A MUST READ: The truth about Islam and Iran - LONG READ

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Actually you ARE trying to nuance different atrocities, some for the worse and some not so bad, the thing is... it doesn't matter.

You see, just as you cannot be a little bit dead or a lot, you cannot commit a bit of an atrocity or a huge atrocity, there is no scale to measure it, an atrocity is an atrocity.

I think the very word is the wrong one though, you COULD use the word tragedy and for those who have lost it would work, to loose a child is a tragedy, to loose all your children is a greater tradgedy.

If you see my point.

I have to disagree.

To me a man that calls someone a slur is different than a man that commits murder. Both are an atrocity to me, but one is more severe.

If you are hanging up on the word, then simply change it. You seem to be agreeing with me in a sense.

I do, it is just the word of your choice that i disagree with.

I do understand you and i do agree with what you are saying, i agree that it is worse to commit genocide than it is to commit a murder of a single man.

But at the same time i don't like the idea of a scale on these matters.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
I do, it is just the word of your choice that i disagree with.

I do understand you and i do agree with what you are saying, i agree that it is worse to commit genocide than it is to commit a murder of a single man.

But at the same time i don't like the idea of a scale on these matters.

OK, then change it to tragedy or any other word you wish.

I do not like the notion of a scale, but such a 'scale' makes sense.

 

[1luckymf]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 1luckymf

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 1luckymf

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 1luckymf
You call the shah a coward...Yet you are here...

Go home and fight your own war.

Go home? I am home. I was born here dumbshit.

Well excuse me then..

Then why the hell you want to start a war with Iran ? Will you willing to be the first to go and give your life? Or are you just a coward who wants others to give their life for your agenda.

My agenda? My parents might be from Iran as well as my family. I have family living in Iran. America comes before Iran. My kids will be born and raised here and if Iran is going to start something against the U.S then I am all for the U.S to show Iran a lesson or two. Why would I defend Iran over the United States? What makes you more of an American than me?

I am not going to gain anything with a free Iran. I have no connections there. The world will gain with a free Iran.

Yes you are damn right. If I had to go to fight for the U.S vs Iran I sure as hell would pick the United States. This is my country and I will defend it if I must. If I didn't like my country I wouldn't live here I would live in Iran and call that my country and raise my kids there.

Im not questioning your patriotism. You stated "If the United States wants to win the war on terror they need to start by attacking Iran".

Would you be willing to give your life for that?

If it came down to it yeah. I am not trying to avoid your question like a common politician. Truth of the matter is with my school and education I could not join the military and fight for this country and keep my schooling. So to answer your question probably not.
However, attacking Iran does not mean sending in troops. Why could the U.S not attack them from the air and send in support to the students and the people who are trying to rebel?

IMO that is the best way to do it. I said attack Iran, but I didn't make my position on how I think the best method is.

I think the best method is to dominate Iranian air and broadcast to the people that the United States is fully behind them. With aid and months of confusion in Iran the people will get their way and the Mullahs will be driven out. With the air in control of the U.S, they will have the power to knock out all government strongholds.

A ground assult can have severe consequences... one the people can lose the respect they have for the U.S after seeing civilian deaths. The U.S owns the air why not just fight wars like that? Can a military expert tell me why this will not work?

A military genious you are not.

Educate me. Why wouldn't this work?

Because every one target is within 1000 civilians reach, you would have to bomb the entire nation to hell to make sure. If you have no problems killing most of the civilian population then a series of MOAB's and light weith nukes would do the job.

AFTER that you would still have to send in ground troops to contain survivors and get the ones who escaped.

And the US only owns the air when they have the only real air force up there, Iran would be a problem and many planes wouls be lost, a war is not painless.

For Iran a swift and fast attack from different borders with overwhelming force with air support would be the choice that would produce the least amount of casualties on both sides. Heavy artillery and armored vehicles would be a necessity but most could be sweapt by choppers to ensure immediate safety, it would still cost a lot of troops.

Sounds like Iraq all over again. But more difficult this time. And possiblby the start of WWIII...........

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Because every one target is within 1000 civilians reach, you would have to bomb the entire nation to hell to make sure. If you have no problems killing most of the civilian population then a series of MOAB's and light weith nukes would do the job.

