PDA

View Full Version : Islam



RegularJoe
17th August 07, 02:42 PM
Posted this on another forum in response to "Islam is a peaceful faith":


As a faith, the ideology preaces peace. But an idea is not the acid test that decides whether or not something is what it is, but rather actions, and the actions of a great many muslims worldwide has by far shown Islam to me to be a very highly intolerant, violent, disgusting religion. When something so simple as a cartoon in a newspaper can lead members of your faith to kill without remorse, to riot and call for war, you really have no base from which to call it peaceful.
Take for example some of the Islam-based-nations in the world; Saudi Arabia, a nation with laws so barbaric pertaining to women and violations of the "faith"..I can link you to countless videos of women getting stoned to death for showing an ankle or men being slowly beheaded to chants of "Allah Akbar" because they ate food during Ramadan.
Iraq, a country from which I have very close first hand experience, watching the Iraqi Army tie a man upside down and beat the bottom of his feet with a bicycle chain simply because he was Sunni and they were Shia..having to restrain the IA for the entire year while reaping the consequences of their actions in the form of increased attacks, and getting pounded in the media for being brutal when it was us that were trying to keep the two sects from killing one another.
Iran, who's leader calls upon Allah to wipe another nation off of the face of the earth..does this sound peaceful to you?
Across Europe, muslims are refusing to assimilate in the nations that have so kindly given them a new home, instead preferring to riot violently in the streets, in my opinion because their faith has taught them nothing better.
Referring to Islam as a peaceful religion makes me want to spit
You asked my opinion, there it is.

JimmyTheHutt
17th August 07, 02:55 PM
This looks like a fun game! Can I make blanket generalizations too?

Veritas et Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Shawarma
17th August 07, 03:16 PM
It ain't a peaceful religion. Qu'ran itself pretty much denies this. The question is whether it's an agressively expansionist religion like some people believe.

downinit
17th August 07, 03:23 PM
As a faith, the ideology preaces peace.

Relatively speaking, no it doesn't.


Iran, who's leader calls upon Allah to wipe another nation off of the face of the earth..does this sound peaceful to you?

You're referring to a deceptive misquote that spread like wildfire. He meant he wanted the Zionist regime to be wiped off the map in the same sense that Westerners wanted the Soviet Union to be wiped off the map; not physically obliterated.

Shawarma
17th August 07, 03:42 PM
Nah, he pretty much wants it to be wiped off the map since they happen to be sitting on Islamic soil. (lol)

mrblackmagic
17th August 07, 07:45 PM
The arabs were better off as zoroastrians. Honestly, I think everyone was. Either that jewish or hellenistic. kthanxbye.

Shawarma
17th August 07, 07:50 PM
Considering that the Greek gods were a bunch of selfish decadent children and how badly the Jewish god had his worshippers tortured and murdered over several thousand years, I think I'll stick with something else, thank you.

mrblackmagic
17th August 07, 07:52 PM
Well don't be jewish or don't bone a hot virgin diety.

bob
18th August 07, 12:42 AM
The arabs were better off as zoroastrians. Honestly, I think everyone was. Either that jewish or hellenistic. kthanxbye.

Zoroastrians don't proselytize or allow conversion to my knowledge. The only way you can become one is to be born to two other Zoros. So they'll be gone in another few hundred years. Shame.

Arhetton
18th August 07, 01:34 AM
http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v96/246/88/22925051/n22925051_34381926_1219.jpg

RegularJoe
18th August 07, 06:35 AM
The middle east across the board is one of the most systematically brutal regions on the face of the earth, its ingrained in the culture and embedded in the highest levels of the governments..


..What are these nations common factor?
IS-the fuck-LAM

Sharia is something out of the fucking stone age, and the only reason the European natons arent saying more about it is that they are held hostage by the millions of damn muslims in Europe.


Legalized rape, amputations, stoning, beheading, beating women, a womans word worth 1/2 of a mans in court, riots, and all around barbarism.


You cannot, cannot, cannot, defend Islam and retain any sense of moral decency.

Gezere
18th August 07, 07:52 AM
The middle east across the board is one of the most systematically brutal regions on the face of the earth, its ingrained in the culture and embedded in the highest levels of the governments..


..What are these nations common factor?
IS-the fuck-LAM

Sharia is something out of the fucking stone age, and the only reason the European natons arent saying more about it is that they are held hostage by the millions of damn muslims in Europe.


Legalized rape, amputations, stoning, beheading, beating women, a womans word worth 1/2 of a mans in court, riots, and all around barbarism.


You cannot, cannot, cannot, defend Islam and retain any sense of moral decency.

Its not just the middle east. Look at Darfur. The majority of the population is Muslim and they are slaughtering pple. The Janjaweed are Muslim. There is no way in hell anyone can not say that the reason these pple feel justified in what they do is because of Islam. Pple use religion to justify their actions but in this day and age Islam is responsible for the majority of the most heinous ones.

Shawarma
18th August 07, 07:56 AM
I'm in the process of moving and can't be arsed to address this. See former threads on same topic for my opinion.

But about Darfur: It is not a religious war. It's a racist war - The Arab/black people take offense at the pure blacks and kill them and steal their land. Religion doesn't really enter into it.

RegularJoe
18th August 07, 08:11 AM
Its not just the middle east. Look at Darfur. The majority of the population is Muslim and they are slaughtering pple. The Janjaweed are Muslim. There is no way in hell anyone can not say that the reason these pple feel justified in what they do is because of Islam. Pple use religion to justify their actions but in this day and age Islam is responsible for the majority of the most heinous ones.


Aye..

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:29 AM
I'm in the process of moving and can't be arsed to address this. See former threads on same topic for my opinion.

But about Darfur: It is not a religious war. It's a racist war - The Arab/black people take offense at the pure blacks and kill them and steal their land. Religion doesn't really enter into it.
Actually it does. Though most of the pple are muslim there are different factions. You have the same thing going on in the middle east. Again the pple feel justified in what they are doing because of their religious preference. The Black Arabs see the others as godless heatens, despite being muslim as well. They will rape women telling them they will be cleansed because they have no God. So yes religion doe play a part, no denying that.

Arhetton
18th August 07, 08:39 AM
Islam percentage by country

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6c/Islam_percentage_by_country.png/800px-Islam_percentage_by_country.png

Christianity percentage by country

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Christianity_percentage_by_country.PNG/800px-Christianity_percentage_by_country.PNG

Two religions cannot occupy the same space.

The space that they occupy is minds. Mental real estate.

The big problem with some religions is they position their real estate as 'this is the correct religion. all other religions are false, and their believers will suffer in eternity'. Islam seems to have an element of 'if they do not share your religion, it is okay to kill them'.

That is a good strategy for taking over real estate, but I'm not sure if Islam is telling me the absolute truth about reality and the universe (and I think it makes people who believe that last line total assholes [killing ppl]).

Interpreted literally, many religious beliefs clash with european, U.S or australian democratic values and interests. Just like the ones you brought up about Islam RegularJoe - such as the right of women to wear what they want, to vote, to be employed etc. I have three sisters and the idea of the traditional Islamic control of women horrifies me.

But remember that people have a vested interest in the real estate, which is usually spending eternity in paradise or some such whatever. That is why they twist their own mind to justify and argue away the negative aspects of their religion that people call them into account for.

It is just like in the martial arts threads - think about the complex and convoluted excuses people will make in the martial arts threads for not sparring, or for not groundfighting, or for defending their school or their style or whatever.

Thats not even to mention the power structures in middle eastern society that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - for instance I am sure the men have a vested interest in the paternalistic structure of the family and business and even government.

Tricky business though, religion.

Shawarma
18th August 07, 09:51 AM
Actually it does. Though most of the pple are muslim there are different factions. You have the same thing going on in the middle east. Again the pple feel justified in what they are doing because of their religious preference. The Black Arabs see the others as godless heatens, despite being muslim as well. They will rape women telling them they will be cleansed because they have no God. So yes religion doe play a part, no denying that.
Not sure this is the case. According to a documentary I saw once, the main reason for them murdering each other is that the black Arabs feel that their more negroid neighbours are dirty and inferior and should be displaced or murdered and their land taken by more Arab-looking folks. And the black Arabs are just as dark-skinned as their enemies.

But I'm hardly any kind of authority on Darfur.

TM
18th August 07, 10:46 AM
The Charlesean arguement for Gods' non-existance.
1. God is Love
2. Love is blind
3. Ray Charles is blind
4. Ray Charles is God.
5. Ray Charles is dead.
6. God is dead.

Gezere
18th August 07, 12:53 PM
Not sure this is the case. According to a documentary I saw once, the main reason for them murdering each other is that the black Arabs feel that their more negroid neighbours are dirty and inferior and should be displaced or murdered and their land taken by more Arab-looking folks. And the black Arabs are just as dark-skinned as their enemies.

But I'm hardly any kind of authority on Darfur.
I spoken to actual refugees on my last trip to Kenya. Its just as I explained it from their mouths.

Its even sadder that more isn't being done about it but the government is endorsing the violence, but not doing it in an open fashion.

ironlurker
18th August 07, 04:42 PM
And I know black Somalians who are fervent Muslims that were persecuted, had their villages destroyed, and were driven to Kenyan refugee camps by the mixed/Arab "Muslim" militias.
If anything, it's more of a case of Islam being used to justify pillaging and war versus vulnerable targets via so-called "jihad" rather than simply Muslims vs. infidels, see also Abdul Wahhab's campaigns, the spread of the Ottoman empire, etc.



What are these nations common factor?
IS-the fuck-LAM

Correlation proves causation . . . :rolleyes:

Cullion
18th August 07, 05:38 PM
Whut?

But what about Abu-Ghraib?

American corn-fed boys are perfectly capable of acting like cro-magnons at the nasty tail-end of a crack and whiskey bender if they think they're going to get away with it or worse still if somebody who looked important told them it would be ok

ironlurker
18th August 07, 05:41 PM
Whut?

But what about Abu-Ghraib?

American corn-fed boys are perfectly capable of acting like cro-magnons at the nasty tail-end of a crack and whiskey bender if they think they're going to get away with it or worse still if somebody who looked important told them it would be ok

Now, really, who doesn't look important after a crack and whiskey bender?

Zaii
18th August 07, 06:09 PM
I don't think it's so much Islam in particular as it is the mentality that "my X is right and I can enforce it on people who don't agree with me by force". You can insert pretty much anything for X, as throughout history this has gone on for every reason under the sun.

Another issue arises in the attachment people have to their cultural beliefs and traditions, personal engrained habits and sense of identity, and their blatant refusal to turn a critical eye on their own thoughts and behaviors the way that they do to the thoughts and behaviors of other people.

Arhetton made an excellent comparison between people who have their religious beliefs called into question and the rigidity people present when confronted with the fact that their martial arts training is not what they have thought it to be. The only difference is that religious and cultural beliefs tend to cause much more and widespread damage than some guy who likes to dress up and punch air - albeit the same principle applies to both illusions of perception.

Gezere
18th August 07, 06:26 PM
Whut?

But what about Abu-Ghraib?

American corn-fed boys are perfectly capable of acting like cro-magnons at the nasty tail-end of a crack and whiskey bender if they think they're going to get away with it or worse still if somebody who looked important told them it would be ok
What about Abu-Ghraib?

The ONLY problem with that ordeal was that no one bigger stepped up and told everyone else to STFU. And what happened there is a far cry from blowing up, beheading, raping, mutilate pple in the name of Allah.

Cullion
18th August 07, 07:03 PM
What about Abu-Ghraib?

The ONLY problem with that ordeal was that no one bigger stepped up and told everyone else to STFU. And what happened there is a far cry from blowing up, beheading, raping, mutilate pple in the name of Allah.

No it's not

We're talking about a penal rape camp in their illegally invaded country.

Cullion
18th August 07, 07:06 PM
We're talking about people not just allowed to act like cackling jackals here.

We're talking like people encouraged to do so.

Asia, you ought to leave the military whilst you're on a win.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 07:18 PM
Yes Islam is a factor.

But the problem with guys like joe is that, they look at it as the one and only leading factor.

Turkey doesn't have a perfect history(neither does the british empire) but they tend not to be as retarded, same with Malaysia. Why you may ask?

Because they are ruled by a secular government which seperates 'mosque' and state.

BUT ALSO: They had the opportunity to have countries with democracies(proper) and have some sort of infrastructure.


THe reason so much bad shit happens with muslims is because were the second biggest religion, ten or fifteen percent less then christians. THe difference is that, most christians tend to be in europe and north america were they went through an age of enlightenment(or were established afterward)

The muslim wolrd progressed greatly but then just...stopped.


So....we have established that religion is a factor.

But is it the only factor?

IS it the biggest factor?

It certainly is a connecting one, but is it the cause?


Look at suicide bombers. WHY the blow themselves up has nothing to do with religion, often something to do with how america or whatever country/group did something bad

, but HOW they bring them selves to go for it and hype themselves up is purely religious.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 07:29 PM
Its not just the middle east. Look at Darfur. The majority of the population is Muslim and they are slaughtering pple. The Janjaweed are Muslim. There is no way in hell anyone can not say that the reason these pple feel justified in what they do is because of Islam. Pple use religion to justify their actions but in this day and age Islam is responsible for the majority of the most heinous ones.


So your kenyan buddies talked about the Darfur problem saying it's religiously linked, muslims killing muslims for the sake of islam.


But where in the quran does it say "Kill thy dirty Negro!"""

So if they do something in the name of islam that is not in islam, how is it islams fault?

It's like putting up a socialist government saying it's for the good of capatlism, when it isn't in capitalism?


Your right, religion is a motivation.

Or an excuse.

So yes, lots of bad shit is happening in the name of islam.

Easiest shit to do there. Lets not forget, most people there are muslim, making it the first religion to appeal to.

If they happened to be christian, they probably would appeal to christianity to push their evil shit.

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:06 PM
So your kenyan buddies talked about the Darfur problem saying it's religiously linked, muslims killing muslims for the sake of islam.


But where in the quran does it say "Kill thy dirty Negro!"""

So if they do something in the name of islam that is not in islam, how is it islams fault?

It's like putting up a socialist government saying it's for the good of capatlism, when it isn't in capitalism?


Your right, religion is a motivation.

Or an excuse.

So yes, lots of bad shit is happening in the name of islam.

Easiest shit to do there. Lets not forget, most people there are muslim, making it the first religion to appeal to.

If they happened to be christian, they probably would appeal to christianity to push their evil shit.

Yes its religiously liniked but religion is not the only factor involved.

Bottomline is Islam is fucked up and there are fucked up pple who follow it. And before you get your panties in a twist I think most religions are fucked up, Islam is just one of the worse.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:08 PM
My panties are pink and always fresh.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:11 PM
And before you get your panties in a twist I think most religions are fucked up, Islam is just one of the worse.

Come on, judaism and christianity have their fucked up quirks, they just happen to have large populations in parts of the world that had the age of science and enlightenment and secularism, while the muslim world just stopped progressing past the umayid dynasty(im aware that i probably spelled Umayid wrong)

Oh and population.



I see your point, and your right on many counts, muslim just happen to do the most bullshit. But it has alot to do with population, the more there are, the more crazies.

True only 3% are extremists. But that 3% is what? 3 million or something?

I stated before, other then turkey and malaysia, they never went through the same state of societal 'evolution'. SOme guy wrote a paper on why, i just forgot the main points.

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:12 PM
No it's not

We're talking about a penal rape camp in their illegally invaded country.
It was that even before the war. Again what happened there doesn't come close to what Islamic people did and are still doing. Even you can't deny that.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:18 PM
It was that even before the war. Again what happened there doesn't come close to what Islamic people did and are still doing. Even you can't deny that.


So if there was a role change, where muslims suddenly switched places with everyone in north america and europe, with all the evangelists taking the place of muslims, what would we see?

We will see lots of bad dids and still doings. Look at the government structures, kinds and dictators and other bullshit. Look at africa, warlords doing all sorts of hard shit. Talk to somalians, they kill eachother for being in different tribes.

