche's, etc on the streets.

Yes: on the streets... not packed with semtex on their way to a synagog.

> Then they use religion as their crutch to avoid taking responsibility for their own mess.

Do you think the Pope believes in God?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

That is the biggest problem you have, you believe Google substitutes for actual thought and analysis on this issue.

Bush's approval ratings are irrelevant to this discussion as is China's economic growth.

Why don't you try to form and express your own opinions based on facts rather than emoting based on someone else's conjecture?

But don't you realize that you apply the same analogy to everyone that opposes your opinion???
Neurorad is simply giving you another form of facts -- not signed by W and you do not accept them or analyze them by attaching Bush's WH press notes...
Do you really think that WH press and Government press is more to believe than the Goole search???

If you do, then you should discredit everyone's research and opinions from Jay Leno's jokes (that have some truth in them) to Tim Russert stuff, to anyone in the media excepr O'Riley moron...

Give me one proof that says that Al Qaeda is worse off today, that Bush did cover the other sides of our issues that he promised during his campaigns, that he was telling the truth about Iraq and so on.
You challenged us to point out the lies, then you don't accept it -- show us the truth he said about Iraq!

And no, 230 empty metal shells that "COULD" have been used for the WMD does not count as I can assure you 30 other countries have similar ones sitting in the corner rusting somewhere...

[UncleWede]

Don't you mean Mahoney? I hear the LA archdiocese needs to sell some land QUICK!

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Don't you mean Mahoney? I hear the LA archdiocese needs to sell some land QUICK!

I can see a good deal on 20 acres prime property over there

[Ninjaneer]

Originally Posted by Max_!

I find it hard to trust any opinion of people who believe in one or more gods.

Ah, but you seem to support the multiple god belief... Fanty and Mingo!

Originally Posted by Max_!

There's nothing erotic about most human bodies. It's only when you cover them that it starts being erotic.

Ergo: clothing is what fuels sexual desire.

If all women walked around nude all the time, only women that wore clothing would be raped.

As mentioned in the other (long) thread, this varies from person to person. What may not be erotic to you can easily be considered erotic to someone else. The majority of society tends to share the same beliefs in what is considered erotic, decent, or indecent.

Originally Posted by Max_!

> Islamic fanatics so strongly believe in the brainwashing they've been receiving that they are willing to take their own lives in order to kill innocent people of other faiths.

Not really - they're dead already. Their lives suck and the approved suicide is an easy way out.

One does not think about blowing up ones self while sitting next to the pool, drinking a (hareem) martini, contemplating wether one should drive the porsche or the ferrari today.

Approved suicide? It's not an approved Islamic act, and a fatwa on such a matter would most likely be considered incorrect by other scholars. This has become an act associated with political groups and freedom fighters, as well as people who have lost hope and find no way to retaliate but through those means.

Do I condone it? No. But I can understand the influences surrounding such an action and while I believe it to be a punishable act (not only harm of innocent people but taking one's own life) God will judge them justly in the end.

Originally Posted by gum5h03

There is a lot poverty in Islamic states, but a lot of wealth too. It's their own corrupt governments that bring hardship on them and their political leaders try to blame the West for all their troubles. Then they use religion as their crutch to avoid taking responsibility for their own mess. If it were up to me I'd take out the governments in all of the Islamic states (starting with Saudi Arabia) and give the countries back to the people.

While I agree about the corrupt governments, the question is how to solve it. Going in by force (as we've seen) isn't a good option since it destabilizes that country even more and sets it back, and... well given the current state of affairs in Iraq I'm sure I don't need to keep listing things.

Oh yes, we removed an evil dictator, but at what cost? At what cost not only to that country, but to the USA itself with a jaded public and negative world reputation?

Originally Posted by FloridaBoy

I do have some respect for peace loving Muslim people but I have pretty much lost all respect for Islam and it's teachings. There is a lot of confusion in America over the "westernized" version of Islam vs. the global version. If you travel to other countries or talk with missionaries from overseas Christian churches or women who have been subject to the culture of hate and racism that goes hand in hand with Islam then you will start to see the true face of Islam and it's not pretty.