AFTER that you would still have to send in ground troops to contain survivors and get the ones who escaped.

And the US only owns the air when they have the only real air force up there, Iran would be a problem and many planes wouls be lost, a war is not painless.

For Iran a swift and fast attack from different borders with overwhelming force with air support would be the choice that would produce the least amount of casualties on both sides. Heavy artillery and armored vehicles would be a necessity but most could be sweapt by choppers to ensure immediate safety, it would still cost a lot of troops.

I doubt that Iran would even try to get their planes off the ground - they have Soviet-era planes. Just look at their web site: Imperial Iranian Air Force. 😛 Seriously though, it doesn't sound like their air force would do much of anything. The newest plane they have is the F-14, which is from the 1970's (and I doubt they have been updated as our own F-14s have been).

By 1987, however, the air force faced an acute shortage of spare parts and replacement equipment. Perhaps 35 of the 190 Phantoms were serviceable in 1986. One F-4 had been shot down by Saudi F-15s, and two pilots had defected to Iraq with their F-4s in 1984. The number of F-5s dwindled from 166 to perhaps 45, and the F-14 Tomcats from 77 to perhaps 10. The latter were hardest hit because maintenance posed special difficulties after the United States embargo on military sales. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/...orld/iran/airforce.htm

I agree 100% though - no war will ever be won without ground forces, short of nuking the enemy. The planes we have now are just ridiculous, but they still can't do what good old fashioned ground-pounders can do.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: conjur
As I said, one murder is an atrocity the same as 10,000. Equating them does not belittle anything.

They are both an atrocity. However, are you saying that killing one person is at the same level as killing 6 million.

Is calling someone a slur the same as murdering them? Both are an atrocity.

Is a man that murdered one person on the same level as Hitler who essentially murdered millions?

Please answer the questions.

You're like a broken record. At what point will you stop nuancing things? Levels of atrocities? 😕


And how can an insult even be mentioned in the same breath as murder? WTF are you talking about?

I think it is the word "atrocity" that is a problem here, i think all three of us agree that some actions are worse than others but you and i have a problem with putting these things on a scale from "less bad" to "more bad".

Because if it is one man or 100 innocent dead it is a tragedy either way, and who can decide WHO get's to die?

The sad part is that most often innocents are killed as a response to innocents being killed, it doesn't help.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: conjur
As I said, one murder is an atrocity the same as 10,000. Equating them does not belittle anything.

They are both an atrocity. However, are you saying that killing one person is at the same level as killing 6 million.

Is calling someone a slur the same as murdering them? Both are an atrocity.

Is a man that murdered one person on the same level as Hitler who essentially murdered millions?

Please answer the questions.

You're like a broken record. At what point will you stop nuancing things? Levels of atrocities? 😕


And how can an insult even be mentioned in the same breath as murder? WTF are you talking about?

How can one murder be mentioned in the same breath as a genocide of millions?

I think degrees matters here as the original post in question here talked about one fact being 'heads and shoulders' above the others - implying that it was degrees higher. I think it's pretty obvious.

Just answer yes or no. Is murdering 10,000 people a greater tragedy than murdering one? All I am asking for is a one word reply.

 

[conjur]

No.

 

[RabidMongoose]

OK, thanks for the reply 🙂

We'll just have to disagree on this.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Because every one target is within 1000 civilians reach, you would have to bomb the entire nation to hell to make sure. If you have no problems killing most of the civilian population then a series of MOAB's and light weith nukes would do the job.

AFTER that you would still have to send in ground troops to contain survivors and get the ones who escaped.

And the US only owns the air when they have the only real air force up there, Iran would be a problem and many planes wouls be lost, a war is not painless.

For Iran a swift and fast attack from different borders with overwhelming force with air support would be the choice that would produce the least amount of casualties on both sides. Heavy artillery and armored vehicles would be a necessity but most could be sweapt by choppers to ensure immediate safety, it would still cost a lot of troops.

I doubt that Iran would even try to get their planes off the ground - they have Soviet-era planes. Just look at their web site: Imperial Iranian Air Force. 😛 Seriously though, it doesn't sound like their air force would do much of anything. The newest plane they have is the F-14, which is from the 1970's (and I doubt they have been updated as our own F-14s have been).