The reason they do such bad shit and are STILL doing bad shit it because of circumstance.

Im NOT saying poverty causes terrorism. I am saying however, that the people seem barbaric because they live in barbaric situations.

Look at Katrina, how did things look there? in one hand we had people doing deeds of self sacricice and heroism.

On the other hand, rapes and roberies and burgleries.

Prussian blue were handing out WHITE ONLY aid.

It's weird.






Yes religion is a factor.

But can you deny other factors?


Yes muslims have done far far worse then Abu Gharib.

But why?

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:18 PM
We're talking about people not just allowed to act like cackling jackals here.

We're talking like people encouraged to do so.
You're talking bout Islam right? Go blow yourself up in the name of Allah and kill a bunch of pple who had nothing to do with our warped outlook on life.



Asia, you ought to leave the military whilst you're on a win.
Or you should volunteer to be a suicide bomber that way you are guaranteed a win.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:21 PM
To sum shit up:

I agree with you on these points asia:

1) THe middle east would be better off having secular democracies, assuming something stable can be set up, otherwise it will fall apart like pakistan.

2) religion is a factor, is being used as such.


What i disagree with is saying islam is among the worst religions. WIth the excepton of few circumstances, most of the time when islam is being used as an excuse it's either something unislamic, the resonings for killing so and so are not in the quran, or they take something and apply it with a broad stroke(in which i guess blame can theoretically be placed on the religion it self)

Suicide bombing was created by the tamils, later borrowed by arabs. Suicide it self is forbidden(though the whole DIE A GLORIOUSSSSSSS DEATH ON THE BATTLE FEILD!!!!!! WALLLAAAAAACCCEEEE that is in islamic doctrine.)





Fuck i should have just made one post.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:30 PM
MY PANTIES will not be twisted...yet.

Nothing feels better then silk.

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:31 PM
So if there was a role change, where muslims suddenly switched places with everyone in north america and europe, with all the evangelists taking the place of muslims, what would we see?
If liberals and islamic fasticst get their way we might find out.


We will see lots of bad dids and still doings. Look at the government structures, kinds and dictators and other bullshit. Look at africa, warlords doing all sorts of hard shit. Talk to somalians, they kill eachother for being in different tribes.

The reason they do such bad shit and are STILL doing bad shit it because of circumstance.
AND the fact that they feel justified based on their religious beliefs.


Im NOT saying poverty causes terrorism. I am saying however, that the people seem barbaric because they live in barbaric situations.
Islam is barbaric, on this we agree.


Look at Katrina, how did things look there? in one hand we had people doing deeds of self sacricice and heroism.

On the other hand, rapes and roberies and burgleries.
Katrina only proved we has A LOT of STUPIDITY being played out by stupid pple.


Prussian blue were handing out WHITE ONLY aid.

It's weird.
I am waiting for the day one, or both, of them consensually fucks a non white guy. I just have this feeling that its going to happen.


Yes religion is a factor.

But can you deny other factors?
I don't recall deny other factors. Probably because I didn't I just pointed out one of the bigger ones.



Yes muslims have done far far worse then Abu Gharib.

But why?
They're fucked in the head?

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:33 PM
Islam is barbaric, on this we agree.

And if the evangelical christianity had the same influence on the middle east? how would it turn out?

Seems to me they are just as barbaric.

Didn't pat robertson call some other denominations of christianity devil worship?

And he has millions of viewers who actually like him.

Could you imagine such a man with more power? He's like fucking Osama but...old and wrinkly instead of hairy and smelly.

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:35 PM
And if the evangelical christianity had the same influence on the middle east? how would it turn out?
Better than whats there now but still fucked.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:36 PM
I haven't heard much on the news about prussian blue lately. What the hell are they doing these days? STill racist?

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:38 PM
Better than whats there now but still fucked.

Well there you go, thats my point.

Though i think it would be more fucked with christianity but i have biass Har har har.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:49 PM
EDIT: STUPID JOKE>

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:52 PM
I haven't heard much on the news about prussian blue lately. What the hell are they doing these days? STill racist?

AFIAK they still are. Unless one got knocked up by one of their redneck nazi fans OR they caught jungle fever.

Gezere
18th August 07, 08:56 PM
Well there you go, thats my point.

Though i think it would be more fucked with christianity but i have biass Har har har.
I don't know. I will admit that Christianity is more open to change than Islam is.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 08:58 PM
Poor girls, brainwashed by redneck phobia.


Ive seen some neo nazi's in my school.

One of my friends decided to have a debate with the guy.

It's funny, they were polite and everything but they were all like "Whites and other races can only get along if they are seperated".

It was wierd. Under different circumstances one would think people would get into a shouting match over this, but it never happened.



Their still dicks though.

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 09:00 PM
I don't know. I will admit that Christianity is more open to change than Islam is.


Fair point.

Though expose the muslim world to the 24 century and (hopefully) you may see progress.

EDIT: I will have to say iron lurker is probably a much better guy to tackle this issue. His history-fu is superior to mine.

Arhetton
18th August 07, 09:27 PM
All I know is that when I told my family I wasn't religious anymore, I wasn't stoned to death.

Also, my sisters are allowed to wear what they want, date who they want, they have social, monetary and political power, and I would never take that away from them or any other women.

ironlurker
18th August 07, 10:34 PM
All I know is that when I told my family I wasn't religious anymore, I wasn't stoned
not even buzzed?

AAAhmed46
18th August 07, 10:35 PM
All I know is that when I told my family I wasn't religious anymore, I wasn't stoned to death.

Also, my sisters are allowed to wear what they want, date who they want, they have social, monetary and political power, and I would never take that away from them or any other women.

So your saying because your family didn't disown you, suddenly christianity is more liberal then islam?

Have you ever talked to arab christian apostate? Because alot of the shit that happens with muslims happens with arabian christians.

I know a girl(hot) arab coptic christian who does not want to let her family know she is dating a black dude, because they hate niggas.

She doesn't even want her parents or family to find out that she is even dating period.


EDIT: Thats not to say arabian muslims dont do it more, they do.

But thats only because there are way more arabian muslims then there are Arabian coptic christians.

hpr
19th August 07, 01:56 AM
Just one thing I'd like to contribute..

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/hprajani/phun/imaginary.jpg

AAAhmed46
19th August 07, 02:29 AM
Fair enough.

Arhetton
19th August 07, 02:44 AM
So your saying because your family didn't disown you, suddenly christianity is more liberal then islam?

Have you ever talked to arab christian apostate? Because alot of the shit that happens with muslims happens with arabian christians.

I know a girl(hot) arab coptic christian who does not want to let her family know she is dating a black dude, because they hate niggas.

She doesn't even want her parents or family to find out that she is even dating period.


EDIT: Thats not to say arabian muslims dont do it more, they do.

But thats only because there are way more arabian muslims then there are Arabian coptic christians.

Um... Do you even have a point there?

You seem to try to construct arguments around racism.

Because my point was that if I tried to exercise my (non) religious freedom I would be killed in a traditional Islamic country. It wouldn't matter if I was green/blue or purple skinned.

I'm saying that the problem is ideological.

Look christianity has done its dumb shit too in its own time. There was the crusades, the inquisition, the vaticans interference with Galileo, Darwin and there are still douchebags around that try to fearmonger people into their services.

I'm not defending christianity. But I am saying that I think traditional (or literal) interpretation of Islam is intolerant and incompatible with all of the major progress made in western society. Religious freedom. Equality of women.

Look say what you want, but in western countries we tolerate people like this:

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

That guy shows up to funerals of soldiers who have died in iraq waving arond signs like this

http://jonathanmurray.com/images/fred1.jpg


At the funerals, church members hold signs proclaiming "God Hates Your Tears," "Thank God For Dead Soldiers," "God is America's Terror," "Thank God For 9/11," and "God is Your Enemy," among others.

AAAhmed46
19th August 07, 02:52 AM
My point is that your comparing your christian family with being accepting of your non-religious freedom. I'm trying to make a connection that Christians do the same shit.

I used Coptic Christians as an example simply to push the fact that both muslims and arabian Christians tend to come from the same region and thus have similar customs.
Not an issue of race per say but cultural upbringing.

I know you agree in saying Christianity has it's fair share of bullshit.

But if literal interpretations of islam are not compatible with western society then neither is literal interpretations of other Abrahamic faiths.

My point is singling out islam in particular over other religions.



My original argument was to also make a cultural link. Most of the stupid shit we see happens by muslms who live in the east, and their behavior is pointed out. Im pointing out that, though a minority, that christians in the east also have similar behavior.

So essentially, if you parents had the same cultural conditioning, maybe you really WOULD have been stonned to death, or at least disowned.


As for religious equality and womans rights and islam, i could argue it is inside the faith, while others will argue the opposite and it will go in circles.

I remember argueing over the hijab with whats her face Xiau xiaou or something. God that was tedious.









BTW Fred Phelps should be raped up the ass.

Shit like that should be illigal. Too bad it isn't.

Arhetton
19th August 07, 03:09 AM
Maybe what is the issue is seperation of church and state.

AAAhmed46
19th August 07, 03:17 AM
One issue.

Another is modernization.

The muslim world was at a time, a thing of pride and was one of the centers of knowledge and education.

But somehow, they just stopped progressing and never went through the age of enlightenment, and were behind ever since.


ANd i think thats is a very big, issue, and is a key issue.

During the sixties and seventies when people were listening to disco, saudi arabia, dispite it's oil still had animal driven carts and labour.

Hell in pakistan, people still use donkeys and horses as tools(though pakistan is very liberal)

THink about it.

In essence, the muslim world is stuck in the past, while the rest of the world isn't.

Arhetton
19th August 07, 05:15 AM
I think Saudi Arabia and Iran are highly modernized.

There are still a few impoverished middle east nations, like Jordan, Syria, Turkmenistan - but overall they are doing pretty well. Oil wealth and all that.

Saudi Arabia is just brutal. There are a special kind of police in saudi arabia, prayer police, and if you are not praying at the correct time of the day, they will drive around and if they find you walking the streets instead of praying, they will whip you.

I think in Saudi Arabia for instance the problem is not money or technology, its just that people are so absorbed in their religious beliefs and the religious beliefs are so connected to the state. The monarchy is another problem lol.

Cullion
19th August 07, 06:59 AM
You're talking bout Islam right? Go blow yourself up in the name of Allah and kill a bunch of pple who had nothing to do with our warped outlook on life.

Americans have killed a lot more innocent muslims than muslims have killed innocent americans. Alright, Americans don't do it with suicide attacks, because they don't have to, but it's clearly the more belligerent culture.

Gezere
19th August 07, 07:10 AM
Americans have killed a lot more innocent muslims than muslims have killed innocent americans.
Very wrong. That is a very uneducated liberal stance. Also what you aren't admitting to is that Muslims have killed more innocent Muslims than anyone else.

Alright, Americans don't do it with suicide attacks, because they don't have to, but it's clearly the more belligerent culture.
You truly don't know what you're talking about here. How many times have you been to the middle east to compare?

AAAhmed46
19th August 07, 04:25 PM
I think Saudi Arabia and Iran are highly modernized.

There are still a few impoverished middle east nations, like Jordan, Syria, Turkmenistan - but overall they are doing pretty well. Oil wealth and all that.

Saudi Arabia is just brutal. There are a special kind of police in saudi arabia, prayer police, and if you are not praying at the correct time of the day, they will drive around and if they find you walking the streets instead of praying, they will whip you.

Iran for instance, has a very large and dissatisfied middle class. THe country is almost always trying to hold back the moderates, it's practically seaming for liberalization, fuck it's already happening. Go meet most iranians, their probably the most secular minded people you could meet.

Disgustingly nationalistic, but secular minded for the most part.

Why their government is fucked up is simply because when the islamic revolution happened, they seemed to forget abut SEPERATION OF MOSQUE AND STATE(which you pointed out)

Now you have a very dissatisfied population with theocratic elements stuck in the government.

Aljfldjaflja however the fuck you spell that retards name, was elected because he was big on domestic shit, so he was elected, much like how bush was elected on his stance on T3h gays.




I think in Saudi Arabia for instance the problem is not money or technology, its just that people are so absorbed in their religious beliefs and the religious beliefs are so connected to the state. The monarchy is another problem lol.

Saudi arabia is modernized technologically, but in many other ways their systems are horribly outdated.. It's not democratic. 90% of their 'islamic' laws are enforced by the house of saud and people have no say in it. FOr instance, woman may be forced to cover up on the streets of saudi arabia, but the Royal family however, does whatever the fuck they want, and are free from the laws.
THe whole 'woman can't drive' thing, is so pulled out of their asses.

Anotehr problem with saudi arabia is focus:

Whatever money they make they build more hotels and businesses.

What about schools? HOstpitals?

THe people rely almost entirely on foriegn workers(who do not get cetizenship)

Revolution? Well, thats not easy.

Say one word that even resembles anti-government sentiment and you could be thrown in jail and tortured.




THe 'natural' saudi's are so used to getting oil money, that now that they have to be more stingy, there are actual laws that force them to go to work. I know a guy who works as a foriegn worker there. He says that all they do is talk at work, they never work, only the foreign workers actually work. THey are not used to working.

It's like a fucking welfare state...if your a natural born saudi. Thus many of the natural born saudis are very satisfied with the government, yet even then a large movement wants secularization with this welfare bullshit.


Seperation of church and states is kind of hard for saudi arabia, since the royal house is the one pushing it, and they want to keep flying to dubai to have their orgies and gambling and what not so...yeah.



Iran and saudi arabia, have technological modernization but not government.

Malaysia, Turkey are good examples of modernization in the muslim world. Religion and state are seperated, they have good infrastructure, they have the same technology and are democratic.


Iran and saudi arabia may no longer uses donkeys as transportation, but they need to overhall thier systems. Which is the key.

Hell india has a huge muslim population, lots of muslims in office and what not, things are good there, could be better, but not bad all things considered.

GuiltySpark
19th August 07, 04:28 PM
Alright, Americans don't do it with suicide attacks, because they don't have to.

Hooah

AAAhmed46
19th August 07, 04:29 PM
Silence TERRORIST!!!!

Cullion
19th August 07, 04:57 PM
Very wrong. That is a very uneducated liberal stance. Also what you aren't admitting to is that Muslims have killed more innocent Muslims than anyone else.

I'm no liberal.

How many innocent americans have muslims killed ? about 10,000?

How many Iraqi civilians do you think died during the invasion?

Many times that.



You truly don't know what you're talking about here. How many times have you been to the middle east to compare?

I haven't. They should be left to do to each other as they please.

GuiltySpark
19th August 07, 06:57 PM
Isn't the UK being invaded for lack of a better word by muslims?

I'm hearing that their is alot of them and theres some serious culture clashes?

AAAhmed46
19th August 07, 07:06 PM
For the brits, it's the muslims fault.

They clump together in small communities of entire city blocks of muslim people, when they should be living spread out and integrated in the U.K. then in little 'mini-pakistans' and 'mini-somalians'

Gezere
19th August 07, 08:00 PM
I'm no liberal.
could have fooled me.


How many innocent americans have muslims killed ? about 10,000?

How many Iraqi civilians do you think died during the invasion?

Many times that.
Wrong. The majority of Iraqi civilians since the war was killed BY OTHER MUSLIMS not the US.




I haven't. They should be left to do to each other as they please.
So you are speaking with no actual experience. I have been to several and to even think that the US is more belligerent is extremely idiotic once you see things first hand.

Cullion
20th August 07, 07:48 AM
Wrong. The majority of Iraqi civilians since the war was killed BY OTHER MUSLIMS not the US.

I said the US has killed more muslim civilians than muslims have killed US civlians. Is this true or not ?



So you are speaking with no actual experience. I have been to several and to even think that the US is more belligerent is extremely idiotic once you see things first hand.

Umm, dude, the only reason you've seen that country is that you're a member of an invading army.

Truculent Sheep
20th August 07, 08:07 AM
For the brits, it's the muslims fault.