Go to a Muslim country like the Marshall Islands and try to spread the Gospel of Christ on the street, or try to have a teen outreach Bible program in Saudi Arabia and you will see just how "tolerant," these people really are. Frankly, with all that's going on in the world today I can't believe anyone would actually get on a forum like this and defend such a doctrine. Jesus said you shall know them by their fruits. I'm not angry at anyone here, but that's the way I feel.

My sincere hope is that we can all get along in peace. And I think Muslims need to take stock; the world is watching you closer every day, and people are getting fed up. Your character and your actions are under a magnifying glass. If the wholesale terror continues; everyone—all Muslims included—will feel the backlash.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24886
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...r/10_11_4.html

Why can't you believe that people would defend such a doctrine on the forum? The educated Muslims who aren't extremists are the ones you'd want to hear from the most to gain a better understanding of Islam's true teachings and rectify any mis-portrayed beliefs or perceived shortcomings.

My point is, have you really "lost all respect for Islam and it's teachings" or is it due to how you've seen some Muslims behave (ie. counter to what Islam teaches)?

From the handful of things I've read on this forum, I see people with unfounded views about Islam because they don't understand what Islam really teaches and they've heard it on the news or heard some evangelical preacher misconstrue an issue and discuss it out of context. People that fall in that category (and there are many) tend to believe what they hear and take it at face-value rather than research the matter and seek the truth from a knowledgeable source.

[UncleWede]

Guilty as charged, but trying to improve

[gum5h03]

Originally Posted by Ninjaneer

Oh yes, we removed an evil dictator, but at what cost? At what cost not only to that country, but to the USA itself with a jaded public and negative world reputation?

My rebuttal to that: Sometimes it's better to tear down an old building to prevent it falling on innocent people than it is to keep trying to repair it. I know that's an overly simplistic and deconstructionistic attitude but sadly it will probably come down to that. The established governments (dictatorships, monarchies, etc)have been in power for many years and will not willingly let power slip through their hands. Maybe I'm an idealist but I really do believe that people could really pull together and make this world a little bit better if their oppressing governments were gone. The U.S / West will always have a negative reputation no matter what we do. We leave the Middle East and we get blamed for abandoning them. We stay , we are blamed for occupying them. A real catch 22 if there ever was one.

[Ninjaneer]

Originally Posted by FloridaBoy

My sincere hope is that we can all get along in peace. And I think Muslims need to take stock; the world is watching you closer every day, and people are getting fed up. Your character and your actions are under a magnifying glass. If the wholesale terror continues; everyone—all Muslims included—will feel the backlash.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24886
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...r/10_11_4.html

Didn't read the links the first time around.

There are a couple of Islamic organizations here in the USA that have made efforts to educate the public about Islam and have positive relationships with other orgranizations. Some defend civil liberties, while others have good ties with churches. There's work in cooperation with Amnesty International on many issues. Recently CAIR in FL stood in support of a church that got attacked (I think it was burnt or defaced with a comment along the lines of them being traitors/hypocrites for supporting Muslims). The church is known to have a good relationship with CAIR and Muslims here and they got attacked for it.

As for the articles I hope you realize that Islam itself doesn't condone that stuff. There are numerous incidents where prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was compassionate towards people of other faiths. In an Islamic land the non-Muslims were allowed to live there, practice their religions in peace, and even be protected by the Muslims in case of a threat.

As for that girl getting raped and forced to convert to Islam, that's totally contradictory to what Islam allows. The Qur'an has a verse stating that there is no compulsion in religion. It's really just our job to spread the message and educate people but not to force them into accepting it. And this would be in agreement with what I just stated about people of other faiths being allowed to live amongst Muslims. Furthermore, it's pretty ironic of any such group to be sexually abusing a woman while having her dress Islamically, praying, fasting, and memorizing the Qur'an. It's absolutely illogical of them. By raping they themselves are committing a major sin of adultery - clearly forbidden in Islam. Such people are delusional if they think they can force the religion onto others while abusing them, thinking they are cleansing people, it's insane and misguided. Prayer is for God, fasting is optional (except during Ramadan - the month of fasting) and it's not required of anyone unless they do so voluntarily.