By 1987, however, the air force faced an acute shortage of spare parts and replacement equipment. Perhaps 35 of the 190 Phantoms were serviceable in 1986. One F-4 had been shot down by Saudi F-15s, and two pilots had defected to Iraq with their F-4s in 1984. The number of F-5s dwindled from 166 to perhaps 45, and the F-14 Tomcats from 77 to perhaps 10. The latter were hardest hit because maintenance posed special difficulties after the United States embargo on military sales. Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/...orld/iran/airforce.htm

I agree 100% though - no war will ever be won without ground forces, short of nuking the enemy. The planes we have now are just ridiculous, but they still can't do what good old fashioned ground-pounders can do.

I would say you are wrong, when the Russian air force tried to compete with Swedish fighter jets they lost big time, and the Swedish jets were 30 years old at the time and up against fresh new aircrafts, the aircraft industry has not developed at the rate other industries has and the biggest change (newer electronics and weapon systems) can be installed in any aircraft and has been.

Iranian AF isn't bad at all and few would want to go up against the Iranians in the air, that includes the US.

We probably have people who know this better than me here though, i am what you call a "ground-pounder" not a pilot and certainly not a strategist for any battle.

If you have no fear for death, you are not going to dodge any bullets and not going to give up until you are destroyed.

Fighting fundamentalists is like fighting wild animals, you might have the edge but they don't really care.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: 1luckymf

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 1luckymf

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 1luckymf

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 1luckymf
You call the shah a coward...Yet you are here...

Go home and fight your own war.

Go home? I am home. I was born here dumbshit.

Well excuse me then..

Then why the hell you want to start a war with Iran ? Will you willing to be the first to go and give your life? Or are you just a coward who wants others to give their life for your agenda.

My agenda? My parents might be from Iran as well as my family. I have family living in Iran. America comes before Iran. My kids will be born and raised here and if Iran is going to start something against the U.S then I am all for the U.S to show Iran a lesson or two. Why would I defend Iran over the United States? What makes you more of an American than me?

I am not going to gain anything with a free Iran. I have no connections there. The world will gain with a free Iran.

Yes you are damn right. If I had to go to fight for the U.S vs Iran I sure as hell would pick the United States. This is my country and I will defend it if I must. If I didn't like my country I wouldn't live here I would live in Iran and call that my country and raise my kids there.

Im not questioning your patriotism. You stated "If the United States wants to win the war on terror they need to start by attacking Iran".

Would you be willing to give your life for that?

If it came down to it yeah. I am not trying to avoid your question like a common politician. Truth of the matter is with my school and education I could not join the military and fight for this country and keep my schooling. So to answer your question probably not.
However, attacking Iran does not mean sending in troops. Why could the U.S not attack them from the air and send in support to the students and the people who are trying to rebel?

IMO that is the best way to do it. I said attack Iran, but I didn't make my position on how I think the best method is.

I think the best method is to dominate Iranian air and broadcast to the people that the United States is fully behind them. With aid and months of confusion in Iran the people will get their way and the Mullahs will be driven out. With the air in control of the U.S, they will have the power to knock out all government strongholds.

A ground assult can have severe consequences... one the people can lose the respect they have for the U.S after seeing civilian deaths. The U.S owns the air why not just fight wars like that? Can a military expert tell me why this will not work?

A military genious you are not.

Educate me. Why wouldn't this work?

Because every one target is within 1000 civilians reach, you would have to bomb the entire nation to hell to make sure. If you have no problems killing most of the civilian population then a series of MOAB's and light weith nukes would do the job.

AFTER that you would still have to send in ground troops to contain survivors and get the ones who escaped.

And the US only owns the air when they have the only real air force up there, Iran would be a problem and many planes wouls be lost, a war is not painless.

For Iran a swift and fast attack from different borders with overwhelming force with air support would be the choice that would produce the least amount of casualties on both sides. Heavy artillery and armored vehicles would be a necessity but most could be sweapt by choppers to ensure immediate safety, it would still cost a lot of troops.

Sounds like Iraq all over again. But more difficult this time. And possiblby the start of WWIII...........

So? You want to live forever? 😛

It sounds like Iraq because it IS like Iraq, only with more casualties and harder resistance, modern warfare is the same when fighting an underpowered enemy with overwhelming force.