They clump together in small communities of entire city blocks of muslim people, when they should be living spread out and integrated in the U.K. then in little 'mini-pakistans' and 'mini-somalians'

This is all a crying shame as about ten years ago, UK race relations were looking quite good. Then Labour came in, started emphasising 'mulitculturalism' and sucking up to Muslim 'community leaders' for votes. This has gotten worse since the Iraq war as the government bend over backwards to make it up to angry Muslims.

Net result: the government looks the other way as the men who run Mulsim households tells everyone how to use their postal vote, which is to say, he tells them to vote Labour. There's barely a murmur of complaint as brides and grooms are brought in from Bangladesh and Pakistan so the community is kept 'pure'. (Otherwise westernised Muslim kids would marry other westernised Muslim kids! Eeek!)

And no one really seems to give a toss about the large number of terrorists, loonoid imams and bonkers militants who are allowed to stay in the UK to claim benefits and other freebies. It wouldn't do to alienate 'the community', you see, and appeasement has a long and noble tradition going all the way back to the 1930s. And all those secular Iraqi translators who helped British forces in Basra can go fuck themselves! No votes there, you see.

This is what happens when governments treat people not as individuals but as part of a greater whole. It's a deeply racist, divisive and dangerous approach. On the other hand, it gets Labour lots of votes. So it's OK.

MSphinx
20th August 07, 11:17 AM
Psychology Today has an interesting article on why Islam breeds so many suicide bombers. It's supposedly because they can't get laid:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml


Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

GuiltySpark
20th August 07, 11:26 AM
But what about all the gay sex they have?

Gezere
20th August 07, 11:36 AM
I said the US has killed more muslim civilians than muslims have killed US civlians. Is this true or not ?
Not true. Again becuase you failed to understand. More muslim civilians are being killed by other muslims. Read that several times before commenting further.

Umm, dude, the only reason you've seen that country is that you're a member of an invading army.
Wrong again. I have been to other muslim countries as well as tourist not a soldier. You don't speak from any experience so this is laughable.

Cullion
20th August 07, 11:57 AM
Not true. Again becuase you failed to understand. More muslim civilians are being killed by other muslims. Read that several times before commenting further.

Asia, I understand what you are trying to say but you are avoiding answering the question I am asking. I am not asking about how muslims treat each other, that is their affair. I am asking which side has killed more of the other side's civilians ? 'The West' or the Islamic world ?

I think the answer is 'the west'.



Wrong again. I have been to other muslim countries as well as tourist not a soldier. You don't speak from any experience so this is laughable.

I don't have to travel to Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Syria to know that they present less threat to our civilians than we currently present to theirs. What experiences have you had that give you the opposing view?

And remember, I am not talking about how they treat each other. That is none of our business.

Cullion
20th August 07, 11:59 AM
Psychology Today has an interesting article on why Islam breeds so many suicide bombers. It's supposedly because they can't get laid:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml

Historically, have polygamous mormons behaved in the way this article would suggest?

Gezere
20th August 07, 12:15 PM
Asia, I understand what you are trying to say but you are avoiding answering the question I am asking. I am not asking about how muslims treat each other, that is their affair. I am asking which side has killed more of the other side's civilians ? 'The West' or the Islamic world ?

I think the answer is 'the west'.
REREAD! I answered the question I stated NOT TRUE quite plainly.




I don't have to travel to Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Syria to know that they present less threat to our civilians than we currently present to theirs. What experiences have you had that give you the opposing view?
WTC
COLE
BERUIT
HIEDLBERG
HANAU
RHEIN MAIN

Just to name a few. Ever wake up and get evacuated because there was a bomb found by your house? This was in Germany we weren't in their country. You obviously don't know a lot of what goes on. Not ever Muslim attack or attempted attack makes the news.


And remember, I am not talking about how they treat each other. That is none of our business.
You are blissfully unaware of alot of things.

Cullion
20th August 07, 01:02 PM
REREAD! I answered the question I stated NOT TRUE quite plainly.

No, you said that the muslims had killed more of their own than we had.


Not true. Again becuase you failed to understand. More muslim civilians are being killed by other muslims. Read that several times before commenting further.

That is not what I asked. I asked whether we had killed more of them than they had of us. You reread.



WTC
COLE
BERUIT
HIEDLBERG
HANAU
RHEIN MAIN

What is the death toll for those attacks ? I didn't say there was no civlian death toll on our side. I said it was lower than theirs.



Just to name a few. Ever wake up and get evacuated because there was a bomb found by your house? This was in Germany we weren't in their country. You obviously don't know a lot of what goes on. Not ever Muslim attack or attempted attack makes the news.

When was it and was anybody hurt ?

MSphinx
20th August 07, 01:41 PM
Historically, have polygamous mormons behaved in the way this article would suggest?

I'm no expert on Mormon history, but some Google fu revealed the Mountain Meadows Massacre (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_mass.htm) and the Danites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danite).

Gezere
20th August 07, 01:48 PM
No, you said that the muslims had killed more of their own than we had.


That is not what I asked. I asked whether we had killed more of them than they had of us. You reread.
Incorrect. You obviously didn't reread.

You asked:


I said the US has killed more muslim civilians than muslims have killed US civlians. Is this true or not ?

I responded to the question:

Not true. Again becuase you failed to understand. More muslim civilians are being killed by other muslims. Read that several times before commenting further.

I directly answered your question. You failed to recognize that.


What is the death toll for those attacks ? I didn't say there was no civlian death toll on our side. I said it was lower than theirs.
Based on what?
You keep saying we are more a threat to them than they are to us. What are you basing that on.

AAAhmed46
20th August 07, 02:09 PM
Got a question asia, haven't you met any muslims that weren't pricks?

I know you went to bosnia, and ive met many bosnians whom i was tempted to drop kick for being pricks, but hell some of them are real cool!!! And the woman can be Sexx0r.

So whats your experience. YOu went to bosnia right?

Cullion
20th August 07, 02:52 PM
Incorrect. You obviously didn't reread.

You asked:

I responded to the question:

I directly answered your question. You failed to recognize that.

Asia, you're not making sense. I ask 'did we kill more of their civilians than they killed of ours' and you keep repeating about how many of their own civilians they have killed. I have read and comprehended exactly what you wrote, and you've simply misunderstood the question. Your reply is a non-sequitur.



Based on what?
You keep saying we are more a threat to them than they are to us. What are you basing that on.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

Civilian death toll during the invasion itself.

The fact that we invaded their country in the first place, on pretexts which are now known and acknowledged to be lies.

All the innocent people killed since by jumpy troops who I do not blame, but who should not have been sent there in the first place.

Bush's predecessor bombed an pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan during his Lewinsky troubles.

Gezere
20th August 07, 03:58 PM
Asia, you're not making sense. I ask 'did we kill more of their civilians than they killed of ours' and you keep repeating about how many of their own civilians they have killed. I have read and comprehended exactly what you wrote, and you've simply misunderstood the question. Your reply is a non-sequitur.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

Civilian death toll during the invasion itself.

The fact that we invaded their country in the first place, on pretexts which are now known and acknowledged to be lies.

All the innocent people killed since by jumpy troops who I do not blame, but who should not have been sent there in the first place.

Bush's predecessor bombed an pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan during his Lewinsky troubles.
You asked did we kill more of them than they did us. You asked if it was true or not. I answered NOT TRUE. Pretty straightforward answer to you question so there was no problem with comprehension on my part. I later to went on to inform you, since you are obviously oblivious to it, that more muslim civilians were killed by other muslims than by us. Try comprehending that first. Muslims have killed more innocent civilians that the US has.

Also the link you posted admits they don't know what the exact figures are and who is responsible. So basicly you made a comment with no real support.

Gezere
20th August 07, 04:10 PM
Got a question asia, haven't you met any muslims that weren't pricks?

I know you went to bosnia, and ive met many bosnians whom i was tempted to drop kick for being pricks, but hell some of them are real cool!!! And the woman can be Sexx0r.

So whats your experience. YOu went to bosnia right?
Yes I have met many muslims who weren't pricks. I work with some now, but they are mainly American born converts.

As far as the women go I believer the Balkans is an untapped resource for hotties. Some of the hotest women I've seen have been in Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Bulgaria. HOWEVER many were in need of a good dental plan. They would be hot as hell until they smiled.

AAAhmed46
20th August 07, 04:28 PM
Well most bosnians i know either were born in canada or migrated here.

So i guess they had dental plans because of citizenship.



Serbian chicks are hot too.

Ive had conversations with some bosnians, they consider themselves mediterranian and the same race as arabs and not white.


Which is utterly deluded and stupid. Their white, and from eastern europe. THus eastern europian.

But i could be wrong. Feel free to correct me.

Gezere
20th August 07, 04:54 PM
Ive had conversations with some bosnians, they consider themselves mediterranian and the same race as arabs and not white.


Which is utterly deluded and stupid. Their white, and from eastern europe. THus eastern europian.

But i could be wrong. Feel free to correct me.
I have many German friends that don't consider themselves white.

AAAhmed46
20th August 07, 05:01 PM
huh?

Whats their logic?

Cullion
20th August 07, 06:41 PM
Turkish ancestry?

Gezere
20th August 07, 06:44 PM
huh?

Whats their logic?
I honestly don't know. I've asked and would only get, "I'm not white. I'm German." To which I would usually call them HITLERKIND. This usually led more name calling and drinking.

Cullion
21st August 07, 04:03 AM
You asked did we kill more of them than they did us. You asked if it was true or not. I answered NOT TRUE. Pretty straightforward answer to you question so there was no problem with comprehension on my part.

Ok, well you blended that together with telling me that more muslims had been killed by other muslims. In that case, I think your answer is wrong. I do not believe that the death tally of westerners killed by muslims is as high as the tally of muslims killed by coalition forces as documented in the link I gave and others I can dig out.



I later to went on to inform you, since you are obviously oblivious to it, that more muslim civilians were killed by other muslims than by us. Try comprehending that first. Muslims have killed more innocent civilians that the US has.

I'm not oblivious to it at all, I just don't consider it a justification for invasion.


So basicly you made a comment with no real support.

I've already given you figures. If you don't accept them, then produce your own.

Let's look at it this way:

Islamic terrorists flew two planes into a building in New York. The US led coalition invaded a whole country, beginning the campaign with hundreds of missile attacks and bomber sorties against civilian population centres.

Who, realistically, do you think has done the most damage to who's civilians ?

Gezere
21st August 07, 10:34 AM
I'm not oblivious to it at all, I just don't consider it a justification for invasion.
Which is it you have an issue with? Iraq or the muslim community as a whole. You seem to go back and forth. I am talking about all muslims. You seem fixated only on Iraq.




I've already given you figures. If you don't accept them, then produce your own.
Did you read the entire article? NOONE is certian on the figures they fluxuate in the THOUSANDS. So how is that suppose to be taken as supporting evidence.


Let's look at it this way:

Islamic terrorists flew two planes into a building in New York. The US led coalition invaded a whole country, beginning the campaign with hundreds of missile attacks and bomber sorties against civilian population centres.

Who, realistically, do you think has done the most damage to who's civilians ?
The answer is NO. Simply because you are only take ONE of their attacks vs ours. You are not talking account ALL, many you are unaware of because they didn't make CNN, attacks or attempted attacks against civilians.

Seriously, this is a subject you really know little about and seem to not know anything off beyond the news.

Cullion
21st August 07, 10:40 AM
Which is it you have an issue with? Iraq or the muslim community as a whole. You seem to go back and forth. I am talking about all muslims. You seem fixated only on Iraq.

I only use Iraq because I think the civilian deaths there caused by the coalition outnumber all civilian deaths in coalition countries which were caused by Muslims.



Did you read the entire article? NOONE is certian on the figures they fluxuate in the THOUSANDS. So how is that suppose to be taken as supporting evidence.

Because the conservative estimate given is still higher than the death toll for civilians in coalition countries.



The answer is NO. Simply because you are only take ONE of their attacks vs ours. You are not talking account ALL, many you are unaware of because they didn't make CNN, attacks or attempted attacks against civilians.

Which attacks resulted in civilian deaths which didn't make CNN or another major news outlet ?



Seriously, this is a subject you really know little about and seem to not know anything off beyond the news.

If you know about a previously unreported civilian death toll that would add thousands to those we know about, then enlighten me.

GuiltySpark
21st August 07, 11:13 AM
Who has killed more human beings. Muslims or "Americans"?

Cullion
21st August 07, 11:16 AM
Americans in WWII probably. Depends how far back in history you take the count from.

Gezere
21st August 07, 11:19 AM
I only use Iraq because I think the civilian deaths there caused by the coalition outnumber all civilian deaths in coalition countries which were caused by Muslims.
Because the conservative estimate given is still higher than the death toll for civilians in coalition countries.

Based on what? You've only presented a link in which the pple didn't agree on a figure and you provided nothing to compare it to.





Which attacks resulted in civilian deaths which didn't make CNN or another major news outlet ?
I already listed several and even one I was personally involved in.


If you know about a previously unreported civilian death toll that would add thousands to those we know about, then enlighten me.
How far do you want to go back?

Gezere
21st August 07, 11:24 AM
Who has killed more human beings. Muslims or "Americans"?
Muslims hands down. America has only been around just over 200 yrs. Muslims have been slaughtering pple for a few millennia now.

Cullion I notice your first remark was to say America BEFORE even considering the fact that it has only been around a short time. I think this express a bias. Why do you hate America?

Cullion
21st August 07, 11:31 AM
Muslims hands down. America has only been around just over 200 yrs. Muslims have been slaughtering pple for a few millennia now.

Cullion I notice your first remark was to say America BEFORE even considering the fact that it has only been around a short time. I think this express a bias. Why do you hate America?

Hmm.. so a culture cannot be more belligerent if it has only existed a shorter time?

No, that doesn't make sense.

If you want to switch to 'who has killed the most human beings' as a measure of belligerence, then we measure since America's inception as a state.

America wins hands down just for WWII.

This isn't a very smart way to compare muslims and americans though, so let's look at how many of each other's civilians we're talking about again.

The US-led coalition conducted a weeks-long intense bombing campaign with jets and missiles against Iraqi cities in the most recent invasion of Iraq.

What do you believe the death total of US civilians by muslims to be ?

Gezere
21st August 07, 11:39 AM
Hmm.. so a culture cannot be more belligerent if it has only existed a shorter time?

No, that doesn't make sense.

If you want to switch to 'who has killed the most human beings' as a measure of belligerence, then we measure since America's inception as a state.

America wins hands down just for WWII.
You comprehension is lacking. You compare one war against dozens of wars waged by muslims over the centuries and honestly thing more pple died in WWII? You really don't know Islamic history.


This isn't a very smart way to compare muslims and americans though, so let's look at how many of each other's civilians we're talking about again.

The US-led coalition conducted a weeks-long intense bombing campaign with jets and missiles against Iraqi cities in the most recent invasion of Iraq.

What do you believe the death total of US civilians by muslims to be ?
You tell me. Your claim is we killed more of them than they did us. You can't even provide a good enough source saying how many we actually killed. So you provide the figures, its your claim remember. Since you really only want to make this about the Iraq war and nothing else.

Cullion
21st August 07, 12:14 PM
You comprehension is lacking. You compare one war against dozens of wars waged by muslims over the centuries and honestly thing more pple died in WWII? You really don't know Islamic history.

Well, who are we going to compare the Muslims to during the period where America didn't exist ? Christendom ? Let's make the terms clear.



You tell me. Your claim is we killed more of them than they did us. You can't even provide a good enough source saying how many we actually killed. So you provide the figures, its your claim remember. Since you really only want to make this about the Iraq war and nothing else.

I think the Iraq war alone covers more civilian deaths on their side than all civilian deaths on ours. I'll happy start tallying up other stuff if you want.

