Carter Accuses Jewish Group of ?Slander? After Questioning Controversial Book

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
Wow, I'm blown away!
What a decadent postal system is in the West.

Anyway, I guess you still don't get the difference between self-sacrifice and suicide bombing civilians.
Here's a challenge for you: show to me the honor in the murder of all the civilians in Iraq.

Suicide bombing is self-sacrifice. You see, when you blow yourself up, you die. You and anybody within your vicinity. I hope you have the intelligence to comprehend that.

Like I said earlier, the comraderie an individual feels for his country can be extended to his co-religionist. Martyrdom operations are one of many weapons that the fighters can use in Iraq. They don't give a damn whether or not you find it disgusting. To them, it's an honorable way to die. As for killing civilians, since they legitimize a democratic government by empowering it, they are targets for their would-be enemies. This is common sense. It's odd for citizens to claim impartiality when they elect those in power to carry out their will.

In the end, a civilian, in a civic society, is the government. Hence they are targets. You and your Western cohorts may feel otherwise and I may not convince you otherwise, but that shouldn't be the point of this debate. The point is to learn the cultures of others so you can understand their ways. If you refuse to accept that and insist that they abide by your morals and dogmas, then you are quite ignorant.


You?re right Suicide bombing is self-sacrifice. But it depends what you are targeting. If you believe that targeting innocent civilians in Iraq is an honorable way to die, I have to disagree. To me that is unethical even in Islam. These acts are committed in the name of hate nothing more, you know that better than me. It seems that the supporters of these acts target a Muslim sect based only on hatred.

Blowing yourself up in a mosque is not honorable act. Killing or beheading innocent women and children is not an honorable act. Killing someone based on he?s sect is not an honorable act. It?s a cowered act.
 

Vich

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,849
1
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Wow Jhhnn you really are dumb. Infidels are anyone who are of non-Islamic faith therefore they are Christians and jews.

Your ignorance is profound, Vich, and arrogant at the same time.

Notable messengers include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, all belonging to a succession of men guided by God. Islam demands that a believer accept all of the Judeo-Christian prophets, making no distinction between them. In the Qur'an, 25 specific prophets are mentioned.

Historically, Islamic scholars have agreed that the Qur'an gives "People of the Book" special status, allowing those who live in Muslim lands (called dhimmi?protected people) to practice their own religions and to own property. People of the Book were not subject to certain Islamic rules, such as the prohibitions on alcohol and pork. Under the Islamic state, they were exempt from the draft, but were required to pay a tax known as jizyah, part of which went to charity and part to finance churches and synagogues. (They were, however, exempt from the zakat required of Muslims.) This agreement has in the past led to Islamic countries practicing religious toleration for Christians and Jews, although they were never accorded the full status enjoyed by Muslims.

Which is the rationale for the historical examples I cited, earlier.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/religion-islam-muslim-islamic-quran.htm

Just one source. I could cover several pages with more of the same, but it won't matter to you, anyway. Believe what you want, in the face of all reason, but be aware that your attempts to proselytize are pretty pathetic.
LOL. I cannot respond to your ignorance, because once again you failed to re-read what i previously posted.

Under Islamic doctrine of naksh, or "abrogation", when there is a contradiction between verses in the Koran, the later verse supersedes the earlier verse. This can be found in sura 2:106, and sura 16:101.

The verses from the "people of the book" are therefore negligible. I did not think you were so stupid as to overlook this after i asked you to re-read it 5 times now.

Now keep reading:

Sura 5:33 states that "For those who do not submit to Allah their punishment is...execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet, from the opposite sides, or exile form the land."

Sura 9 verse 5 of the Koran says: "Fight and slay the pagans (Pagas are again Jews, Christians, and other non-muslims) wherever you find them and see them, belittle them and lie and wait for them in every strategy of war."

THEREFORE Under Islamic doctrine of naksh or "abrogation" verses 9:5 and 5:33, all by themselves, supersede and cancel at least 124 earlier verses in which Muhammad preached patience and tolerance. For Muhammad and Islam, the revelations of violent jihad replaced the revelations of peace.