I don't think it will start WWIII though, but if this happens there will be no doubt about the purpose of the PNAC and the world will start preparing, a new era of cold war will start.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I would say you are wrong, when the Russian air force tried to compete with Swedish fighter jets they lost big time, and the Swedish jets were 30 years old at the time and up against fresh new aircrafts

What were the practice conditions?

I have to agree with CycloWizard. I sincerely doubt that the Iranian Air Force would pose a sizable threat to the US Air Force.

 

[CycloWizard]

Having worked as a researcher for the air force, I'd beg to differ on the progress of air technology. Most estimates put our technology at least four decades ahead of any other nation, with the possible exception of Britain. We spend more money on lubricants for our planes than the Iranians do on their entire air force (several billion a year, believe it or not - about 1 billion just for hydraulic fluid). The targetting systems and software that we have now are head and shoulders above what we had in the early 90's even. That, and we have lots of new toys: F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-100, and the JSF (which is just plain cool), among others.

Anyway, it's not real important, and I like to brag, so here I am.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would say you are wrong, when the Russian air force tried to compete with Swedish fighter jets they lost big time, and the Swedish jets were 30 years old at the time and up against fresh new aircrafts

What were the practice conditions?

I have to agree with CycloWizard. I sincerely doubt that the Iranian Air Force would pose a sizable threat to the US Air Force.

Actually this was during the 80's and there were numerous incidents as well as practice flights, the Swedish planes (i believe they were called viggen) pretty much owned the sophisticated new Russian planes every time.

It would pose a threat, that is what i am saying, how sizable i don't know but it would surely pose a threat, couple that with other advanced anti air tech and it would probably be a sizable threat.

I suppose it depends on how you define sizable though, the US can't loose, no question about that, of course.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would say you are wrong, when the Russian air force tried to compete with Swedish fighter jets they lost big time, and the Swedish jets were 30 years old at the time and up against fresh new aircrafts

What were the practice conditions?

I have to agree with CycloWizard. I sincerely doubt that the Iranian Air Force would pose a sizable threat to the US Air Force.

Actually this was during the 80's and there were numerous incidents as well as practice flights, the Swedish planes (i believe they were called viggen) pretty much owned the sophisticated new Russian planes every time.

It would pose a threat, that is what i am saying, how sizable i don't know but it would surely pose a threat, couple that with other advanced anti air tech and it would probably be a sizable threat.

I suppose it depends on how you define sizable though, the US can't loose, no question about that, of course.

Yes, but I'm wondering about the practice conditions that can vary greatly. For example, the US-India practice involved the US with fewer aircraft, in a dogfight (where US aircraft were more likely to not enter this possibility with their weapons systems), and no other forms of support that is common for the US air force. In addition, I figure training would be a very important factor.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Having worked as a researcher for the air force, I'd beg to differ on the progress of air technology. Most estimates put our technology at least four decades ahead of any other nation, with the possible exception of Britain. We spend more money on lubricants for our planes than the Iranians do on their entire air force (several billion a year, believe it or not - about 1 billion just for hydraulic fluid). The targetting systems and software that we have now are head and shoulders above what we had in the early 90's even. That, and we have lots of new toys: F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-100, and the JSF (which is just plain cool), among others.

Anyway, it's not real important, and I like to brag, so here I am.

As you are obviously more knowledgable than me in this area i take your word for it without question.

Nice to know we have an AF tech present. 🙂

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would say you are wrong, when the Russian air force tried to compete with Swedish fighter jets they lost big time, and the Swedish jets were 30 years old at the time and up against fresh new aircrafts

What were the practice conditions?

I have to agree with CycloWizard. I sincerely doubt that the Iranian Air Force would pose a sizable threat to the US Air Force.

Actually this was during the 80's and there were numerous incidents as well as practice flights, the Swedish planes (i believe they were called viggen) pretty much owned the sophisticated new Russian planes every time.

It would pose a threat, that is what i am saying, how sizable i don't know but it would surely pose a threat, couple that with other advanced anti air tech and it would probably be a sizable threat.

I suppose it depends on how you define sizable though, the US can't loose, no question about that, of course.