Ultimately what I can tell you is that the actions of a few aren't supposed reflect badly on the others who do know how to practice the religion properly w/o extremism. Also, there's no such thing as Shari'ah Law being validly implemented today. In order for Shari'ah Law to be carried out an Islamic state must exist headed by a caliph with scholars and well-versed and educated judges to pass judgment in accordance to Islamic teachings. While such knowledgeable people do exist today, the system of an Islamic state and caliph do not, and hence carrying out any such Shari'ah Law punishments is not valid and shouldn't be done.

While Shari'ah Law may have some severe punishments for certain actions, it actually has a bunch of prerequisites needed before they can be practiced, and these prerequisites are sometimes difficult to find, which is a mercy to Muslims to avoid punishment and allow them to repent for their sins instead. For example, and I've given this example before in another thread, an adulterer/adulteress can't simply be stoned to death but would need to have 4 witnesses testify of catching them in the act. To do so is very difficult and that's why very few cases of that punishment were realized.

[Ninjaneer]

Originally Posted by gum5h03

Maybe I'm an idealist but I really do believe that people could really pull together and make this world a little bit better if their oppressing governments were gone.

I think about that sometimes as well, where people have it bad. But their governments' oppression quell any effort. Something like that would need an organized mass movement, and then is such an "attack" going to be through the system via the proper channels (politics, voting etc.) or by force? A lot of places going through the system would take forever because things are rigged or whatnot, no one can challenge the government's authority w/o getting imprisoned etc.

I'm not advocating violence. It's better to live peacefully than cause chaos imo but that doesn't mean people's silence equates to agreement of a country's situation.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

Not accurate at all. 'Bankrupt' is a gross, fear-inspiring exageration. If you read the report Highlights and Conclusions, it states the OASI and DI Trust Funds will be depleted by 2043. After that time, social security benefits will be paid at a reduced rate, if no other changes are made to payroll tax rates. The Report states that 'the projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers.'

The term bankrupt may be fear-inspiring but that does not make it untrue. What term would you prefer for, “having insufficient assets to cover ones debts,” insolvent, broke, bust? Take your pick. The bottom line is that the projections at the time showed Social Security to be unable to meet its financial obligations in 2042.

Very clearly, Bush said that Iraq's drones were a threat to the U.S.:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

Complete exageration. Iraq's drones, the Bush administration later admitted, had a maximum range of several hundred miles. They could reach the United States only if flown from a warship stationed off America's coast (a virtually impossible scenario given Iraq's nonexistent navy).

How is what the President said different that what Secretary Powell said? Both said the drones posed a potential threat to the US with the Secretary simply stating a condition under which they could, ie. transported to a location in or near the US.

Actually the fear was not that they would be launched from a warship but from a commercial vessel.

Are you lying now too? The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

OK, you may have me here. The timeline in the IAEA reports was not the agency's but their report of Iraq's.

It is now clear that the original planning of the nuclear weapons programme had the objective of producing a small arsenal of weapons with the first device being produced in 1991. ... The weapon design component assigned to the Fourth Group was, in the opinion of the Iraqi counterpart, the closest and, with some luck and the solution of a few remaining problems still pending in January 1991, the Fourth Group was confident that compliance with the original plan was not an impossible task.

This quote is from a fundraiser. Bush is saying that the proposed Department of Homeland Security's union employees should lose their collective bargaining rights. He describes union members' refusal to wear radiation badges as an example of why collective bargaining rights should be eliminated. Specifically, the National Treasury Employees Union never refused to implement the policy, and it would have been illegal for them to do so. The NTEU raised concerns about wheter the program would work because of inadequate training, the availability of detectors, and the more effective, alternate technology. Eventually (before the fundraiser) the union said it would have no problem with making the program mandatory.