Got it?

GG /thread

Didn't think I had to explain it over 5 times. Maybe its finally through your thick skull.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: MegaWorks
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
Wow, I'm blown away!
What a decadent postal system is in the West.

Anyway, I guess you still don't get the difference between self-sacrifice and suicide bombing civilians.
Here's a challenge for you: show to me the honor in the murder of all the civilians in Iraq.

Suicide bombing is self-sacrifice. You see, when you blow yourself up, you die. You and anybody within your vicinity. I hope you have the intelligence to comprehend that.

Like I said earlier, the comraderie an individual feels for his country can be extended to his co-religionist. Martyrdom operations are one of many weapons that the fighters can use in Iraq. They don't give a damn whether or not you find it disgusting. To them, it's an honorable way to die. As for killing civilians, since they legitimize a democratic government by empowering it, they are targets for their would-be enemies. This is common sense. It's odd for citizens to claim impartiality when they elect those in power to carry out their will.

In the end, a civilian, in a civic society, is the government. Hence they are targets. You and your Western cohorts may feel otherwise and I may not convince you otherwise, but that shouldn't be the point of this debate. The point is to learn the cultures of others so you can understand their ways. If you refuse to accept that and insist that they abide by your morals and dogmas, then you are quite ignorant.


You?re right Suicide bombing is self-sacrifice. But it depends what you are targeting. If you believe that targeting innocent civilians in Iraq is an honorable way to die, I have to disagree. To me that is unethical even in Islam. These acts are committed in the name of hate nothing more, you know that better than me. It seems that the supporters of these acts target a Muslim sect based only on hatred.

Blowing yourself up in a mosque is not honorable act. Killing or beheading innocent women and children is not an honorable act. Killing someone based on he?s sect is not an honorable act. It?s a cowered act.

That's your opinion. They have their own. I'm just taking you on a journey through their mind.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
In the end, a civilian, in a civic society, is the government. Hence they are targets. You and your Western cohorts may feel otherwise and I may not convince you otherwise, but that shouldn't be the point of this debate. The point is to learn the cultures of others so you can understand their ways. If you refuse to accept that and insist that they abide by your morals and dogmas, then you are quite ignorant.

Rigghhttt......
Too bad you flipped flopped as quickly you could when someone suggested that the entire US is responsible for Iraq, and that only the leadership should be held responsible.

Guess you wouldn't want an Iraqi insurgent "self-sacrificing" himself in your neighborhood, but it would be absolutely legit if he went to Congress, right?

Here you go: I'm sure these kids felt it was their duty :roll:

Well, let me spell it out for you, since you just don't get it: an example of self-sacrifice is a soldier manning the machine gun while his comrades retreat knowing very well that his chances are slim; another example would be Alexander Matrosov.
Suicide-bombing on the other hand, in the Middle East -- where the cultures you glorify reside -- have targeted civilians almost exclusively. There is no higher, noble purpose in such action, and is simply murder; it is basically the equivalent of an orthodox terrorist attack, only with certain death for the terrorist -- it's still terrorism, and it's still murder.

Also, you included the Japanese in your ghoulish attempt to glorify suicide bombings, but the problem is that the self-sacrifice they performed was against soldiers, e.g. kamikaze planes, going with a sword against a rifles, etc.

That's your opinion. They have their own. I'm just taking you on a journey through their mind.

Heh... Now you're a expert on the matter.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious regarding suicide bombers and their twisted mind.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Crazee
An Israeli says the The Problem with Israel is the Israelis.

*Yawn*

Not quite sure what this guy is aiming for, but he seems to be skipping over the war in 1967 and 1973. This never would have been an issue if it weren't for those two wars, and constant cross border incursions by the PLO and it's predecessors even prior to 1967.

Given that Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1951, the terror was never about a Palestinian state; while the product of the terror and the war in 1973 was that Israel is very wary to make quick transitions, and allow the PA full autonomy.

All of this could've ended with the war in 1949, but it was the Arabs that didn't want to let it go.