Yes, but I'm wondering about the practice conditions that can vary greatly. For example, the US-India practice involved the US with fewer aircraft, in a dogfight (where US aircraft were more likely to not enter this possibility with their weapons systems), and no other forms of support that is common for the US air force. In addition, I figure training would be a very important factor.

I think it was man to man dog fights and flight-escapes over the ocean, not sure, i'll see if i can find it in my docs.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur
There are extremists in any religion. That doesn't mean all followers of a religion are the same.

Muhammad Ali is a Muslim. Do you think he wants to cut peoples' hands off and enslave women?

You have got to be one of the most naive persons ever. See the pictures, read the news, open your eyes.

Islam is head and shoulders above other religions in terms of violence, cruelty, bigotry and (sic) backwardsness.

Tell me in what religion does this happen?

Hmm...bigotry like Christians persecuting gays? Violence like Christians blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors? Cruelty like Christians preventing mosques from being built and vandalizing them and persecuting people of Middle Eastern descent out of fear and ignorance stoked by this administration?

Once again, your totally wrong. Tell me when was the last time a christian blew up an abortion clinic? a few years ago?? and it was probably done by one man or a handful?? right?

About the mosques and churces ... in Iraq they are tearing down the Assyrian churches, at least whats left of them. In some cases, the muslims have torn down an Assyrian church (Assyrians speak the same language that jesus spoke 2 thousand years ago) and used those rocks to build a mosque. This is just one example.

Another one is in Egypt. They are tearing down churches, one by one to make it a one religion based society. As we know, there are lots of christians living in Egypt. They definately dont get the same treatment or rights as muslims.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur
There are extremists in any religion. That doesn't mean all followers of a religion are the same.

Muhammad Ali is a Muslim. Do you think he wants to cut peoples' hands off and enslave women?

You have got to be one of the most naive persons ever. See the pictures, read the news, open your eyes.

Islam is head and shoulders above other religions in terms of violence, cruelty, bigotry and (sic) backwardsness.

Tell me in what religion does this happen?

Hmm...bigotry like Christians persecuting gays? Violence like Christians blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors? Cruelty like Christians preventing mosques from being built and vandalizing them and persecuting people of Middle Eastern descent out of fear and ignorance stoked by this administration?

Once again, your totally wrong. Tell me when was the last time a christian blew up an abortion clinic? a few years ago?? and it was probably done by one man or a handful?? right?

About the mosques and churces ... in Iraq they are tearing down the Assyrian churches, at least whats left of them. In some cases, the muslims have torn down an Assyrian church (Assyrians speak the same language that jesus spoke 2 thousand years ago) and used those rocks to build a mosque. This is just one example.

Another one is in Egypt. They are tearing down churches, one by one to make it a one religion based society. As we know, there are lots of christians living in Egypt. They definately dont get the same treatment or rights as muslims.

IRA, the Basques.

There you go, catholic terrorists.

It does not take a muslim to be fvcked in the head, christians, hindus and jews can do that too.

To BE tolerant, even when you are not treated with tolerance is above most of us, even muslims.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur
There are extremists in any religion. That doesn't mean all followers of a religion are the same.

Muhammad Ali is a Muslim. Do you think he wants to cut peoples' hands off and enslave women?

You have got to be one of the most naive persons ever. See the pictures, read the news, open your eyes.

Islam is head and shoulders above other religions in terms of violence, cruelty, bigotry and (sic) backwardsness.

Tell me in what religion does this happen?

Hmm...bigotry like Christians persecuting gays? Violence like Christians blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors? Cruelty like Christians preventing mosques from being built and vandalizing them and persecuting people of Middle Eastern descent out of fear and ignorance stoked by this administration?

Once again, your totally wrong. Tell me when was the last time a christian blew up an abortion clinic? a few years ago?? and it was probably done by one man or a handful?? right?

About the mosques and churces ... in Iraq they are tearing down the Assyrian churches, at least whats left of them. In some cases, the muslims have torn down an Assyrian church (Assyrians speak the same language that jesus spoke 2 thousand years ago) and used those rocks to build a mosque. This is just one example.

Another one is in Egypt. They are tearing down churches, one by one to make it a one religion based society. As we know, there are lots of christians living in Egypt. They definately dont get the same treatment or rights as muslims.