What would you consider a 'good enough' source to demonstrate that heavy bombing of multiple cities for weeks caused more deaths than all islamic terrorism to date ?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial_feb0704.php

Gezere
21st August 07, 02:52 PM
Well, who are we going to compare the Muslims to during the period where America didn't exist ? Christendom ? Let's make the terms clear.
It pretty clear. He asked a simple question. Which you got wrong. It didn't suit you so now you wanted to put limits on it. It was a simple logic that Muslims, given their history, has killed more pple since they have been around much longer and fought many many wars than we have.




I think the Iraq war alone covers more civilian deaths on their side than all civilian deaths on ours. I'll happy start tallying up other stuff if you want.
It would be start since you haven't done so already and its obviously what you THINK is very much when it comes to this subject. Remember when tallying our side you to toe include ALL the attack on the US by muslims, not just WTC which you seem to only limit yourself to.


What would you consider a 'good enough' source to demonstrate that heavy bombing of multiple cities for weeks caused more deaths than all islamic terrorism to date ?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial_feb0704.php

Nope because it doesn't cover, and you don't know, ALL islamic Terrorism to date it only goes back to 2001. Where are all the attacks in the 70s and 80s hell we got attacks that go back to the 1920s. You best get to work.

Also lets just look at the sheer number of attacks against us vs ours against them. Very easy to see that Muslims have attacked and tried to attack us way more than we attacked them, but according to you we're more belligerent. Sad part you might not truly understand that because you haven't had to deal with it.

kismasher
21st August 07, 03:59 PM
i'm not gonna read this whole thread but comparing muslim violence to america's foreign policy / war actions is not a good idea if you're defending the muslim side. or do i really need to point out africa or mention the name Slobodan...

not too mention the extenuating circumstances in joining an already engaged enemy versus tormenting and mutilating women and children in the name of a peaceful god.

AAAhmed46
21st August 07, 04:28 PM
not too mention the extenuating circumstances in joining an already engaged enemy versus tormenting and mutilating women and children in the name of a peaceful god.

You realize that Iraq was a secular dictatorship?


Also the whole abusing woman shit is more of a cultural issue then it is religious? Long long before 9/11, go to pakistan and there are commercial about womans help centers for spousal abuse(like it is for the states)

AAAhmed46
21st August 07, 04:38 PM
Im not implying that the overall culture isn't barbaric, but it isn't as bad as Fox makes it out to be. You'll be surprised at the fact that there are some normal people.

Cullion
22nd August 07, 04:28 AM
i'm not gonna read this whole thread but comparing muslim violence to america's foreign policy / war actions is not a good idea if you're defending the muslim side. or do i really need to point out africa or mention the name Slobodan...

Slobodan wasn't a muslim, he ordered ethnic cleansing of muslims. Wrong side dude.



not too mention the extenuating circumstances in joining an already engaged enemy versus tormenting and mutilating women and children in the name of a peaceful god.

That's their culture. It's my contention that it's not our job to fix it, which is why I'm comparing what we've done to them compared to what they've done to us.

Cullion
22nd August 07, 04:36 AM
It pretty clear. He asked a simple question. Which you got wrong. It didn't suit you so now you wanted to put limits on it. It was a simple logic that Muslims, given their history, has killed more pple since they have been around much longer and fought many many wars than we have.

I didn't get it wrong, I pointed out that it was beside the point. America is a new culture. If we want to compare it with any other culture, it has to be compared since it's inception. We can compare the antecedents of american culture against muslims back through history if you want. Saying 'america is a young culture therefore it cannot be more beligerent' is completely illogical and on a moment's reflection you will see that.

You are arguing a tagential point because the culture I'm criticising happens to be the one you come from and have chosen to defend as a professional soldier, but step back and think here.

Which american antecedent do you want to compare ? christendom ? the sum of all the ancestral cultures making a major contribution to current US culture ? Just the british culture which was the parent culture of America's early ruling group ?



It would be start since you haven't done so already and its obviously what you THINK is very much when it comes to this subject. Remember when tallying our side you to toe include ALL the attack on the US by muslims, not just WTC which you seem to only limit yourself to.

I'm happy to include the rest, I was hoping you'd have some figures because you claim to know about unreported attacks.



Nope because it doesn't cover, and you don't know, ALL islamic Terrorism to date it only goes back to 2001. Where are all the attacks in the 70s and 80s hell we got attacks that go back to the 1920s. You best get to work.

You better get to work if you're going to convince me that some hostages, plane hijackings and the 9-11 attacks on the US yielded a higher death toll than invasion and occupation of a whole middle-eastern country.



Also lets just look at the sheer number of attacks against us vs ours against them. Very easy to see that Muslims have attacked and tried to attack us way more than we attacked them, but according to you we're more belligerent. Sad part you might not truly understand that because you haven't had to deal with it.

The only reason you have to deal with it is because you keep getting sent to serve as an occupying solider in a muslim country. Doesn't that context itself tell you something ?

Gezere
22nd August 07, 06:05 AM
I didn't get it wrong
Yes you did. Its telling that you can't admit that.


America is a new culture. If we want to compare it with any other culture, it has to be compared since it's inception. We can compare the antecedents of american culture against muslims back through history if you want. Saying 'america is a young culture therefore it cannot be more beligerent' is completely illogical and on a moment's reflection you will see that.

You still would have been wrong. No matter you are saying you were still wrong. Read is question again. You failed to answer correctly. The only reason you are going on about it is because you don't want to say Muslims have done more harm than America. Its a clear Anti-American stance.


You are arguing a tagential point because the culture I'm criticising happens to be the one you come from and have chosen to defend as a professional soldier, but step back and think here.

You are using this as and excuse to not admitting you're wrong. You also seem not to want to acknowledge the fact that my job gives me a far better insight than you because, unlike you, I have interacted with the cultur both professionally and personally.


Which american antecedent do you want to compare ? christendom ? the sum of all the ancestral cultures making a major contribution to current US culture ? Just the british culture which was the parent culture of America's early ruling group ?

Why? That wasn't part of the question asked. Even doing some still won't give you the satisfaction of going. "See America is bad and belligernt."


I'm happy to include the rest, I was hoping you'd have some figures because you claim to know about unreported attacks.

I do, but this is YOUR legwork here. I will only come up with the figures to further drive home the fact you don't know as much about this as you thing.


You better get to work if you're going to convince me that some hostages, plane hijackings and the 9-11 attacks on the US yielded a higher death toll than invasion and occupation of a whole middle-eastern country.

No work really needed on my part. We have almost a century of attacks by Muslims on the US. You have what. Plus you don't even have a good number to work with. You can't count ALL the civilian casualties of the occupation, because AGAIN most of them are due to OTHER Muslims. You can only count the ones that the US is responsible for and you don't know that figure. It seems you have much much more work ahead of you.


The only reason you have to deal with it is because you keep getting sent to serve as an occupying solider in a muslim country. Doesn't that context itself tell you something ?
You fail at comprehension again plus are making some erroneous assumptions. My job is NOT the ONLY resaon I haved to deal with muslim hostilites. I've only been in the serve for 10yrs. I wasn't a soldier when an Islamic group placed a bomb by our house in a Germany community, not a military base. So this pple who you are trying to defend because you somehow hate America. Were willing to kill several innocent german civilians and endanger many more to kill one family of Americans. Yeah we're way more beligerent. How many times have has the US suffered a Islamic terrorist attack and didn't not respond?

Cullion
22nd August 07, 06:28 AM
Yes you did. Its telling that you can't admit that.


You still would have been wrong. No matter you are saying you were still wrong. Read is question again. You failed to answer correctly. The only reason you are going on about it is because you don't want to say Muslims have done more harm than America. Its a clear Anti-American stance.

No, it is an anti-american govt. stance. One that the american govt. currently deserves. I didn't get his question wrong, I pointed out that it wasn't relevant.



You are using this as and excuse to not admitting you're wrong. You also seem not to want to acknowledge the fact that my job gives me a far better insight than you because, unlike you, I have interacted with the cultur both professionally and personally.

You interact with them as a member of an occupying army and you're claiming this means that your country is less beligerent towards them than they are to you ?

That's nuts.



Why? That wasn't part of the question asked. Even doing some still won't give you the satisfaction of going. "See America is bad and belligernt."


I do, but this is YOUR legwork here. I will only come up with the figures to further drive home the fact you don't know as much about this as you thing.


No work really needed on my part. We have almost a century of attacks by Muslims on the US. You have what. Plus you don't even have a good number to work with. You can't count ALL the civilian casualties of the occupation, because AGAIN most of them are due to OTHER Muslims. You can only count the ones that the US is responsible for and you don't know that figure. It seems you have much much more work ahead of you.

I know about the muslim on muslim attacks and have already addressed that. I have already produced figures which you poo-pooed without providing any counter evidence. I am simply not going to believe your claim that those terrorists incidents resulted in more civilian casualties amongst americans than a US-led bombing campaign on civilian targets lasting weeks resulted in muslim casualties.



I've only been in the serve for 10yrs. I wasn't a soldier when an Islamic group placed a bomb by our house in a Germany community, not a military base. So this pple who you are trying to defend because you somehow hate America.

Don't be obtuse. I'm not defending people who put a bomb near your house. I'm pointing out that your own political leadership has it's share of crazies who have dropped a whole lot of bombs over a whole lot of their houses.



Were willing to kill several innocent german civilians and endanger many more to kill one family of Americans.?

How many innocent people is the US military prepared to kill to blow up bridges, power facilities and TV antennas ? 'Cause they do that, don't they ?

Gezere
22nd August 07, 07:12 AM
No, it is an anti-american govt. stance. One that the american govt. currently deserves. I didn't get his question wrong, I pointed out that it wasn't relevant.
You got the question wrong. Just admit it. And stop this silliness.


You interact with them as a member of an occupying army and you're claiming this means that your country is less beligerent towards them than they are to you ?

That's nuts.

YES. Because you are only taking this point in time and not considering everything else that happened.


I know about the muslim on muslim attacks and have already addressed that. I have already produced figures which you poo-pooed without providing any counter evidence. I am simply not going to believe your claim that those terrorists incidents resulted in more civilian casualties amongst americans than a US-led bombing campaign on civilian targets lasting weeks resulted in muslim casualties.

No you dismissed Muslim on Muslim attacks because you didn't want it to affect your numbers. I didn't poo poo your figure the pple you sourced did that. Again did you read the whole article. They clearly state that they don't know the exact number and that the figures varie greatly for them to be sure. The only reason you don't want to believe me is becuase of the Anti-American stance you have. Facts will not dissuade you.


Don't be obtuse. I'm not defending people who put a bomb near your house. I'm pointing out that your own political leadership has it's share of crazies who have dropped a whole lot of bombs over a whole lot of their houses.

So? That doesn't erase DECADES of PRIOR attacks. You basicly you are saying it fine for what they were doing because it was just a little here and there but when we strike a bigger blow the we are the big bad guys. Sorry but thats just plain damn STUPID.

THe FACT of the matter is the MUSLIMS have attack the US way more times than the US has attack them. That simply fact alone illustrates that MUSLIMS are more belliegernt against us than we are to them.


How many innocent people is the US military prepared to kill to blow up bridges, power facilities and TV antennas ? 'Cause they do that, don't they ?
You have no point here. That is the job of a MILITARY. That is far different than strapping a bomb on yourself then running into a mist of civilian (ie non combatants) to kill them. They specifically aim to kill innnocent civilians. We do not. There are mistakes and collateral damage but it tries to be minimzed. That is not their goal its simply to kill as many possible regardless. But what do you care. I'm just a beligerent soldier that doesn't know any better, right?

Cullion
22nd August 07, 08:01 AM
You got the question wrong. Just admit it. And stop this silliness.

No, you stop this silliness. Comparing an death toll over all of recorded history for a 200 year old culture to a 1500 year one is stupid. I also explicitly stated why I didn't think we should be comparing muslim on muslim attacks.




No you dismissed Muslim on Muslim attacks because you didn't want it to affect your numbers.

No, I dismissed them because they don't harm us and aren't our job to fix. I've made that clear several times, and repeatedly pointed out that we ought to be comparing which culture has done the most harm to the other. If we must include those, we'll look at the total death toll in Iraq before the invasion and after. HINT: It still makes the US look bad. The US govt. destabilised a country and wrought bloodshed trying to create a puppet which it now cannot control.



I didn't poo poo your figure the pple you sourced did that. Again did you read the whole article. They clearly state that they don't know the exact number and that the figures varie greatly for them to be sure. The only reason you don't want to believe me is becuase of the Anti-American stance you have. Facts will not dissuade you.

You haven't presented new facts.



So? That doesn't erase DECADES of PRIOR attacks. You basicly you are saying it fine for what they were doing because it was just a little here and there but when we strike a bigger blow the we are the big bad guys. Sorry but thats just plain damn STUPID.

The numbers of muslims involved in those attacks and the scale of the attacks is dwarfed by US military action.



THe FACT of the matter is the MUSLIMS have attack the US way more times than the US has attack them. That simply fact alone illustrates that MUSLIMS are more belliegernt against us than we are to them.

Rubbish. How many bomber sorties and missile attacks did the US run in the first month of the invasion? More than all islamic terror incidents combined.


That is the job of a MILITARY. That is far different than strapping a bomb on yourself then running into a mist of civilian (ie non combatants) to kill them. They specifically aim to kill innnocent civilians. We do not. There are mistakes and collateral damage but it tries to be minimzed. That is not their goal its simply to kill as many possible regardless. But what do you care. I'm just a beligerent soldier that doesn't know any better, right?

None of the 'collateral' deaths which 'weren't deliberate' would have happened at all had the US not avoided. That is the 'big picture' which you are blanking out with talk of duty and professionalism.

Gezere
22nd August 07, 08:23 AM
No, you stop this silliness. Comparing an death toll over all of recorded history for a 200 year old culture to a 1500 year one is stupid. I also explicitly stated why I didn't think we should be comparing muslim on muslim attacks.
You still got it wrong. No amount of complaining is going to change that. He simply asked who killed more pple. Not in which given time.



No, I dismissed them because they don't harm us and aren't our job to fix. I've made that clear several times, and repeatedly pointed out that we ought to be comparing which culture has done the most harm to the other.
If we must include those, we'll look at the total death toll in Iraq before the invasion and after. [/quote]



HINT: It still makes the US look bad. The US govt. destabilised a country and wrought bloodshed trying to create a puppet which it now cannot control.
No it doesn't




You haven't presented new facts.
You haven't presented ANY. All you presented was a link that even states that they're not sure because the some say its 5,000 others say 10,000 and even others (who you probably are rooting for) say its 100,000. Now how is that a fact when they can't even agree on even a marginal number?




The numbers of muslims involved in those attacks and the scale of the attacks is dwarfed by US military action.
Doesn't matter. An organized military tends to be much larger than a terrorist group. So this is moot and doesn't negate what I've said.



Rubbish. How many bomber sorties and missile attacks did the US run in the first month of the invasion? More than all islamic terror incidents combined.
A sortie is part of one operation. So you can't count them as serperate attacks. No point here.




None of the 'collateral' deaths which 'weren't deliberate' would have happened at all had the US not avoided. That is the 'big picture' which you are blanking out with talk of duty and professionalism.
Very wrong. You only say that for you becuase of your anti-american stance. But then again given time you are going to finally see it my way given that you will be having more problems with muslims in the coming years.

Gezere
22nd August 07, 08:29 AM
Cullion all you are doing trying to steer things to a I HATE BUSH!!! GOT MUSLIMS!!!! thing. I don't feel the need to continue this if that all you are going to do.

You really don't want to understand what has and is going on if it shows the US in a positive light. You are showing profound ingorance in alot. You are trying to use my profession to say that I am blind but you can't bring yourself to admit that I have way more FIRST hand experience dealing with this issue than you and a much better insight.

Cullion
22nd August 07, 08:45 AM
You still got it wrong. No amount of complaining is going to change that. He simply asked who killed more pple. Not in which given time.

I know what he asked, read the part where I explain why that's not the appropriate question to ask.



Very wrong. You only say that for you becuase of your anti-american stance. But then again given time you are going to finally see it my way given that you will be having more problems with muslims in the coming years.