A point of interest is the claim regarding the Jarring Commission: according to the actual letters it doesn't seem like Egypt wanted peace; it merely wanted its land back, while giving it's promise for no future agression. What's more ridicilous is that this guy is surprised that after the war Israel would dare to "summarily dismiss" peace overtures.

Dunno, seems like this guy oversimplified the events to fit his needs.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Narmer
In the end, a civilian, in a civic society, is the government. Hence they are targets. You and your Western cohorts may feel otherwise and I may not convince you otherwise, but that shouldn't be the point of this debate. The point is to learn the cultures of others so you can understand their ways. If you refuse to accept that and insist that they abide by your morals and dogmas, then you are quite ignorant.

Rigghhttt......
Too bad you flipped flopped as quickly you could when someone suggested that the entire US is responsible for Iraq, and that only the leadership should be held responsible.

Guess you wouldn't want an Iraqi insurgent "self-sacrificing" himself in your neighborhood, but it would be absolutely legit if he went to Congress, right?

Here you go: I'm sure these kids felt it was their duty :roll:

Well, let me spell it out for you, since you just don't get it: an example of self-sacrifice is a soldier manning the machine gun while his comrades retreat knowing very well that his chances are slim; another example would be Alexander Matrosov.
Suicide-bombing on the other hand, in the Middle East -- where the cultures you glorify reside -- have targeted civilians almost exclusively. There is no higher, noble purpose in such action, and is simply murder; it is basically the equivalent of an orthodox terrorist attack, only with certain death for the terrorist -- it's still terrorism, and it's still murder.

Also, you included the Japanese in your ghoulish attempt to glorify suicide bombings, but the problem is that the self-sacrifice they performed was against soldiers, e.g. kamikaze planes, going with a sword against a rifles, etc.

That's your opinion. They have their own. I'm just taking you on a journey through their mind.

Heh... Now you're a expert on the matter.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious regarding suicide bombers and their twisted mind.

I would totally understand if insurgents came here and started killing Americans, just like they did on 9/11. As for that "flip-flopping", I was pointing out someone else's opinion. However, I did not vote for this current administration, but it doesn't matter because we're all responsible for this travesty. Nevertheless, like I said in that other thread, the government should be the first in line to take the hit. They are ultimately responsible. History has proven me right since it is usually government agents that are the first to die in a conflict. Eventually, the insurgents go for the low-hanging fruit.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.
 

Crazee

Elite Member
Nov 20, 2001
5,736
0
76
Originally posted by: dna
*Yawn*

Not quite sure what this guy is aiming for, but he seems to be skipping over the war in 1967 and 1973. This never would have been an issue if it weren't for those two wars, and constant cross border incursions by the PLO and it's predecessors even prior to 1967.

Given that Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1951, the terror was never about a Palestinian state; while the product of the terror and the war in 1973 was that Israel is very wary to make quick transitions, and allow the PA full autonomy.

All of this could've ended with the war in 1949, but it was the Arabs that didn't want to let it go.

A point of interest is the claim regarding the Jarring Commission: according to the actual letters it doesn't seem like Egypt wanted peace; it merely wanted its land back, while giving it's promise for no future agression. What's more ridicilous is that this guy is surprised that after the war Israel would dare to "summarily dismiss" peace overtures.

Dunno, seems like this guy oversimplified the events to fit his needs.

Please explain to me what Jeff Halper, a professor at Ben Gurion University has to gain by "oversimplifying events to meet his needs?"

And then please explain to me how the things that Rabbi Hier wrote weren't gross oversimplifications of events to meet his needs?
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Dunno what's his agenda -- plenty of wackos out there, like Neturei Karta.

I pointed out one problem with his claims, and other facts that most likely played into Israel's reluctance to rush forward.

I'll say it again: it is simply ridicilous to chastize Israel's prime minister for not rushing into a supposed "peace" after the 1973 war. Given such statments, I see little reason to give much credence to the rest of his essay.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.
 

Vich

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,849
1
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.

Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.

Judging by your most recent posts, you fit that category as well. You're both sub-par in terms of the intellectual capacity to reason and comprehened disparate situations.
 