IRA, the Basques.

There you go, catholic terrorists.

It does not take a muslim to be fvcked in the head, christians, hindus and jews can do that too.

To BE tolerant, even when you are not treated with tolerance is above most of us, even muslims.

When was the last IRA attack? The basque terrorists attacked a few years back.

Please give me some recent examples if you can.

The extremist muslim terrorists kill and injure innocent civilians all over the world, each and every day. That is a proven fact.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg
Tell me in what religion does this happen?

Hmm...bigotry like Christians persecuting gays? Violence like Christians blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors? Cruelty like Christians preventing mosques from being built and vandalizing them and persecuting people of Middle Eastern descent out of fear and ignorance stoked by this administration?

Once again, your totally wrong. Tell me when was the last time a christian blew up an abortion clinic? a few years ago?? and it was probably done by one man or a handful?? right?

My what is totally wrong? I think you meant to use "you're".

Anyway:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

See that chart? There have been bombings or cases of arson against abortion clinics in every year since at least 1989. The other columns speak for themselves, too.

About the mosques and churces ... in Iraq they are tearing down the Assyrian churches, at least whats left of them. In some cases, the muslims have torn down an Assyrian church (Assyrians speak the same language that jesus spoke 2 thousand years ago) and used those rocks to build a mosque. This is just one example.

Your point? Are you denying that Christians are trying to block mosques from being built here in the U.S.? That *was* the topic of discussion to which you replied.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg
Tell me in what religion does this happen?

Hmm...bigotry like Christians persecuting gays? Violence like Christians blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors? Cruelty like Christians preventing mosques from being built and vandalizing them and persecuting people of Middle Eastern descent out of fear and ignorance stoked by this administration?

Once again, your totally wrong. Tell me when was the last time a christian blew up an abortion clinic? a few years ago?? and it was probably done by one man or a handful?? right?

My what is totally wrong? I think you meant to use "you're".

Anyway:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

See that chart? There have been bombings or cases of arson against abortion clinics in every year since at least 1989. The other columns speak for themselves, too.

About the mosques and churces ... in Iraq they are tearing down the Assyrian churches, at least whats left of them. In some cases, the muslims have torn down an Assyrian church (Assyrians speak the same language that jesus spoke 2 thousand years ago) and used those rocks to build a mosque. This is just one example.

Your point? Are you denying that Christians are trying to block mosques from being built here in the U.S.? That *was* the topic of discussion to which you replied.

I did not know christians are trying to block mosques from being built here.

Just admit, the extremist muslim terrorists have given a new meaning to the word "extremist". In what other religion do you find young people strapping bombs around them and blowing up buses?

You cannot compare other religions to Islam, as the Islamists have hijacked the religion and are seducing more and more teens into their teachings.

Forget about Israel for one moment:

Why does every conflict around the world seem to involve the muslims not getting along with their neighbor?
The Phillipines (the southern part wanting to secede by terrorizing christians)
India and Pakistan (with Pakistan sending terrorists to kill Indians)
Chechyna (you already know the latest atrocity)
on and on

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Aimster

If you cannot prove what I said in this thread to be wrong then maybe you should stay out.

I don't think so. And us going in and establishing democratic countries in the Middle East, presumably by force is your suggestion, is NOT the right way to do it.

The world was established with wars.

The people of Iran want the U.S to attack them. The Iranians in the U.S want the U.S to attack them. Many agree with you that this is an Iranian problem and that the Iranians need to fix it themself.

Do you disagree to the U.S invading Iran's airspace and broadcasting messages to the people to revolt? Once a revolt takes place are you also against the U.S attacking the part of the Iranian government that are against the uprising (Republican Guard, 20,000 strong).

The people of Iran want the US to attack them??

Wow.

That must the lamest sentence I've seen here on the forums.

The people of Iran dont like their govt., especially the younger generation and they want the govt. out. But they definately DO NOT want America to attack Iran. From a military standpoint, we cannot attack Iran. It is a country that is much bigger than Iraq in both pop. and land mass. Plus it has a sophisticated military with some very modern weapons.

I dont know where you come up with this stuff, but its totally wrong.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: raildogg
Tell me in what religion does this happen?