The invasion made the problems worse. I've got my own better solution to that problem which involves less bloodshed.

Cullion
22nd August 07, 08:52 AM
You really don't want to understand what has and is going on if it shows the US in a positive light. You are showing profound ingorance in alot. You are trying to use my profession to say that I am blind but you can't bring yourself to admit that I have way more FIRST hand experience dealing with this issue than you and a much better insight.

Your first hand experience consists of being part of an invading force that has made the problem much worse. No doubt if you were serving in Vietnam you'd think you had deeper insights than me into the nature of communism, accuse me of being pro-communist, and be ignoring the 'who invaded who' question.

You want to tell me about how violent muslims are to each other, but I don't have any contention with that. My point is that shouldn't be a factor in US foreign policy. It's not your job to police the world. It doesn't work and nobody is going to thank you for it. It's costing your economy a fortune. And believe it or not, I'd rather you and your colleagues came home alive.

My point is that our countries ought to decide on military action based on the threat a culture or nation presents to us, and I don't believe the threat presented by the places the US has invaded was a) worth the blood and treasure and b) has actually decreased due to the military actions.

Gezere
22nd August 07, 09:12 AM
Your first hand experience consists of being part of an invading force that has made the problem much worse. No doubt if you were serving in Vietnam you'd think you had deeper insights than me into the nature of communism, accuse me of being pro-communist, and be ignoring the 'who invaded who' question.
See this is why I say you don't want to the facts to dissade you. My insight, as preveiously stated,comes form BOTH being a soldier and as a civilian. Funny you keep forgetting the other part.


You want to tell me about how violent muslims are to each other, but I don't have any contention with that. My point is that shouldn't be a factor in US foreign policy.
The point I think you are missing is that no casualty figure would be accurate without factoring in the muslim on muslim violence. It had nothing to do with foreign policy. Which further shows you just want this to be a I HATE AMERICA thing.



It's not your job to police the world. It doesn't work and nobody is going to thank you for it. It's costing your economy a fortune.
I care little about policing the world I rather just it beat that we fuck some Muslims up for fucking with us. Unfortunately is got way beyond that. I have no problem with invading Iraq. I have a problem with staying there. We should have treated things as a "search warrant." Kick in the door. Smack anyone who gets in the way. If you don't find anything you leave, no regime change, no rebuiliding.


And believe it or not, I'd rather you and your colleagues came home alive.

Touching.

My point is that our countries ought to decide on military action based on the threat a culture or nation presents to us, and I don't believe the threat presented by the places the US has invaded was a) worth the blood and treasure and b) has actually decreased due to the military actions.
I can say from the intel presented at the time, and yes I will admit some was erroneous or outdated. There was considerable threat. Enough that if I was president I would have invaded as well but handled it way better than what is going on now. Pple like you will still be whining, because I seriously think that no matter what happened you'd find some reason to bitch about big bad America, but I would make it know that any country that attacks our soil will get raped. Thats probably a reason I won't get elected world dictator anytime soon.

Cullion
22nd August 07, 09:31 AM
See this is why I say you don't want to the facts to dissade you. My insight, as preveiously stated,comes form BOTH being a soldier and as a civilian. Funny you keep forgetting the other part.

I asked you to tell me more about the other part and you didn't reply.



The point I think you are missing is that no casualty figure would be accurate without factoring in the muslim on muslim violence. It had nothing to do with foreign policy. Which further shows you just want this to be a I HATE AMERICA thing.

No, it is not a 'I HATE AMERICA' thing. You're talking like Bush 'they hate us for our freedom'. I like American culture and much of what it (at least used to) stand for. I don't like your current government or the way it played on people's 9-11 emotions to create an irrational hysteria which lead to invasion of a country which wasn't involved.



I can say from the intel presented at the time, and yes I will admit some was erroneous or outdated.

It wasn't just a question of mistaken and outdated intelligence, there was deliberately falsified intelligence produced by the US and the UK governments.

Hell, they even used Anthrax from a US govt. lab to scare the populace with the
bioterrorism paranoia.


There was considerable threat.

No there wasn't. Most of us outside the US knew that was a lie from the start. Intel was falsified and wildly overblown claims made. Saddam Hussein couldn't even control his own airspace, let alone present a threat to civilians in the US.



Pple like you will still be whining, because I seriously think that no matter what happened you'd find some reason to bitch about big bad America, but I would make it know that any country that attacks our soil will get raped. Thats probably a reason I won't get elected world dictator anytime soon.

Umm, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with an attack on the US. Even your own CIA has gone on the record to that effect. I trust at least that had you been president you wouldn't have been ordering the creation of fake intel dossiers to justify something like this.

Harpy
22nd August 07, 08:22 PM
[quote=AAAhmed46]
Malaysia, Turkey are good examples of modernization in the muslim world. Religion and state are seperated, they have good infrastructure, they have the same technology and are democratic.
Aaahmed, usually like your posts but you're losing this battle. You're like many 'moderate' Muslims I know. Malaysia?! Have you bloody lived there, do you know what sort of policies are in place?!!!!! Jesus on a stick, don't pretend you know what you're talking about.



Hell india has a huge muslim population, lots of muslims in office and what not, things are good there, could be better, but not bad all things considered.
More BS from Aaahmed. Just use Google and tell me things have not been 'bad all things considered'.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/08/news/web.0308india.php
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-18-india-train_x.htm

I've had enough of my Muslim friends in Aus telling me that Islam preaches peace, I'm sure it does, but it also preaches some other fucked up things justifying terrorism, violence, murder etc.

P.S. - I HATE people who bring up crap about how Christians did this or that, or some other religion did evil a few hundred years ago. Muslims and the whole world need to stop looking back and deal with what's happening TODAY.

I have quite a few Muslim friends, don't really talk about religion but boy do they love Koran bashing me, sending me links to all sorts of weird BS and making comments about other religions and how Islam is so advanced and superior. Yeah right. Anyway, I've been promised 40 virgin men if I pull this pin...

bob
22nd August 07, 08:26 PM
Anyway, I've been promised 40 virgin men if I pull this pin...

It's a trap!

Harpy
22nd August 07, 10:27 PM
It's a trap!

Blasphemer!

Something a 'friend' at work emailed me in her many bids to convert me:

20 Greatest Inventions by Muslim Scientists (I'll just post 2 here):


04Parachute:

A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet,
astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas
made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852
he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba
using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts. He hoped
to glide like a bird. He didn't. But the cloak slowed his
fall, creating what is thought to be the first parachute,
and leaving him with only minor injuries. In 875,aged 70,
having perfected a machine of silk and eagles' feathers he
tried again, jumping from a mountain. He flew to
a significant height and stayed aloft for ten minutes but
crashed on landing

15 Soup:

Ali ibn Nafi,known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird)
came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought
with him the concept of the three-course meal - soup,
followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts.

bob
22nd August 07, 10:38 PM
04Parachute:

A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet,
astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas
made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852
he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba
using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts. He hoped
to glide like a bird. He didn't. But the cloak slowed his
fall, creating what is thought to be the first parachute,
and leaving him with only minor injuries. In 875,aged 70,
having perfected a machine of silk and eagles' feathers he
tried again, jumping from a mountain. He flew to
a significant height and stayed aloft for ten minutes but
crashed on landing



Sounds like a common theme. Even a millenia ago those pesky Muslims didn't seem concerned with the whole landing concept.

AAAhmed46
22nd August 07, 11:38 PM
Aaahmed, usually like your posts but you're losing this battle. You're like many 'moderate' Muslims I know. Malaysia?! Have you bloody lived there, do you know what sort of policies are in place?!!!!! Jesus on a stick, don't pretend you know what you're talking about.

More BS from Aaahmed. Just use Google and tell me things have not been 'bad all things considered'.
If i did a good search searching for bad things oprah did, im sure id find a shit load.

Malaysia is a far far better place then alot of the muslim world.



http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/08/news/web.0308india.php
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-18-india-train_x.htm

I've had enough of my Muslim friends in Aus telling me that Islam preaches peace, I'm sure it does, but it also preaches some other fucked up things justifying terrorism, violence, murder etc.

P.S. - I HATE people who bring up crap about how Christians did this or that, or some other religion did evil a few hundred years ago. Muslims and the whole world need to stop looking back and deal with what's happening TODAY.

I have quite a few Muslim friends, don't really talk about religion but boy do they love Koran bashing me, sending me links to all sorts of weird BS and making comments about other religions and how Islam is so advanced and superior. Yeah right. Anyway, I've been promised 40 virgin men if I pull this pin...


Have you talked to indians? Attitudes have changed alot over just 15 years.

I remember when i was ten, everyone hated eachother, in pakistan people talked about how they hated india.

Go back now, and they love india(especially bollywood) and atleast talk about the government and the place as very different.

Even thomas freidman said that conditions for muslims in india are far far better then they once were.

If i searched 'racism in america' im sure i would find lots of recent bad shit happening.

Doesn't change that things are a HELL of alot better then what they once were.

Fuck look at europe, it's damn racist. But as time goes on, people will have to change their attitudes.



BTW, shit is horribly exaggerated here.

Ive been to pakistan, more then once.

I can tell you that the way it looks on CNN and Faux is very very different then actually being there.



But if i search the net on pakistan.


What will i find hmmm?


Not the best place, but isn't as bad as the news makes it out to be. I will repeat this. Shit is always exaggerated.

Why is it that whenever they show footage of lebanon they show people wearing headscarfs when woman are shown?

Lebanon is so damn liberal, you should see some people who go there all the time, they fashion themselves as being europian, it's as if they want to be considered as such(nothing wrong with that, but pretentious)

Go to Iran, and you will find they hate Iraqis more then they hate americans.









Also want to go on another topic.

WHY terrorism happen has nothing to do with islam.

But HOW they carry it out does, they invoke gods name, they hype themselves up.

Ever say the news show a terrorist video.

They NEVER say "WE WANT TO KILL_____ BECAUSE MY RELIGION SAYS SO!!!!!!!"

No it's "WE WANT TO _____ TO ____ BECAUSE THEY DID _______......OH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH ALLAH DURKA DURKA"


It drives them forward.






P.S. - I HATE people who bring up crap about how Christians did this or that, or some other religion did evil a few hundred years ago. Muslims and the whole world need to stop looking back and deal with what's happening TODAY.


It's relevant, because in the past muslims were also muslims but they had different behavior and at times were not barbaric, depending on the empire.


Today mongalia is crap. We could easily say that they have an inferior culture because they live in shit right now.

But really, they had at a time had the world at it's knees. By looking in the past, we see that they have the capability of doing great things.


Frantz Fannon believed that there was no such thing as an 'inferior' culture. He blieved this because he believed cultures are always in flux, always evolving.









I hope i don't come off as cranky but im sick of this topic. I try not to rub my religion in peoples faces. I really do.

But im tired of it always being attacked again and again. I mean shit, don't people get tired?

I try not to attack christianity, the only times i do is to make comparisons for topics like this. I mean shit.

And if your friends who constantly send you e-mails bashing christianity and judaism, tell them that they should look at bukhari and search for the 'people of the book' because we are not supposed to be insulting toward christianity and judiasm. By doing this, they are essentially being contrary to islam.

Hell even paganism and idol worship which mohammed himself greatly disliked, we are supposed to always be polite in approching this topic, never insulting.

So you should let them know the error in their approache.

Before 9/11, i swear, ive heard grown men say 'what the hell is islam?' Whats that?'

'Whats a muslim?'

If we were so fucking bad, we would have been natorious long long before 9/11.

Why did things change after 2001?

AAAhmed46
22nd August 07, 11:39 PM
OH fuck i hate e-mails like that, i get them all the time, it's retarded.


We did invent alot of great shit, just not this or some other things.


Lots of muslims claim we created the compass.

Not so, though we did all sorts of things to it, but we never created it.

AAAhmed46
22nd August 07, 11:44 PM
Blasphemer!

Something a 'friend' at work emailed me in her many bids to convert me:

20 Greatest Inventions by Muslim Scientists (I'll just post 2 here):


04Parachute:

A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet,
astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas
made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852
he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba
using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts. He hoped
to glide like a bird. He didn't. But the cloak slowed his
fall, creating what is thought to be the first parachute,
and leaving him with only minor injuries. In 875,aged 70,
having perfected a machine of silk and eagles' feathers he
tried again, jumping from a mountain. He flew to
a significant height and stayed aloft for ten minutes but
crashed on landing

15 Soup:

Ali ibn Nafi,known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird)
came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought
with him the concept of the three-course meal - soup,
followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts.



Im gonna make an annoying comparison with christianity.


Ive gotten weird e-mails saying all sorts of things.

Come on, evangelizing(i dont' mean evangelical christianity) is always fucking annoying, ive had sikhs try to make me sikh.

It's annoying, and stupid shit always comes up like this.



If they keep sending you these e-mails, and you don't want them.

Honestly why not just ask them to fuck off?

Hell i would.



ESPECIALLY if it's giving you such hard feelings toward their religion, obviously it's not working.

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 12:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGV3OqtRbTI&watch_response

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tGV3OqtRbTI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tGV3OqtRbTI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


Why active evangelic activity is fucking stupid. If a muslim made this, it would still be fucking stupid.

If a jew made this, it would still be fucking stupid.



http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.asp

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 12:38 AM
I hope my posts were not insulting.

bob
23rd August 07, 12:53 AM
Let me ask you this Aahmed. What would happen if you told your parents that you were no longer religious and you didn't believe in Allah? Have any of your friends done so?

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 12:57 AM
Yeah.

One of my aunts pretty much says she's muslim by name and doesn't believe in it anymore.

My dads a really religious guy, and so is my mom. Very conservative.


Wanna know how they reacted?


Pretty much say behind her back 'it's a damn shame' or something like that.

Still in contact with her.

Still talk to her.

Still meet her(well i haven't seen her in years since i don't want to visit New Jersey or pakistan) but they have met her recently so have my cousins.


They don't give a fuck.

One of my moms best freinds is a hindu, one is a pakistani christian. We get our hair cut by pakistani christian barbar.

Our contractor is jewish and my dad would sit for hours talking to the funny bastard whenever he's working.


And my parents are conservative. My dad is always at the mosque and has a beard, my mom wears a headscarf.

bob
23rd August 07, 12:59 AM
But what if you did?

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 01:00 AM
My dad would call me a fucking idiot and probably try to feed me books and books and books of religious knowledge and annoy me until i came back to it all.

I doubt he would kick me out of the house or anything.

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 01:04 AM
But yeah he would be devastated.

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 01:10 AM
Let me ask you this Aahmed. What would happen if you told your parents that you were no longer religious and you didn't believe in Allah? Have any of your friends done so?


As for freinds, yeah i know some.


As far as i know, none of them have died or were ostrasized.


One however, a shiite kurd was too scared to tell his dad he was an ex-muslim communist.

But hey, his dad was half iraqi, and iraqis are fucking nuts over this shit.

Arhetton
23rd August 07, 05:26 AM
Just a quick contribution:

This post is directed at Asia.

Asia your history-fu is weak

America:

Killed how many indians?

How many english did the U.S kill in the war of independance?

How many americans did americans kill in the american civil war?

How many europeans have americans killed in both the world wars?

How many japanese (nagasaki/hiroshima)?

How many koreans in the korean war?

How many vietnamese?

How many arabs in the gulf war?

How many when kosovo was bombed?

How many in Iraq?

I'm not anti-american, but your understanding of the history is just wrong. And saying that muslims have killed 'alot of muslims in the past' - since like when? 2000 BC? There were barely any people around the whole world let alone the middle east for thousands of years. Bigger countries have been having bigger wars all the way up until WWII, the last truly massive war.

Tribal Muslim nonsense hasn't killed as many people as america.

If you would like to explain your position more, please elaborate.

Anyway if you read my previous posts you will see I am not pro Islam at all, but lets not make wild assumptions about the raping massacrefest that the middle east has been waging against one another since god created the world 6000 years ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/550px-Population_curve.svg.png

Asia, I am neither anti military or anti american. Australia has its equal share of violence against indigenous culture, colonial bloodshed and war.