Vich

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,849
1
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.

Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.

Judging by your most recent posts, you fit that category as well. You're both sub-par in terms of the intellectual capacity to reason and comprehened disparate situations.

Judging by my posts I back everything up with actual verses from the Koran to support my arguments. What do you use? Liberal and islamofascist skullduggery.

And its "comprehend" not comprehened.

 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.

Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.

Judging by your most recent posts, you fit that category as well. You're both sub-par in terms of the intellectual capacity to reason and comprehened disparate situations.

Judging by my posts I back everything up with actual verses from the Koran to support my arguments. What do you use? Liberal and islamofascist skullduggery.

And its "comprehend" not comprehened.

Ooooh...you can spell. I'll give you a cookie for that.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with the Koran. And everything to do with common sense and observation. Everything you learn doesn't have to come from some book or classroom, it comes from the real world. If there's anything here that I've said that is incorrect, then point it out to me, please. Perhaps, unlike DNA, I can learn from you. Otherwise, accept my observations for what they are. Of course, that means you need to accept reality and stop arguing over facts. If you have an opinion, I'm not interested. Just state where I'm wrong and why based on your facts.
 

Vich

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,849
1
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.

Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.

Judging by your most recent posts, you fit that category as well. You're both sub-par in terms of the intellectual capacity to reason and comprehened disparate situations.

Judging by my posts I back everything up with actual verses from the Koran to support my arguments. What do you use? Liberal and islamofascist skullduggery.

And its "comprehend" not comprehened.

Ooooh...you can spell. I'll give you a cookie for that.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with the Koran. And everything to do with common sense and observation. Everything you learn doesn't have to come from some book or classroom, it comes from the real world. If there's anything here that I've said that is incorrect, then point it out to me, please. Perhaps, unlike DNA, I can learn from you. Otherwise, accept my observations for what they are. Of course, that means you need to accept reality and stop arguing over facts. If you have an opinion, I'm not interested. Just state where I'm wrong and why based on your facts.

Wow that statement alone proves you are an imbecile. If you read the Koran you would know why Muslims act the way they do. And this proves you overlooked every post i have made because they all included verses and facts about the koran and its teachings. Dont ignore facts if you disagree with them Namer, it just makes you look like a child.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

That's right Mr. Intellectual Capacity, an organization of terrorists targetting civilians is the same as Japanese soldiers targetting enemy ships, not to mention that Osama and his pals are the equivalent of a nation state like Japan :roll:

Too bad you're too obsessed with your alleged IQ to notice thet you're giving terrorist organizations the same legitimacy nations have. I suppose soon enough you'll tell us that the likes of Osama Bin Laden should be given some seats at the UN.

BTW, I noticed how carefully you ordered the targets of suicide bombers in Iraq -- disingenuous, but still careful enough to support your own claims.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Vich
Instead of pasting some 10 page essay and saying 'you're wrong" why dont you give us some clifs.

From the small amount i read this article is pointing fingers at Barak and Clinton for pressuring Arafat.

Oh to bad the most vile terrorist leader was getting pushed into a corner. After all the media propaganda swirled out by the PLO on how the Israelis are killing and pushing into innocent lebanon back in the 80's I dont mind Arafat getting a taste of his own medicine.

here are a few facts I have posted again and again

from
http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

Now tell me if you get back to reality, is that a viable state?


where are those maps from? source please? as far as i know no official maps were released as its stupid to release a bargaining chip so they can simply ask for more. as far as i can tell the maps released were whatever the palestinians wanted them to be, arafat released whatever would seem like a good excuse for him spitting in the face of peace. clinton blamed the failures on arafat, i think i trust him over arafat.


from dennis ross's book, he was lead us envoy to the middle east during the time in question.
http://supernatural.blogs.com/weblog/2005/02/the_rejected_ma.html
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Historically, Islamic scholars have agreed that the Qur'an gives "People of the Book" special status, allowing those who live in Muslim lands (called dhimmi?protected people) to practice their own religions and to own property. People of the Book were not subject to certain Islamic rules, such as the prohibitions on alcohol and pork. Under the Islamic state, they were exempt from the draft, but were required to pay a tax known as jizyah, part of which went to charity and part to finance churches and synagogues. (They were, however, exempt from the zakat required of Muslims.) This agreement has in the past led to Islamic countries practicing religious toleration for Christians and Jews, although they were never accorded the full status enjoyed by Muslims.

