0
   

90% of Islamic Teachers are Terrorists

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 10:46 am
aperson wrote:
Attention.

The conflict between Islam and the West spawned from a very simple fact - in their society, the state and the church are integrated! They do not understand us, and we do not understand them, because the way our religion and our government interact is very different from theirs.

It is very important that we understand that, in their eyes, the attacks on the Middle East by America are actually attacks on Islam by Christianity. For them, it amounts to the same thing. Their country is their religion. This is why there are so many Islam-spurred terrorist attacks - they are just responding to the attacks on their church.

While I am not justifying their actions, I am saying that the conflict between our world and theirs is merely a misunderstanding.


From this description, how is Islam any different from Republicans (after you interchange Islam and Christianity, and terrorist attacks with invasion of course).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 11:38 am
Good point, ebrown. It seems people don't see our country's preemptive attack on Iraq as a terrorist attack, even though Saddam didn't pose our country any threats. (FACT: He didn't have any WMDs or the means to deliver them to the US.) Our coalition partners and the US have killed over 100,000 innocent Iraqis. If that isn't terrorism, I don't know how to measure it.

They want us to believe that only Muslims are capable of such heinous crimes.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jul, 2008 10:55 pm
That would be a terrorist attack by one Govt/country on another govt/country, supported by (at the time) popular public opinion, would it not?

That said, given any definition of terrorism (once you remove which organisations are capable of terrorism), I've little doubt that the invasion of Iraq would fall into it's definition.

JLNobody wrote:
Whatever we say about the products of Islamic madrassas we can also say about the protestant christian fundamentalists. If the latter could take control if our government they, too, would pose dangers to the world no less fierce than those of the so-called "islamofacists".


Nickfun wrote:
I suppose it would be just as easy to replce "Muslim" with "Christianity".


ZoSo wrote:
ZoSo : So what if ten percent of muslim people are radicalised. They would say the same about fundamentalist christians.


Replies like this are the reason I said :

Vikorr wrote:
The only problem is that we in the West dont' really pay much attention to it, so we don't really know much.


They show a lack of knowledge about the founding teachings of Islam, in relation to how to spread it.

The founding father of Islam spread it by conversion and the Sword, saying it was their duty to convert by any means possible, including convert or die techniques. When he suffered a military defeat he said that if you were faced with a militarily stronger enemy (that would be the west at the moment) to convert through any means possible, and bide your time until you were stronger than your enemy. That is a fundamental of Islam (even so, in regional situations, you are often seeing wars by people

The founding father of Christianity spread it through conversion, and preached peace (even if his followers didn't always follow such) - that is a 'fundamental' of Christianity.

Such replies also ignore the difference where for Islam : The religion is the Govt/Country, and for Christianity, we have a doctrine of separation of the powers (even though in practicality Christianity intrudes into Govt - thankfully it is somewhat limited)

It ignores that if you are not Muslim in a Muslim country, you are treated as a second class citizen (imigration issues aside due to their complexity - this attitude is not prevalent in Christian countries).

It ignores that if you choose to change religions from Islam to another religion, you are under a death setence (though that seems to be an issue more in some countries than others - I have seen a number of articles of such)

It ignores that Muslim mosques in Christian countries are safe, while Christian churches in Muslim countries aren't (the example that springs to mind, is the numerous Christian churches that were razed in Indonesia a few years back)

I'm sure there are other aspects such ignores, that I haven't thought of at the moment.

It doesn't help that people don't seem to recognise the difference between a fundamentalist and a person who practices a radicalised form of religion.

Aperson wrote:
The conflict between Islam and the West spawned from a very simple fact - in their society, the state and the church are integrated! They do not understand us, and we do not understand them, because the way our religion and our government interact is very different from theirs.

Pretty much the same point I made, though better stated.

Aperson wrote:
It is very important that we understand that, in their eyes, the attacks on the Middle East by America are actually attacks on Islam by Christianity. For them, it amounts to the same thing. Their country is their religion. This is why there are so many Islam-spurred terrorist attacks - they are just responding to the attacks on their church.

This isn't quite true. There's a LOT of history that has contributed to the current situation.