I visited the thread you created for you friend, personally I found it very moving. It is very easy not to connect figures to real people and families.

My great grandfather could have voluntarily ducked out of military service when he was called in WWII for service - because he had a wife and five kids - but he still went and served. His ship was sunk in the pacific, and then he was a captured prisoner of war in singapore before he was moved to work on the burma railway. He died working on the railway, and his remains are still buried over there.

I'm sure thousands more men like him have been forgotten. I really believe that he stood for something.

I am sure that every American that has served and does serve, believes in something, and fights for something. I'm sure that they feel like their countrymen aren't even grateful for it sometimes.

But I think it fowls the memory of past generations when we get our history wrong, because it leads to repeats of the same mistakes. And lets not lie, our wars kill people too. We kill people in the name of ideas (democracy, liberty etc), just like religious people kill in the name of ideas.

There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the reason for a war. A person can be opposed to a war but still support the troops. What greater favour could there be but to keep troops out of no-win wars?

Do you really think the United States Army has to go to war against third world nations? Can't the intelligence community fight the war on terror?

Do we even have to worry about terrorism? More people die in car accidents every year that terrorists have ever managed to kill.

Gezere
23rd August 07, 06:09 AM
Asia your history-fu is weak

America:

Killed how many indians?

How many english did the U.S kill in the war of independance?

How many americans did americans kill in the american civil war?

How many europeans have americans killed in both the world wars?

How many japanese (nagasaki/hiroshima)?

How many koreans in the korean war?

How many vietnamese?

How many arabs in the gulf war?

How many when kosovo was bombed?

How many in Iraq?

I'm not anti-american, but your understanding of the history is just wrong. And saying that muslims have killed 'alot of muslims in the past' - since like when? 2000 BC? There were barely any people around the whole world let alone the middle east for thousands of years. Bigger countries have been having bigger wars all the way up until WWII, the last truly massive war.
You wish to challenge my history-fu, mortal?

1) There was way more the "barely any people around" during that time. The reigion we most Islamic countries are in are known as the earliest areas of civilizations.

2) You, like Cullion, seem to fail at comprehending the question. The question was simply WHO HAS KILLED MORE PPLE? MUSLIMS or AMERICANS. There are way more Muslims how spilled more blood then there ever have been Americans.

Tally att that up and lets look at the wars Muslims have been involed in:

Ridda wars

* Battle of Yamama 632(Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Zafar 632(Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Buzakha 632(Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Ghamra 632(Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Naqra 632(Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Daumat-ul-jandal 633(Khalid ibn Walid)

[edit] Byzantine-Arab Wars

* Battle of Dathin - 634 CE, 12 AH
* Battle of Qarteen 634 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Bosra 634 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Ajnadayn 634 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Marj-al-Rahit 634 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Fahl 634 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Siege of Damascus 634 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Yarmouk 636 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Siege of Jerusalem (637) 637 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Hazir 637 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Aleppo 637 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Iron bridge 637 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Heliopolis - 641 CE, 20 AH
* Battle of Nikiou - 646 CE, 25 AH
* Battle of That Al-Sawari - 655 CE, 34 AH

[edit] Islamic Conquest of Persia

* Battle of Chains April 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of River April 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Walaja May 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Ullais May 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Hira May 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Al-Anbar June-July 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of ein-ul-tamr July 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Muzayyah November 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Saniyy November 633
* Battle of Zumail November 633 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of Firaz January 634 (Khalid ibn Walid)
* Battle of the Bridge - 634 CE, 12 AH
* Battle of al-Qādisiyyah - 636 CE, 14 AH
* Battle of Nihawānd - 642 CE, 21 AH

[edit] First Islamic civil war

* Battle of Bassorah (Battle of the Camel) - 655 CE, 34 AH
* Battle of Siffin - 657 CE, 36 AH
* Battle of Nahrawan - 659 CE, 37 AH
* Battle of Karbala - 680 CE, 61 AH

[edit] Battles of the Umayyad Caliphate

* Ibn al-Zubair's revolt - 692 CE
* Battle of the Zab Second Fitna- 750 CE

[edit] Byzantine-Arab Wars

* Battle of Syllaeum - 677 CE
* Battle of Carthage - 698 CE
* Siege of Constantinople Second - 718 CE

[edit] Khazar-Arab Wars

* 1st Balanjar - 640s CE
* 2nd Balanjar - 723 CE
* Battle of Marj Ardabil - 730 CE
* Battle of Mosul - 731 CE
* 3rd Balanjar - 732 CE

[edit] Moorish Invasion of the Iberian peninsula

* Battle of Guadalete - 711 CE (Tariq ibn-Ziyad)
* Battle of Toulouse - 721 CE
* Battle of Covadonga - 722 CE

[edit] Charles Martel

* Battle of Tours - 732 CE
* Battle of Narbonne - 737 CE
* Battle of Avignon - 737 CE
* Battle of the River Berre - 737 CE
* Battle of Nîmes - 737 CE

[edit] Battles of the Abbasid Caliphate

* Battle of Ostia - 849 CE

[edit] Tang Dynasty

* Battle of Talas - 751 CE

[edit] Byzantines

* Battle of Anzen - 838 CE

[edit] Mongols

* Battle of Baghdad - 1258 CE (Hulagu Khan)

[edit] Battles of the Kalbids

* Battle of Stilo - 982 CE

[edit] Battles of Córdoba

[edit] Reconquista

* Battle of Simancas - 939 CE

[edit] Battles of the Taifas

[edit] Reconquista

* Battle of Graus - 1063 CE (El Cid)
* Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa - 1212 CE
* Battle of Granada - 1492 CE

[edit] Second Crusade

* Siege of Lisbon - 1147 CE

[edit] Almoravids

[edit] Reconquista

* Battle of az-Zallaqah - 1086
* Battle of Ucles - 1108 CE
* Battle of Ourique - 1139 CE

[edit] Battles of the Almohads

[edit] Reconquista

* Battle of Alarcos - 1195 CE
* Battle of Jerez - 1231 CE

[edit] Battles of the Marinids

[edit] Reconquista

* Battle of Rio Salado - 1340 CE

[edit] Seljuk Turks

* Battle of Dandanaqan - 1040 CE (Toghrul Beg)
* Battle of Manzikert - 1071 CE (Alp Arslan)

[edit] Greater Seljuk

[edit] First Crusade

* Siege of Antioch - 1097 CE

[edit] Kingdom of Georgia

* Battle of Didgori - 1121 CE

[edit] Crusader States

* Battle of Azaz - 1125 CE

[edit] Sultanate of Rûm

[edit] First Crusade

* Battle of Myriokephalon - 1097 CE
* Battle of Dorylaeum - 1097 CE
* Crusade of 1101
* Battle of Artah - 1105 CE

[edit] Second Crusade

* Second Battle of Dorylaeum - 1147 CE

[edit] Kingdom of Georgia

* Battle of Basian - 1203 CE

[edit] Crusader States

* Battle of Marj es-Suffar - 1126 CE

[edit] Byzantines

* Battle of Myriokephalon - 1176 CE

[edit] Mongol Invasion

* Battle of Köse Dag - 1243 CE

[edit] Zengid dynasty

[edit] Crusader States

* Siege of Edessa - 1144 CE (al-Malik al-Mansur)
* Battle of Harim - 1164 CE (Nur ad-Din)
* Battle of al-Babein - 1167 CE (Nur ad-Din)

[edit] Second Crusade

* Siege of Damascus - 1148 CE (Nur ad-Din)
* Battle of Inab - 1149 CE (Nur ad-Din)

[edit] Atabegs

[edit] Crusader States

* Battle of Sarmin - 1115

[edit] Ortoqid dynasty

[edit] Crusader States

* Battle of Harran - 1104 CE
* Battle of Ager Sanguinis - 1119 CE

[edit] Emirate of Tbilisi

[edit] Kingdom of Georgia

* Battle of Didgori - 1121 CE

[edit] Battles of the Fatimids

[edit] First Crusade

* Siege of Jerusalem (1099)
* Battle of Ascalon - 1099 CE
* Battle of Ramla - 1101, 1102, 1105 CE
* Siege of Tripoli - 1102-1109 CE

[edit] Second Crusade

* Siege of Ascalon - 1153 CE

[edit] Saadi Dynasty (Morocco)

[edit] Reconquista

* Battle of Alcácer Quibir - 1578 CE

[edit] Songhai

* Battle of Tondibi - 1590 CE

[edit] Battles of the Qajar Dynasty (Iran)

* Battle of Krtsanisi - 1795 CE
* Battle of Aslanduz - 1812 CE

[edit] Battles of the Ayyubids

[edit] Crusader States

* Battle of Montgisard - 1177 CE (Saladin)
* Battle of Jacob's Ford - 1179 CE (Saladin)
* Siege of Kerak - 1183 CE (Saladin)
* Battle of Cresson - 1187 CE (Saladin)
* Battle of Hattin - 1187 CE (Saladin)
* Siege of Jerusalem (1187) (Saladin)
* Battle of La Forbie - 1244 (Baybars)

[edit] Third Crusade

* Siege of Acre - 1189 to 1191 CE (Saladin)
* Battle of Arsuf - 1191 CE (Saladin)
* Battle of Jaffa - 1191 CE (Saladin)

[edit] Fifth Crusade

* Siege of Damietta - 1218 CE

[edit] Seventh Crusade

* Battle of Al Mansurah - 1250 CE
* Battle of Fariskur - 1250 CE

[edit] Mongol Invasion

* Mongol invasion of Syria (1299) (Ghazan)

[edit] Battles of the Khwarezmian Empire

* Mongol invasion of Central Asia - 1219 CE
* Battle of Parwan - 1221 CE

[edit] Battles of the Mamelukes (Egypt)

[edit] Crusader States

* Siege of Antioch (1268)
* Siege of Acre (1291)

[edit] Mongol Invasion

* Battle of Ain Jalut - 1260 CE (Baybars)
* Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar - 1299 CE (Ghazan)

[edit] Napoleon

* Battle of the Pyramids - 1798 CE

[edit] Battles of the Mali Empire

* Battle of Kirina - 1240 CE (Sundiata)

* Creation of the Kanem-Bornu Empire - 1200s
* Modibo Adama's jihad (Fumbina, early 1800s)
* Amadu's Jihad, 1800s

[edit] Battles of the Timurid dynasty

[edit] Timur

* Battle of the Terek River - 1395 CE
* Battle of the Vorskla River - 1399 CE
* Battle of Ankara - 1402 CE

[edit] Babur

* Battle of Panipat (1526) - 1526 CE
* Battle of Khanwa - 1527 CE
* Battle of Ghaghra - 1529 CE

[edit] Akbar

* Second battle of Panipat - 1556 CE

[edit] Battles of the Ottoman Empire

[edit] Byzantine-Ottoman Wars

* Siege of Nicaea (1331) - 1331 CE
* Fall of Constantinople - 1453 CE

[edit] Ottoman-Serbian War

* Battle of Maritsa - 1371 CE
* Battle of Kosovo - 1389 CE

[edit] Ottoman-Hungarian Wars

* Battle of Nicopolis - 1396 CE
* Battle of Varna - 1444 CE
* Battle of Kosovo - 1448 CE
* Siege of Belgrade - 1456 CE
* Battle of Mohács - 1526 CE

[edit] Ottoman-Wallachian War

* The Night Attack - 1462 CE
* Battle of Călugăreni - 1595 CE

[edit] Ottoman-Moldavian Wars

* Battle of Rovine - 1395 CE
* Battle of Vaslui - 1475 CE

[edit] Ottoman-Venetian War

* Battle of Zonchio - 1499 CE

[edit] Knights of Malta-Ottoman Wars

* Siege of Rhodes - 1480 CE
* Siege of Rhodes - 1522 CE
* Siege of Malta - 1565 CE

[edit] Ottoman-Persian War

* Battle of Chaldiran - 1514 CE

[edit] Ottoman-Habsburg Wars

* Siege of Vienna - 1529 CE
* Battle of Preveza - 1538 CE
* Siege of Eger - 1552
* Battle of Djerba - 1560 CE
* Battle of Szigetvár - 1566 CE
* Battle of Lepanto - 1571 CE
* Battle of Keresztes - 1596 CE
* Battle of Saint Gotthard - 1664 CE
* Battle of Vienna - 1683 CE
* Battle of Zenta - 1697 CE
* Battle of Petrovaradin - 1716 CE

[edit] Polish-Ottoman Wars

* Battle of Chocim - 1673 CE
* Battle of Lwów - 1675 CE

[edit] Russo-Ottoman Wars

* Battle of Molodi - 1572 CE
* Battle of Stavuchany - 1739 CE
* Battle of Chesma - 1770 CE

[edit] Modern Wars

* Ogaden War
* Libya-Chad War
* Somali Civil War
* Bangladesh Liberation War (Pakistan Civil War 1971)
* Iran-Iraq War

[edit] Current conflicts

* War in Somalia (2006–present)
* Darfur conflict
* Kashmir conflict
* Iraq War
* United States war in Afghanistan
* Israeli-Palestinian conflict
* Second Chechen War
* Philippines vs Moro Rebels (1970 to present)


Note this list does not include the campaigns of Muhammed or any other killings out side of a war (ie "honor" killings, etc)


There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the reason for a war. A person can be opposed to a war but still support the troops. What greater favour could there be but to keep troops out of no-win wars?

I hear pple say this alot but for me, and many other soldiers, this seems more like away to soothe their feelings more than anything else. If you support me support what we are doing. And why is the war a "no-win" thats not really showing support now is it.


Do you really think the United States Army has to go to war against third world nations?
Yes.


Can't the intelligence community fight the war on terror?

No. Do you understand how the intelligence community works. Thats like saying can INTERPOL stop drug trafficking. Intell is information. Military, Police, etc is the muscle. BOTH are needed.


Do we even have to worry about terrorism? More people die in car accidents every year that terrorists have ever managed to kill.
You're right lets not worry about it. It only affects the pple on TV.

YES we have to worry about terrorism. More terrorist attacks are stopped than actually got succeed is its a combination of hard work and luck. Terrorism has always been a threat and they are actually becomeing better at what they do. 9/11 may be one of the biggest attacks to suceed but it was not, is not the biggest planned and in the works.

Gezere
23rd August 07, 06:45 AM
I asked you to tell me more about the other part and you didn't reply.
Yes I did.



No, it is not a 'I HATE AMERICA' thing.
BS. When I was talking about ALL of Islam. YOU were only going AMERICA BAD! BUSH BAD!!! LOOK AT IRAQ. Iraq isn't the only Islamic country if you didn't know. Like I said earlier is clear that you just want to make this all about Iraq and that was not the scope of the thread and when it is pointed out to you've simply ignored it.



You're talking like Bush 'they hate us for our freedom'. I like American culture and much of what it (at least used to) stand for. I don't like your current government or the way it played on people's 9-11 emotions to create an irrational hysteria which lead to invasion of a country which wasn't involved.



It wasn't just a question of mistaken and outdated intelligence, there was deliberately falsified intelligence produced by the US and the UK governments.
No there wasn't, even the IIC (http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html) came stated there was no falsification. It was outdated. It was intel going back to the early 90s and it had long since changed. The criticism is more on the fact that they didn't listen when they were told that they need more study and the some sources were no longer reliable.


Hell, they even used Anthrax from a US govt. lab to scare the populace with the
bioterrorism paranoia.
Yeah it was a scare tactic, a time honored tradition, but it wasn't completely far off. There were degraded biotweapons found in Iraq and even used by isurgents in an IED.


No there wasn't. Most of us outside the US knew that was a lie from the start. Intel was falsified and wildly overblown claims made. Saddam Hussein couldn't even control his own airspace, let alone present a threat to civilians in the US.
I wasn't speaking solely about Iraq. This is why I know you don't want to look at every thing just Iraq to fuell you I HATE AMERICA stance.