white washing scipture that decrees that other people are to be treated as second class citizens. pretty sad stuff if it comes from a god, what a turd really. no respect is deserved at all fur such things. making excuses for oppression is pretty sad. frankly this attitude enforced by the koran is what creates all this violence, it is an attitude of superiority to other religions which are at best their slaves.

"IT IS LONG PAST time to bring the world's attention to a global scandal.

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.

If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience. Some even actively identified with the dominant class, and became strenuous advocates for it.

Spearheaded by dhimmi academics and self-serving advocacy groups, that same attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, school textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash.

But in this era of global terrorism it must be said: this silence, this distortion, has become deadly. Before 9/11 it was easy to ignore and whitewash dhimmitude, but the atrocities changed the situation forever. In jihads throughout history, untold millions have died. Tens of millions have been uprooted from their homes. Tens of millions have been stripped of their cultural identity. To continue to gloss over the destruction wrought by jihad ideology and its attendant evil of dhimmitude is today to play into the hands of jihadists, who have repeatedly vowed to dhimmify the West and destroy any recalcitrant elements. While jihadist groups, even with their global diffusion, are not strong enough to realize this goal by themselves, they have a potent and destructive ally, a genuine fifth column, in the dhimmi academics and dhimmi journalists they have recruited in the West. They have succeeded in confusing millions in the West into mistaking honesty and truthfulness for bigotry, and self-defense for oppression.

Before it's too late for Western Europe and the United States, which gave birth to the traditions of freedom and equality of rights for all that shine today as lights in the entire world, this must be stopped. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to:

* The plight of the dhimmis, an immense but almost completely ignored ongoing scandal that continues in Muslim countries today;
* The plight of women under Sharia provisions, similar to conditions imposed on dhimmis, in the denial of equal rights and dignity;
* Slavery in Islamic lands, which continues today, justified by Sharia-'s dhimmi codes;
* The integral role of jihad and dhimmitude ideology in global terrorism today;
* The license that academic and journalistic whitewashes of dhimmitude gives to radical jihadist enemies of human rights for all.

Dhimmi Watch fights to ensure that deeds done in the darkness for so long will not continue to be done. The light of world attention is anathema to the proponents of jihad and dhimmitude: we have seen in recent years that women sentenced to stoning for adultery, often victims of rape unjustly accused thanks to Sharia laws disallowing rape victims' testimony, were freed following international outcry. Dhimmi Watch will seek to provoke similar, continuous and increasing outcry wherever and whenever the Sharia's institutionalized injustices threaten dhimmis and women.

May the truth prevail." http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/why-dhimmi.htm

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
MYTH

?As ??People of the Book,?? Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.?

FACT

This argument is rooted in the traditional concept of the ?dhimma? (?writ of protection?), which was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Yet, as French authority Jacques Ellul has observed: ?One must ask:?protected against whom?? When this ??stranger?? lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves.?27

Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were usually allowed, as dhimmis (protected persons), to practice their faith. This ?protection? did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to acknowledge openly the superiority of the true believer ? the Muslim.

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the ?tribute? (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi.28

Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims, or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non-Muslim as a wife).

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were forced to wear distinctive clothing and were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices ? as that might offend -11-14T11:11"theMuslims. The dhimmi also had to show public deference toward Muslims; for example, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.29

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.30


MYTH

?Jews who lived in Islamic countries were well-treated by the Arabs.?