For example, many people don't know that the West (France & England mainly) created the borders for the ME Countries as they are today (mostly). Many people don't know that Bagdad ruled Kuwait for 2000 years before that new distribution of borders (Desert Storm anyone?). Many people don't grasp the connection between the CIA coup in Iran (of a democratically elected president, and Times 1951 man of the year), and Irans current hardline anti-western stance (as well as being the roots of ME terror during the 70's and early 80's). Other coups and attempted coups also. Many don't grasp that "Once a muslim land, always a muslim land), and don't grasp either (or ignore), the thorn in Islams pride that is Israel, and (in Islams view) the Wests support and backing of that Thorn. They don't grasp how it nettles Islamic pride that a number of their rulers are seen as Western Puppets (Saudi Arabia springs to mind), and that a number of countries have US bases on them (Saudi Again, Pakistan sort of, and there's a couple of others if I remember right). There's other things I'm sure, that I can't think of off the top of my head. Oh yes, another - the coincidence in Pakistan that the only 3 anti western presidents they've had, have been quickly assisinated.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jul, 2008 11:36 am
You can tell there's a large contingency of "moveon" types here at A2K.

All of you can KMA.

What it would have been like if moveon.org was around in 1942....

http://soundpolitics.com/GeneralLiesAndPower.jpg
0 Replies
 
blakblak
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:03 am
aperson wrote

Quote:
I am saying that the conflict between our world and theirs is merely a misunderstanding.


For some reason I dont see a problem this big as a simple misunderstanding. The start of the problem was 9/11 not the invasion of Iraq. What provoked 9/11?

When you look at Islamists and christians it is much safer to be a christian. Violence even ensues between muslims! sectarian violence is the main problem in Iraq right now. it seems that most of the terrorists today are politically or religiously motivated, and most of the religious ones are muslim for some reason. So islam must be the religion most capable of producing terrorists. Why is this?

American invasion of Iraq was total BS, there were no WMD's so the real motive was obviously oil. Now theyre trying to justify the war by saying it helped Iraq and they caught Saddam the ruthless dictator. But the question still begs to be answered, Why Iraq? OIL. They could have helped a country that really needs help such as Zimbabwe, or even better how about using the money they spent on Iraq to eradicate poverty in africa!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 10:17 am
Ofcourse it's the oil; Iraq is demanding a time line for our troops to leave, but Bush is not complying - even though he told the world that we'll leave Iraq when they ask us to leave.

More lies from Bush, and his supporters will deny it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 12:27 pm
You mean like the military men and women stationed there? Those lying bastards!!

c.i. go wipe the **** off your face.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:17 pm
cjhsa wrote:
You mean like the military men and women stationed there? Those lying bastards!!

c.i. go wipe the **** off your face.


Does anybody know what cjh is talking about? I don't. As far as wiping something off my face, cjh doesn't realize he's seen as the shite on a2k.
0 Replies
 
blakblak
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:16 pm
cjhsa wrote:


c.i. go wipe the **** off your face.


CJHSA You're the one who's making up all the **** !!!!!!!!!!

anyways VOTE OBAMA!
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 05:03 pm
Laughing Why, cos he black?
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:34 pm
(with ref to cjs post on Eisenhower)

I just wish Eisenhower was in charge now
these days, it's more like
Animal Farm as far as world leaders go


Eisenhower sure wasn't afraid to learn



We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

This world of ours...must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

You can't have this kind of war. There just aren't enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the streets.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

War settles nothing.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?

~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower


and my personal favorite


I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower


Yeah! Go Dwight!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:45 pm
Something Bush never learned:


I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

~Dwight D. Eisenhower
0 Replies
 
blakblak
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 12:27 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush never learned


Exactly, Bush never learned!

I sympathize though, he was the president who had to deal with 9/11.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 02:40 am
Shirakawasuna wrote:
cjhsa: do a barrel roll.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Damnit Peppy! Talk like this will get 4chan to invade A2K. This place is bad enough with people like cjhsa running around without his shots.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 06:17 am
I have all my shots right here, assbag.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 02:17 am
So cjhsa, you've still failed to prove or even support your claim. I'm not surprised though. You're just trolling for attention. I guess even you can get lonely cleaning your guns.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 05:59 am
Uh, retard, this was a tongue in cheek response to the plethora of left wing "xx% of whatever" threads at the time.

You're not excused.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:33 am
The ironic thing is that you didn't make those threads look bad, you made yourself look bad. It's not "tongue in cheek" to do something like this, "it's head in ass."

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:37 am
Nah. He's just itching to get his account suspended again so that he can complain about it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:39 am
Diest TKO wrote:
The ironic thing is that you didn't make those threads look bad, you made yourself look bad. It's not "tongue in cheek" to do something like this, "it's head in ass."

T
K
O



Good description of cjh. There's almost a guarantee he'll stay there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:09:38