Umm, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with an attack on the US. Even your own CIA has gone on the record to that effect.
Again I didn't say anything just about Iraq.




I trust at least that had you been president you wouldn't have been ordering the creation of fake intel dossiers to justify something like this.
What part of WORLD DICTATOR do you not understand?

ironlurker
23rd August 07, 07:37 AM
i don't want to visit New Jersey or pakistan
ah New Jersey, right up there with Pakistan :biggrin:

Arhetton
23rd August 07, 10:02 AM
You wish to challenge my history-fu, mortal?

Your Wiki-fu is strong.

I still disagree. We would need to know the population size for the era, and the relative size of the battles going on.

We all know that the spartans killed more muslims than muslims could ever kill spartans. I know, I saw it in a movie.


I hear pple say this alot but for me, and many other soldiers, this seems more like away to soothe their feelings more than anything else. If you support me support what we are doing.

I think thats a really important point.

I could try to explain it but I don't want to spoil it and have you never listen to someone trying to voice this opinion again.

If I can find a clear way of expressing it I will offer it as an explanation.


And why is the war a "no-win" thats not really showing support now is it.

Well, first of all, war hasn't been declared. If you have no victory conditions or objectives you can't achieve any of them (and therefore win). There should be some clear as mud objectives for the war in Iraq. The regime has changed. What next? Why is the military building 14 permanent bases? That doesn't seem like a 'hey the wars over lets go home' strategy.

And I don't see how you can have a war on a tactic. Especially fighting guerillas with a standing army.


YES we have to worry about terrorism. More terrorist attacks are stopped than actually got succeed is its a combination of hard work and luck. Terrorism has always been a threat and they are actually becomeing better at what they do. 9/11 may be one of the biggest attacks to suceed but it was not, is not the biggest planned and in the works.

Yeah what ever happened to that Osama bin laden guy?

Cullion
23rd August 07, 10:02 AM
Yes I did.

You replied with a non-sequitur where you kept trying to make it all about an irrelevant question.



BS. When I was talking about ALL of Islam. YOU were only going AMERICA BAD! BUSH BAD!!! LOOK AT IRAQ. Iraq isn't the only Islamic country if you didn't know. Like I said earlier is clear that you just want to make this all about Iraq and that was not the scope of the thread and when it is pointed out to you've simply ignored it.

Iraq is just the start. We can cover Afghanistan etc.. further on. We need to look at the figures just for Iraq because we still don't agree on them.



No there wasn't, even the came stated there was no falsification. It was outdated. It was intel going back to the early 90s and it had long since changed. The criticism is more on the fact that they didn't listen when they were told that they need more study and the some sources were no longer reliable.

There was falsification. Yellow-cake uranium from Niger? fake. Here's a list :-

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

But then you go on to admit that the administration in quesiton cooks shit up to try and convince US voters that something very brutal and dangerous is a good idea:-



Yeah it was a scare tactic, a time honored tradition, but it wasn't completely far off.

It's dishonest. It's an example of your own government cooking up a bullshit story to try and encourage people to support something. It's not 'honoured' in any sense. It's a perversion of democracy.



I wasn't speaking solely about Iraq. This is why I know you don't want to look at every thing just Iraq to fuell you I HATE AMERICA stance.

I don't hate america. You're converting every criticism of the way America's recent political leaders have handled foreign policy into an attack on Americans in general. That is not how I feel about the broad population of America, and it's not fair to put those words in my mouth.

Cullion
23rd August 07, 10:04 AM
Asia, do you think it would be a good idea for your administration to attack Iran and given that you think using Anthrax from their own labs to fake terrorist attacks is a good idea, how far do you think they should go with lying and putting their own citizens at risk in convincing the US populace that such an attack is necessary ?

Gezere
23rd August 07, 11:11 AM
Don't have time to respond to everything now but just to point out that your list is wrong:


Not True

Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

However in 2004 we have:

An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday.

It was part of munitions that Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of but was sitll around. Again OLD and OUTDATED but not FABRICATED as you they and you claimed.

Mister X
23rd August 07, 11:17 AM
We all know that the spartans killed more muslims than muslims could ever kill spartans. I know, I saw it in a movie.

Huh, I did'nt know Xerxes was a Muslim with him being his own god and everything. Learn something everyday.

Gezere
23rd August 07, 11:17 AM
Asia, do you think it would be a good idea for your administration to attack Iran and given that you think using Anthrax from their own labs to fake terrorist attacks is a good idea, how far do you think they should go with lying and putting their own citizens at risk in convincing the US populace that such an attack is necessary ?
Never pegged you as a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not surprised. You got proof of all this right? Of course not.

Cullion
23rd August 07, 12:30 PM
Never pegged you as a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not surprised. You got proof of all this right? Of course not.

If I'm a conspiracy theorist then so are you:-


Hell, they even used Anthrax from a US govt. lab to scare the populace with the bioterrorism paranoia.


Yeah it was a scare tactic, a time honored tradition, but it wasn't completely far off. There were degraded biotweapons found in Iraq and even used by isurgents in an IED.

You agreed with me that your government used it's own anthrax to try and panic your citizenry. I'm simply asking whether you think the US should invade Iran, and if so, whether they should pull stunts like this to massage the voting public again (at least until it's been done at which point they'll be allowed to complain, like they are now).

How far do you think it's ok for them to go with this kind of stunt?

Cullion
23rd August 07, 02:02 PM
Don't have time to respond to everything now but just to point out that your list is wrong:



However in 2004 we have:


It was part of munitions that Saddam was supposed to have gotten rid of but was sitll around. Again OLD and OUTDATED but not FABRICATED as you they and you claimed.

You have a source for that?

I'll put money that the shell wasn't from one of Hussein's armouries.
I'd even put money down that it was a false flag operation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 02:33 PM
Don't you think the whole "American brutaility vs Islam brutality" Is kind of a stupid discussion on boths sides?

One is a religion the other a country

One is about 3 or 4 hundred years old, another is 1 thousand four hundred.

It's like comparing an entire race of people to a political ideology, two different issues.

Apples and oranges.

Cullion
23rd August 07, 02:38 PM
No, not really. What we're really discussing are two cultures. 'America' is shorthand here for the coalition of english-speaking and european nations that went with them.

Gezere
23rd August 07, 05:39 PM
If I'm a conspiracy theorist then so are you:-





You agreed with me that your government used it's own anthrax to try and panic your citizenry. I'm simply asking whether you think the US should invade Iran, and if so, whether they should pull stunts like this to massage the voting public again (at least until it's been done at which point they'll be allowed to complain, like they are now).

How far do you think it's ok for them to go with this kind of stunt?
I wasn't refering to the Anthrax letters but to this:http://www.sikhtimes.com/colin_powell_at_the_un_feb_5_2003.jpg
Sorry if that confused you.

Gezere
23rd August 07, 05:45 PM
You have a source for that?

I'll put money that the shell wasn't from one of Hussein's armouries.
I'd even put money down that it was a false flag operation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm
Ofcourse you would. Can you send me the money via paypal?

Harpy
23rd August 07, 06:02 PM
Aahmed - of course I wasn't insulted, as I said, always enjoyed your posts and the way you come across. Read what you said and you have a point. Its a complex issue, I was being a little emotional/irrational yesterday.

I could present the other side of the argument where I've had Muslim friends tell me about their religion and they have never preached hate etc., always shown a healthy respect and allowed two way conversation. I have friends who wear the scarf and are quite traditional but they're still very much 'Australians'. They love this country and the future it has given them and the fact they can happily follow their religion.

However my one question is this, when push comes to shove, do you put your homeland first or your religion? I do admire the fact the Muslims the world over are united by their religion, more so than other religions in my opinion. However, this proves difficult when one lives in a secular or non-Muslim country.

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 09:05 PM
Well the issue is that, many should view religion and natianlity as very different.

I am canadian, and i am muslim.

I think my family views that as well, since they always cheer for team canada in the Olympics and any other canadian team that plays in the NHL.

My dad also likes George St. Pierre when watching MMA.







Your right, there is a problem when muslims have a preference over a muslim country over a country their living in(like canada/australia/america) despite evidence of the fact that 'insert muslim country' is well.....crappy.

But why? I mean, country is country, religion is religion.

I don't think any rational muslim would say that Iraq is a better place to live then canada or Austrailia.

If they think so just because iraqis are muslims, then maaaan they are deluded.




However my one question is this, when push comes to shove, do you put your homeland first or your religion? I do admire the fact the Muslims the world over are united by their religion, more so than other religions in my opinion. However, this proves difficult when one lives in a secular or non-Muslim country.

I think it would be rare to really have such a situation happen though, i mean unless the U.S. suddenly declared that they must wipe out every muslim, i don't think such a choice would ever come up.

I guess it depends on how religious a person is.

I know Iranians are pretty disillusioned with islam(look at their government) but are HORRIBLY nationalistic. IE remember 300? They hated that movie not because it protrayed muslims in a negative light but because they made Iran look bad.

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 09:08 PM
Aahmed - of course I wasn't insulted, as I said, always enjoyed your posts and the way you come across. Read what you said and you have a point. Its a complex issue, I was being a little emotional/irrational yesterday.

If they keep sending you those annoying ass e-mails, id be pretty cranky too.


I was a little snipish as well.


I feel like i have to argue all the time on this matter. It's a common topic.

My issue really is that often people seem to see all black when looking at islam and never ever talk about some good things taught in islam or the great things that were accomplished.


But no, we did not create the parachute.......damn that e-mail.

bob
24th August 07, 03:41 AM
I think, in the spirit of compromise, we should just all agree that the world would be better off without Muslims and Americans. There, everyone's happy.



Oh, and Tai Chi.

Xioxou
31st August 07, 12:52 PM
Late to the party, oh well.


The middle east across the board is one of the most systematically brutal regions on the face of the earth, its ingrained in the culture and embedded in the highest levels of the governments..The majority of Mulsims are not Arab.


Legalized rape"...doesn't exist" is the end of that sentence.


The Janjaweed are Muslim.So are the Darfuri. It's more akin to "black on black" crime.


Bottomline is Islam is fucked up and there are fucked up pple who follow it. And before you get your panties in a twist I think most religions are fucked up, Islam is just one of the worse. Then, clearly, there is no use in arguing your points. Just say that. "I don't like religion, especially Islam, and what ever the case may actually be, I've made up my mind." Would save a lot of space.


If liberals and islamic fasticst get their way we might find out.Oh. Huh, I thought people took you seriously. Meh, disregard my above qotes.


they have social, monetary and political power, and I would never take that away from them or any other women.Also protected under Islam. Go figure.


Look say what you want, but in western countries we tolerate people like this: Fred PhelpsNo, we don't. We just don't try to kill them as a rule. You think people haven't tried to do him serious bodily harm in the past?


I think Saudi Arabia and Iran are highly modernized.And you'd be wrong. Saudi Arabia's vast oil wealth is in stark contrast to its lagging economy and ludite nature. Egypt is probably the most "Modern" arab country. Perhaps one of the micro-Emerates. I shouldn't have to point out, but apperently I do, Iran is not an Arab country.


I'm hearing that their is alot of them and theres some serious culture clashes? There, a lot, there are. Yes, there are a lot of Mulsim people in the UK. That tends to happen when you go around colonizing countries all over the world. Their citizens will be more likely to move to the occupying homeland.


The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.Are - you - kidding? If you're dead, you can't procreate... period. So clearly procreation can't be a factor.

Once you're dead, and supposedly have these 72 virgins, does it matter how you died, as long as it was as a mujehid? Nope. The immediacy of death is the underlying factor here. No pain, no suffering, just... boom, dead.


Not true. Again becuase you failed to understand. More muslim civilians are being killed by other muslims. Read that several times before commenting further. Ugg, you again? Seriously... YOU read what he is saying. You may, in fact, both be correct. You're just correct AND an idiot.


I directly answered your question.Dense isn't a strong enough word.


Who has killed more human beings. Muslims or "Americans"? Are we talking war deaths? Given that Muslims have been around for 1400 years, and Americans have been around for 300...


Americans win. Hands down. No contest. Period.
I'd be surprized of the total number killed by Muslims equaled the number killed in the Civil War and World Wars combined.


or do i really need to point out africa or mention the name Slobodan...Would you mind? Because I'm pretty sure he wasn't Muslim.


Yes you did. Its telling that you can't admit that. My pot has a first name, it's B-L-A-C-K.


No, you stop this silliness. Comparing an death toll over all of recorded history for a 200 year old culture to a 1500 year one is stupid. I also explicitly stated why I didn't think we should be comparing muslim on muslim attacks. Why not? The original question asked for the total human deaths. There are plenty of American vs American deaths. In fact, so many, that they win.


Sounds like a common theme. Even a millenia ago those pesky Muslims didn't seem concerned with the whole landing concept. Pretty good. I chortled.


What would happen if you told your parents that you were no longer religious and you didn't believe in Allah? Have any of your friends done so?My mother was a convert. My father married a convert. I doubt much would be made of my conversion away from Islam.


posts a long list of Muslim led warsTotal up those death tolls, let me know how many it takes to equal 20 million. That's the conservitave estimate of those killed by the U.S. durring WWII. 14 million Native Americans? How many more battles does that equal? Over half a million in our Civil War alone.

AAAhmed46
1st September 07, 01:22 AM
RESURRECTION......

Seriously, ive had my fill with this thread, so ill just bust out the popcorn and the battle continues.

Sun Wukong
1st September 07, 04:46 AM
Xioxou, you suck at history. the united states wasn't even a country when most of the indians started to get wiped out. also, we didn't even kill the vast majority of them by violence. By we, I mean foreign people who settled here including the french, english, dutch and spanish. Their governments (not just the US gov't) are responsible for a whole hell of a lot of the rotten shit that went down.

There was alot of death, but don't put all of that on America's head alone. Your 14 million number is grossly intellectually dishonest.

anarki13
1st September 07, 05:34 AM
thread necromancy? isn't this sorta thing a No-No?
Anyway:
please get it over with: this discussion (and any along its line) will never be going anywhere. A will not convince B and vice versa. people visit such threads with minds already set.
the only thing i had an issue with here is the: "I is the right, you are T3H SUCK, all of you" blanket statement.
yet i understand where its coming from:
there are what, a BILLION something muslims? sadly, only a fraction is heard of, and its almost always the shitty one.

please let this thread die in peace?

AAAhmed46
1st September 07, 05:07 PM
Though im happy Xioxou is back.

GuiltySpark
2nd September 07, 10:51 PM
We need to wipe out all terrorists and create a golden age of peace so that we may touch the stars and evolve as race!

Zub-Zub
2nd September 07, 10:56 PM
We need to wipe out all terrorists and create a golden age of peace so that we may touch the stars and evolve as race!
Yeah, then we'll get rid of money, invent warp speed travel, and go where no man has gone before.........

AAAhmed46
2nd September 07, 11:05 PM
THE PRIME DIRECTIVE!!!!

ZOMG!

GuiltySpark
2nd September 07, 11:22 PM
Yes get rid of money, it's a crutch.

Haven't you nerds ever looked at the stars or seen pictures of nebula's and quasars and that stuff and wanted to explore it?
You know get away from the animals who would cut your head off over a cartoon or want to live like they did in the dark ages?

Arhetton
3rd September 07, 03:31 AM
I've just started watching Carl Sagan's old series Cosmos, its really awesome:

p86BPM1GV8M

Goldenmane
3rd September 07, 11:37 PM
"Money is a sign of poverty" - the Culture.

That's what we need.

Question!
4th September 07, 12:02 AM
We need to wipe out all terrorists and create a golden age of peace so that we may touch the stars and evolve as race!

OMG!! Will we be able to ascend like the Ancients in Stargate?

baqi9
18th November 07, 01:45 PM
Its not just the middle east. Look at Darfur. The majority of the population is Muslim and they are slaughtering pple. The Janjaweed are Muslim. There is no way in hell anyone can not say that the reason these pple feel justified in what they do is because of Islam. Pple use religion to justify their actions but in this day and age Islam is responsible for the majority of the most heinous ones.