Now you are being ridiculous. He was giving an example of what could happen if the democrats got their way and DHS employees were unionized.

Washington Post 4/12/06: "A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement."

Any evidence that the President knew about these findings or that they had even left the desk of the Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense for whatever yet?

But the fact remains, there is (and was) very little evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program, in the months leading up to the invasion, a notion that was repeated by every admin official.

There was enough evidence that it was included as a key judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

But don't you realize that you apply the same analogy to everyone that opposes your opinion???
Neurorad is simply giving you another form of facts -- not signed by W and you do not accept them or analyze them by attaching Bush's WH press notes...
Do you really think that WH press and Government press is more to believe than the Goole search???

If you do, then you should discredit everyone's research and opinions from Jay Leno's jokes (that have some truth in them) to Tim Russert stuff, to anyone in the media excepr O'Riley moron...

Give me one proof that says that Al Qaeda is worse off today, that Bush did cover the other sides of our issues that he promised during his campaigns, that he was telling the truth about Iraq and so on.
You challenged us to point out the lies, then you don't accept it -- show us the truth he said about Iraq!

And no, 230 empty metal shells that "COULD" have been used for the WMD does not count as I can assure you 30 other countries have similar ones sitting in the corner rusting somewhere...

There are no facts being presented, there are interpretations. If the President has told as many lies as he is being accused of it should be easy to point out at least a couple clear cut examples. He said Xbut he knew X was untrue because he was informed on this date that it was not X but Y.

The capture or killing of key al qaeda leaders is evidence that al qaeda is worse off today. The loss of men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, and Hamid Juma Faris Jouri al-Saeedi degrades an organization.

Here is truth spoken by the President about Iraq,

"And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."

FYI, over 500 shells full of sarin and mustard have been recovered not just the empty shells.

[FloridaBoy]

Originally Posted by Ninjaneer

Why can't you believe that people would defend such a doctrine on the forum? The educated Muslims who aren't extremists are the ones you'd want to hear from the most to gain a better understanding of Islam's true teachings and rectify any mis-portrayed beliefs or perceived shortcomings.

Yes, and the educated ones who are not extremists should be intelligent enough to see what it has wrought in the world and drop Islam and distance themselves from a teaching that tells people they get virgins for killing people. Make no mistake; I don't believe for one moment that Allah is the God of the Bible, and I think anyone who follows Muhammad is a fool, as I think history proves he was a murderer just like many of those who follow him. And while you are trying to convince everyone here how "tolerant" you are, you know very well that if I put these opinions on a banner and displayed it in the streets of most Islamic countries I would be arrested if not SHOT DEAD on the spot. So don't try to squirm like an eel and pretend that is not true of the so-called "peaceful religion." Get my drift?

Originally Posted by Ninjaneer

My point is, have you really "lost all respect for Islam and it's teachings" or is it due to how you've seen some Muslims behave (ie. counter to what Islam teaches)?

Everyone who has killed in the name of Islam in the last 10 years has justified it with your "holy book," and this is not stopping. As Jesus stated; "you shall know them by their fruits." Quite simply, there is a disproportionate amount of bad fruit currently rotting under Islam's ugly tree. In other words, you didn't see alot of Christians blowing up the Glasgow airport last week or bombing London did you. This is what makes defending it so absurd. Turn from it. Good gosh, run from it. It's a bloody and racist replacement for a relationship with God. Global Islam has not progressed or blossomed into something beautiful. It has rotted and it makes you smell bad. Said not to offend you my friend, but the truth is what it is. Had not the teachings of Islam and it's associated culture of hate been so dubious, the extremists would not be marching in the streets and so easily attaching themselves to it. If they had not heard it from Islamic mosques and Islamic mullahs your pathetic defense might hold water. Even National Geographic was able to get a hidden camera on this truth, it cannot be denied.

Global Islam is an extreme teaching everywhere it has taken over a government; and it has no tolerance of anything Christian as I have already shown. Note that I said "global Islam"; this is not easily seen in the westernized version, and to be fair there are many good people such as yourself who are at least trying to change things but the problem is, I fear the bad goes to the root. Christ has a better plan filled with love and his arms are open.