Hmm...bigotry like Christians persecuting gays? Violence like Christians blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors? Cruelty like Christians preventing mosques from being built and vandalizing them and persecuting people of Middle Eastern descent out of fear and ignorance stoked by this administration?

Once again, your totally wrong. Tell me when was the last time a christian blew up an abortion clinic? a few years ago?? and it was probably done by one man or a handful?? right?

My what is totally wrong? I think you meant to use "you're".

Anyway:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

See that chart? There have been bombings or cases of arson against abortion clinics in every year since at least 1989. The other columns speak for themselves, too.

About the mosques and churces ... in Iraq they are tearing down the Assyrian churches, at least whats left of them. In some cases, the muslims have torn down an Assyrian church (Assyrians speak the same language that jesus spoke 2 thousand years ago) and used those rocks to build a mosque. This is just one example.

Your point? Are you denying that Christians are trying to block mosques from being built here in the U.S.? That *was* the topic of discussion to which you replied.

I did not know christians are trying to block mosques from being built here.

Just admit, the extremist muslim terrorists have given a new meaning to the word "extremist". In what other religion do you find young people strapping bombs around them and blowing up buses?

You cannot compare other religions to Islam, as the Islamists have hijacked the religion and are seducing more and more teens into their teachings.

Forget about Israel for one moment:

Why does every conflict around the world seem to involve the muslims not getting along with their neighbor?
The Phillipines (the southern part wanting to secede by terrorizing christians)
India and Pakistan (with Pakistan sending terrorists to kill Indians)
Chechyna (you already know the latest atrocity)
on and on

Because those extremists who have distorted the teachings of Islam find willing recruits in lands of little opportunity.

 

[The Green Bean]

I havent read all the posts but I have to disagree with Amritser.

1. You sound like a wahabi. You are the one spreading hate amongst the muslim world by posting pictures that are offensive. You are one of those that make Shiah's and sunnis fight and take the spoils of war.

2. Bush!!! He has killed more muslims than any other US president. And you say he is promoting peace? Total Bullsh!t. Even a 3 year old kid will understand this.

3. Yes these mullahs are extremists but you are a traitor. Why don't you fight from inside IRAN. If you say the SHAH was a caward then why don't you show courage by rioting from inside Iran?

4. You don't even sound like an Iranian. You call for the US to bomb your own country? Imagine how many will be killed? They will include your freinds, family and contrymen.

5. You are not a muslim. "Truth of Islam?" Maybe truth of wahabism but not the truth of true Islam. Islam itself means peace.

6. You are a real Shiah hater. And a muslim hater. You are an infidel extremist!

7. Imam Husain didnot fignt Yazid (Moavia's son) for power. He had 72 loyalists against 1000s of yazidis. Yazid was the so called khalifa of the Muslim ummah and was a drunkard. He took the head of his own prophet's grandson. Had not Husain sacrafised his life and his family and close aides, there would have been no islam. So please do proper research.

8. Are these people who are beating themeselves actually harming you in anyway? Freeom maybe? This was condenmed the same way by Saddam. No free country in the world stops this.

Sadly its people like you that have bought about the downfall of the muslim power. Its people like you that have spread hatred. Its people like you that say JIHAD JIHAD!! Im sure you beleive that killing Shiahs is obligatory. It is people like you that have undermined true muslim culture, values, arts and literature for JIHAD. Its people like you that spawn Osamas (Yes Osama was a shiah hating wahabi with very similar beleifs).

 

[cyberserf]

Aimster,

I thought the Muslims in America were getting corrupt because of this society but you are no Muslim. Why would any good Muslim/ or person wish death on his people let alone any people, anywhere. You are a sick twisted fool.
The USA probably has killed more Muslims in Iraq with their War based on lies then Sadam probably ever did. All in the name of democracy. When did freedom come after invading someone?
Most Muslims are more peaceful then most people in the world. Its just a few of these crazies that are giving the Kafirs a reason to give Islam a black eye.
YOU ARE a KAFIR! you are no Muslim that's for sure!
Before the revolution in the 70's Iran was a puppet of the USA. get the picture?
I bet you have never even been to IRAN and you make your assumptions like you know this place. What a dumass.