As in this day and age, I take it you mean in 2007. That isn't the case no matter how you try to flip that coin. How many people are dying due to christian nations, jewish zionist, and their supporters' atrocities in this day and age? Well to date, more than the number of innocent lives taken here in the states on 9/11 by far.

Don't fall for the "cow chips" people. Here's a list of atrocities done by those other than muslims in history and recent history. Atheist are included:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hagin/050530

http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/98/386/12722_Phillips.html

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-21-2006-106226.asp

http://www.allaahuakbar.in/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=233&FORUM_ID=21&CAT_ID=19&Topic_Title=Terrorism+is+Certainly+Not+a+Muslim+Mo nopoly%2E%2E%2E&Forum_Title=Terrorism%3A+Killing+Civilians+for+Pol itical+Reasons

http://allaahuakbar.in/article_read.asp?id=1048

http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7642606094370534969&q=christian+violence&total=623&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
The comment on this video tells it all.

Some of the things here are repeated...but hey that is what is done again and again when a muslim does some dirt.

SpringHeeledJack
18th November 07, 05:54 PM
http://allaahuakbar.in/article_read.asp?id=1048

So the Jews did do WTC? Somebody really should do something about those pesky Hebrews.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7642606094370534969&q=christian+violence&total=623&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
The comment on this video tells it all.


How do they know those guys are Christian? That looked like a military operation carried out by military personel, not bible-thumpers. Either way, though, they were infidels, so fuck it. Intellectual honesty is overrated.

Question!
18th November 07, 11:05 PM
JEWISH CONSPIRACY, I KNEW ALL ALONG!

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/9/99/000ewgcg.jpeg/440px-000ewgcg.jpeg

Thinkchair
19th November 07, 12:36 AM
So the Jews did do WTC? Somebody really should do something about those pesky Hebrews.


.

Boy they really get around, I had no idea that every atrocity in the 20th century was committed at the command of a zionist conspiracy. I love how they drag the Southern Poverty Law Center as a wing of Mosad in the Oklohoma City Bombing.

Matt Stone
19th November 07, 09:38 AM
I'm in Iraq right now. I've had a shit day, so I'm not inclined, especially after reading some of the BS in this thread, to play nice. So here's my take on things, based on first-hand experience...

1 - It isn't a "How many Iraqi Civilians has the US killed" versus "How many US Civilians has Iraq killed" issue. Apples and oranges. If you want to compare, compare us through history killing anyone, and them through history killing anyone. You'll see rather quickly that a) as we've only been around as a nation for 231 years, we lack the depth of time within which the Islamic world (since they like to refer to themselves as a homogenous whole) has had to rack up a respectable body count. We've done our share, and made a good dent in the overall world population, but contrasting our potential ability for wholesale slaughter against the total body count and it's obvious we've been holding back. It's unfair to compare on an even scale the atrocities that the Muslim world has, as a whole, been able to impose on neighboring nations in the name of an imaginary friend, especially given their relative lack of sophisticated kill-technology. If they had half the kill-tech we have, the body count would be much, much higher. For the moment they have to content themselves with suicide vests, car bombs, and the occasional RPG.

2 - Why did the Middle East suddenly stop progressing? Islam. When you have a religion that holds "Inshallah" as a standard, convenient excuse for anything (it means "It is the will of Allah;" if shit goes right, "inshallah," and if shit goes wrong "inshallah"), it's going to be hard to make any real forward progress... If you make a half-assed attempt at something and you tapdance on your penis as a result, "guess God meant me to fail." Certainly it wouldn't be because you fucked it up yourself, right? And if you succeed at something, it's obviously not your hard work but rather the Will of God that it succeeded. Basically it's a recipe for folks to sit around, talk a lot, and get little done (something I see daily, because if God wanted things done, they'd get done, right?).

3 - Let's not forget a few things... The locals here are just as keen to kill their own (as long as they're not from the same religious asylum, e.g. Sunnis kill Shia, Shia kill Sunni, and that's perfectly fine) as they are to kill the "evil invader" (from whom they're all too happy to take US greenbacks for services rendered - nice to know they're so idealistic). The civilian death tolls being cited also include all those insurgents and guerilla fighters who routinely throw down their weapons when being chased (because they know we're not supposed to gun them down if they "look" like they're not a threat), but get tapped for their trouble anyway. Not all of those killed are "innocent" by a long shot. The insurgents hide in villages. You want to blame someone for the deaths? Blame the locals who lack the spine to expel these shitbags from their hiding places, who lack the sack to even point a finger at them to let the coalition forces do the job of arresting them.

4 - Sure, we ought to get out now. I'm all over that. From what I see, not too much we do is going to "take" anyway. A year after we leave, even if we stay here for the next 10 years, we'll still get blamed for when the sinkhole of a country falls headlong into the shitter. We'll be called every name in the book, and their failure to rule themselves will, of course, be blamed on us somehow. I say leave now anyway. But on the reverse side of that, let's also take a look at how many folks are trying to bail out of this sinking ship to scratch out a new life in America! You can tell the nature of a country and its government by looking at how many people want out and how many people want in... I don't see a huge influx of Westerners heading this direction, do you? Why might that be, do you think? Maybe because they know this place is a toilet, and they don't want anything to do with it. Why are the muslim communities in the West growing? Because they are allowed to do and say what they like, without fear of having anyone gun them down for it. Now we just need to stand up and tell them that it's fine that they believe in whatever tooth fairy they pray to, but that doesn't give them the right to jam it down the throats of people who don't want to hear their imam screaming 5 times a day...

I'd apologize for the harsh tone, but I'm sick to fucking death of hearing arm-chair commandos discuss how terrible the US is for stepping up to police things that other countries would allow to continue until the infection exploded all over the international scene. I remember hearing once "who must do the harsh thing? He who can." Since nobody else was stepping up, not even the Iraqis who were being oppressed by Sadaam, somebody had to do it. Fuck the WMDs. Sadaam was a bully that murdered his own people. We took his stupid ass out. Good enough for me.

Enjoy. I'm going to hoof it across the FOB, eat the same thing for dinner I've had for the last week or so, and hope I don't get bombed or mortared tonight by all those well-meaning, good-intentioned folk here in downtown Baghdad...

Shawarma
19th November 07, 12:00 PM
A few points. To break it down:

Point 1: The people living in the US did not sprout from nowhere. They came from Europe, which has a history just as bloody and vicious as that of the middle east both before and after it became Christian. It is unfair to claim that the US has any moral superiority over the ragheads when you only include the 200 years the US has existed versus the milennia and a half the Muslim world has.

Point 2: Invalid. The Arab world beat the shit out of Europe in the dark ages technologically and culturally long after it became Islamic. Look to the complete lack of social progress and history of dictatorships that pretty much all Muslim countries have suffered under for an alternative explanation besides blaming "Islam" for Arab countries being shitholes.

Point 3: You need to get out, man. I can't imagine how much it sucks to have everyone be against you when you're just trying to keep the peace, albeit as an invader in a foreign country.

Point 4: Muslims don't emigrate because dey luv de freedumbz. They emigrate because wages are better in Europe for doing shit jobs and there are many shit jobs to do that Europeans don't want to do. I think that just about all the Muslims I know personally still stay very connected to their birth countries and many go back there on holliday etc. The great whore Freedom doesn't have shit to do with it, unless you're talking about refugees, who really only want freedom from getting ethnically cleansed or whatever. And what exactly do you mean about the imam? I don't know of any western city that has a screaming tower like they do in Muslimia. Where do they have screamtowers?

Point 5: You should have let Saddam stay and do his thing. He did not need to be taken down. This entire shitstorm is much worse than when he was in charge and doesn't look like it'll improve anytime soon, possibly ending with Iran being the local power.

Lu Tze
19th November 07, 01:56 PM
2 - Why did the Middle East suddenly stop progressing? Islam.The Ottoman Empire called, it respectfully says you need to shut the fuck up.

Fuck the WMDs. Sadaam was a bully that murdered his own people. We took his stupid ass out. Good enough for me.Seriously no, not fuck WMDs. My government cited WMDs as the reason to invade another soveriegn country, so did yours. They said Iraq was an imminent threat. They lied. They fucking lied. Our democratically elected governments lied to their peoples to instigate a war of aggression against another state. Doesn't that make you just a little bit fucking angry?

I've nothing against the soldiers out there trying to do their jobs and stay alive, but the politicians who started this can kiss my fucking ass. They should be swinging right next to Sadaam IMO. By their feet at least (I'm pretty firmly against he death penalty).

socratic
19th November 07, 08:33 PM
I've seen and met several Islamic people. They were very nice.

Well, looks like I can now generalize that all Muslims are nice people.

Cullion
19th November 07, 08:51 PM
I'm in Iraq right now. I've had a shit day, so I'm not inclined, especially after reading some of the BS in this thread, to play nice.

Fair enough. I'm going to reply calmly to a man under extreme stress.



1 - It isn't a "How many Iraqi Civilians has the US killed" versus "How many US Civilians has Iraq killed" issue. Apples and oranges. If you want to compare, compare us through history killing anyone, and them through history killing anyone. You'll see rather quickly that a) as we've only been around as a nation for 231 years, we lack the depth of time within which the Islamic world (since they like to refer to themselves as a homogenous whole) has had to rack up a respectable body count. We've done our share, and made a good dent in the overall world population, but contrasting our potential ability for wholesale slaughter against the total body count and it's obvious we've been holding back. It's unfair to compare on an even scale the atrocities that the Muslim world has, as a whole, been able to impose on neighboring nations in the name of an imaginary friend, especially given their relative lack of sophisticated kill-technology. If they had half the kill-tech we have, the body count would be much, much higher. For the moment they have to content themselves with suicide vests, car bombs, and the occasional RPG.

Who is they? Iraq was a secular country before the US invaded and wasn't involved in any attack on you. Regardless of what the 'body count' might be if they were better armed,you are the invader occupying their country. You volunteered for it. Why ?



2 - Why did the Middle East suddenly stop progressing? Islam. When you have a religion that holds "Inshallah" as a standard, convenient excuse for anything (it means "It is the will of Allah;" if shit goes right, "inshallah," and if shit goes wrong "inshallah"), it's going to be hard to make any real forward progress... If you make a half-assed attempt at something and you tapdance on your penis as a result, "guess God meant me to fail." Certainly it wouldn't be because you fucked it up yourself, right? And if you succeed at something, it's obviously not your hard work but rather the Will of God that it succeeded. Basically it's a recipe for folks to sit around, talk a lot, and get little done (something I see daily, because if God wanted things done, they'd get done, right?).

I guess that's all the excuse you need to invade, right?



3 - Let's not forget a few things... The locals here are just as keen to kill their own (as long as they're not from the same religious asylum, e.g. Sunnis kill Shia, Shia kill Sunni, and that's perfectly fine) as they are to kill the "evil invader" (from whom they're all too happy to take US greenbacks for services rendered - nice to know they're so idealistic). The civilian death tolls being cited also include all those insurgents and guerilla fighters who routinely throw down their weapons when being chased (because they know we're not supposed to gun them down if they "look" like they're not a threat), but get tapped for their trouble anyway. Not all of those killed are "innocent" by a long shot. The insurgents hide in villages. You want to blame someone for the deaths? Blame the locals who lack the spine to expel these shitbags from their hiding places, who lack the sack to even point a finger at them to let the coalition forces do the job of arresting them.

None of this ought to be your problem. Why is it?



4 - Sure, we ought to get out now. I'm all over that. From what I see, not too much we do is going to "take" anyway. A year after we leave, even if we stay here for the next 10 years, we'll still get blamed for when the sinkhole of a country falls headlong into the shitter. We'll be called every name in the book, and their failure to rule themselves will, of course, be blamed on us somehow. I say leave now anyway. But on the reverse side of that, let's also take a look at how many folks are trying to bail out of this sinking ship to scratch out a new life in America! You can tell the nature of a country and its government by looking at how many people want out and how many people want in... I don't see a huge influx of Westerners heading this direction, do you? Why might that be, do you think? Maybe because they know this place is a toilet, and they don't want anything to do with it. Why are the muslim communities in the West growing? Because they are allowed to do and say what they like, without fear of having anyone gun them down for it. Now we just need to stand up and tell them that it's fine that they believe in whatever tooth fairy they pray to, but that doesn't give them the right to jam it down the throats of people who don't want to hear their imam screaming 5 times a day...

I'd apologize for the harsh tone, but I'm sick to fucking death of hearing arm-chair commandos discuss how terrible the US is for stepping up to police things that other countries would allow to continue until the infection exploded all over the international scene. I remember hearing once "who must do the harsh thing? He who can." Since nobody else was stepping up, not even the Iraqis who were being oppressed by Sadaam, somebody had to do it. Fuck the WMDs. Sadaam was a bully that murdered his own people. We took his stupid ass out. Good enough for me.

Enjoy. I'm going to hoof it across the FOB, eat the same thing for dinner I've had for the last week or so, and hope I don't get bombed or mortared tonight by all those well-meaning, good-intentioned folk here in downtown Baghdad...

This is the harshest thing I'm going to say. You volunteered for this idiocy. They treat you like this because you're a military serviceman of an invading power. Of course they fucking hate you, what seriously did you expect. Oh? they don't give a fuck about how you think they could run their country better? boo hoo. Suck it up or stop volunteering for shit everybody with a grain of sense has been warning you would be a disaster for years.

Come home safe, but seriously, what the fuck did you expect?

AAAhmed46
19th November 07, 10:55 PM
Who the fuck resurrected this thread?

Why not just wait for a new thread of the same nature to reappear?

ironlurker
19th November 07, 11:30 PM
Who the fuck resurrected this thread?

Why not just wait for a new thread of the same nature to reappear?

What's the chance of that, seriously.

socratic
19th November 07, 11:33 PM
What's the chance of that, seriously.

Depends on how many more people we have on Sociocide who hate Muslims, I suppose.

Just for the record, did anybody else notice that Matt admitted they shoot unarmed enemies?


The civilian death tolls being cited also include all those insurgents and guerilla fighters who routinely throw down their weapons when being chased (because they know we're not supposed to gun them down if they "look" like they're not a threat), but get tapped for their trouble anyway.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a pretty dick move on the part of Coalition forces?

ironlurker
19th November 07, 11:38 PM
Depends on how many more people we have on Sociocide who hate Muslims, I suppose.

What's the chance of that, seriously

socratic
19th November 07, 11:43 PM
What's the chance of that, seriously

Forgive me for being daft, but are you excersising irony?

AAAhmed46
19th November 07, 11:46 PM
What's the chance of that, seriously.

We have like five from that past.

ironlurker
19th November 07, 11:49 PM
We have like five from that past.
That's my point. Shouldn't you be out raping someone so they get whipped? :gaygay:

AAAhmed46
19th November 07, 11:52 PM
Does that apply for men as well?

SpringHeeledJack
20th November 07, 12:26 AM
Who the fuck resurrected this thread?

Why not just wait for a new thread of the same nature to reappear?

At first glance, it would appear as though the necromancer was a Muslim, but I'd be willing to bet it's really a false flag operation designed to create strife between the Muslims and infidels on Sociocide. The posting of dishonest propaganda, supposedly by a follower of Islam, was likely designed to turn public sentiment against the Muslims and have them driven from the internet. We all know who is responsible for this. Need I say it?


Those...




God-damned...








Jews!!!

socratic
20th November 07, 02:12 AM
At first glance, it would appear as though the necromancer was a Muslim, but I'd be willing to bet it's really a false flag operation designed to create strife between the Muslims and infidels on Sociocide. The posting of dishonest propaganda, supposedly by a follower of Islam, was likely designed to turn public sentiment against the Muslims and have them driven from the internet. We all know who is responsible for this. Need I say it?


Those...




God-damned...








Jews!!!
http://www.frogboy.freeuk.com/rabbi.jpg
You caught me!

AAAhmed46
20th November 07, 06:13 PM
Can't fault them for how they dress though. I love those fucking hats.