Originally Posted by Ninjaneer

From the handful of things I've read on this forum, I see people with unfounded views about Islam because they don't understand what Islam really teaches and they've heard it on the news or heard some evangelical preacher misconstrue an issue and discuss it out of context. People that fall in that category (and there are many) tend to believe what they hear and take it at face-value rather than research the matter and seek the truth from a knowledgeable source.

Well, now you have seen one with a view that is actually based on reality.
Frankly I would be ashamed of Islam and I would never come on here and defend it as "just a few radicals" because we see many thousands marching in the streets and burning the U.S. flag and we know what global face Islam wears and I will have no part of it. No longer confined to the Middle East, this rotting fruit has now spread its evil stink onto the world, including my nation, my friends. I'm not angry at you personally but the work of many of Islam's followers is a little too plain to see in the sunlight:

Reaching out to the kids in the hood:



London streets:



London Subway



In Madrid before elections:



Bali night club



The USS Cole



The Kobar Towers (Marine barracks)



The Glasgow Airport



The U.S. Pentagon



Flight 93



The Trade Center

[Ninjaneer]

Originally Posted by FloridaBoy

Yes, and the educated ones who are not extremists should be intelligent enough to see what it has wrought in the world and drop Islam and distance themselves from a teaching that tells people they get virgins for killing people. Make no mistake; I don't believe for one moment that Allah is the God of the Bible, and I think anyone who follows Muhammad is a fool, as I think history proves he was a murderer just like many of those who follow him. And while you are trying to convince everyone here how "tolerant" you are, you know very well that if I put these opinions on a banner and displayed it in the streets of most Islamic countries I would be arrested if not SHOT DEAD on the spot. So don't try to squirm like an eel and pretend that is not true of the so-called "peaceful religion." Get my drift?

The only drift I got was that you seem to have completely failed to understand my post. Squirm like an eel and pretend? Hardly squirming or pretending here. As I mentioned above, I'll gladly spread the message but whether people decide to look into it for themselves or not is up to them. I won't lose any sleep over this and it won't affect me if you believe Islam is "evil."

What amazed me when I read your reply is that right off the bat it was apparent that you totally discounted what I said since you firmly believe Islam is so terrible. The practice of medicine can be used for both good and bad; it can cure illnesses and it can cause illnesses and death. So, by your reasoning, all practitioners of medicine should be ashamed to partake in that science since it has the ability to cause harm and be misused.

Sorry but I find your response to be an easy retort with a disregard to what I was trying to convey, and that is that the religion itself is fine and its bad apple followers aren't supposed to be a reflection of it to deter people from it or at least from understanding it. In other words, the same way an ailing person would consider taking medicine to counter their illness - despite knowing that medicine can cause harm and be abused - is the same way that non-Muslims ought to understand that Islam in itself is beneficial but can be good or bad based on how it is used. And that simply applies to all religions.

The examples you've cited are from the extreme angle, and what I was trying to get across before was that those practices aren't the standard for Islam and is in fact contradictory to its teachings.

If you understood what I said, then you'd realize that I have no reason to "run from it." I believe that this medicine is good for me and I'm using it properly, without abusing it, and am adhering to its instructions and will consult the proper physicians and pharmacists to better understand how to consume it.

Alot of what you may see in the "westernized version" is moderate Islam w/o extremism. But then again, what you term as "westernized" may differ from the version I'm practicing. If you happen to see scantily clad Muslims or ones that drink alcohol and practice adultery then umm yea that's not "westernized" that's more like "lost."

Originally Posted by FloridaBoy

Well, now you have seen one with a view that is actually based on reality.

Based on reality, perhaps. Rational? If you didn't understand what I was talking about and insist that Islam and all the Muslims are out to kill everyone and practice extremism, then I'd disagree. But you're entitled to your views and opinions.

You have your religion, and I have mine. 109:6