FACT

While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: ?The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.?17

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, traveled to Medina in 622 A.D. to attract followers to his new faith. When the Jews of Medina refused to recognize Muhammad as their Prophet, two of the major Jewish tribes were expelled. In 627, Muhammad?s followers killed between 600 and 900 of the men, and divided the surviving Jewish women and children amongst themselves.18

The Muslim attitude toward Jews is reflected in various verses throughout the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. ?They [the Children of Israel] were consigned to humiliation and wretchedness. They brought the wrath of God upon themselves, and this because they used to deny God?s signs and kill His Prophets unjustly and because they disobeyed and were transgressors? (Sura 2:61). According to the Koran, the Jews try to introduce corruption (5:64), have always been disobedient (5:78), and are enemies of Allah, the Prophet and the angels (2:97-98).

Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. In the ninth century, Baghdad?s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.19

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands lived in relative peace and thrived culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results. On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in ?an offensive manner.? The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.20

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by the Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830; and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.21

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854­-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran?s prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).22

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.23

As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:

It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.24

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: ?Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world.?25

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940?s in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.26 This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/TreatmentofJews.html#n3
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.

Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.

Judging by your most recent posts, you fit that category as well. You're both sub-par in terms of the intellectual capacity to reason and comprehened disparate situations.

Judging by my posts I back everything up with actual verses from the Koran to support my arguments. What do you use? Liberal and islamofascist skullduggery.

And its "comprehend" not comprehened.

Ooooh...you can spell. I'll give you a cookie for that.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with the Koran. And everything to do with common sense and observation. Everything you learn doesn't have to come from some book or classroom, it comes from the real world. If there's anything here that I've said that is incorrect, then point it out to me, please. Perhaps, unlike DNA, I can learn from you. Otherwise, accept my observations for what they are. Of course, that means you need to accept reality and stop arguing over facts. If you have an opinion, I'm not interested. Just state where I'm wrong and why based on your facts.

Wow that statement alone proves you are an imbecile. If you read the Koran you would know why Muslims act the way they do. And this proves you overlooked every post i have made because they all included verses and facts about the koran and its teachings. Dont ignore facts if you disagree with them Namer, it just makes you look like a child.

Idiot. Not all Muslims act like that. Black Muslims (sub-Saharran Africans) DO NOT act like that. They read the same Koran. It is mainly Muslims from the East.

Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Narmer
Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

That's right Mr. Intellectual Capacity, an organization of terrorists targetting civilians is the same as Japanese soldiers targetting enemy ships, not to mention that Osama and his pals are the equivalent of a nation state like Japan :roll:

Too bad you're too obsessed with your alleged IQ to notice thet you're giving terrorist organizations the same legitimacy nations have. I suppose soon enough you'll tell us that the likes of Osama Bin Laden should be given some seats at the UN.

BTW, I noticed how carefully you ordered the targets of suicide bombers in Iraq -- disingenuous, but still careful enough to support your own claims.

Like I said earlier, none of those people give a damn whether or not you accept their way of fighting. But culturally, they are all the same. This has little to do with faith and everything to do with cultural perceptions and acceptance. You and your little friend think that Muslims in general do these things, and I'm trying to point out that it is not an Islamic exercise, but an Eastern way. As I've told him, African Muslims would never act this way.

 

Vich

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2000
2,849
1
0
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.

Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.

Judging by your most recent posts, you fit that category as well. You're both sub-par in terms of the intellectual capacity to reason and comprehened disparate situations.

Judging by my posts I back everything up with actual verses from the Koran to support my arguments. What do you use? Liberal and islamofascist skullduggery.

And its "comprehend" not comprehened.

Ooooh...you can spell. I'll give you a cookie for that.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with the Koran. And everything to do with common sense and observation. Everything you learn doesn't have to come from some book or classroom, it comes from the real world. If there's anything here that I've said that is incorrect, then point it out to me, please. Perhaps, unlike DNA, I can learn from you. Otherwise, accept my observations for what they are. Of course, that means you need to accept reality and stop arguing over facts. If you have an opinion, I'm not interested. Just state where I'm wrong and why based on your facts.

Wow that statement alone proves you are an imbecile. If you read the Koran you would know why Muslims act the way they do. And this proves you overlooked every post i have made because they all included verses and facts about the koran and its teachings. Dont ignore facts if you disagree with them Namer, it just makes you look like a child.

Idiot. Not all Muslims act like that. Black Muslims (sub-Saharran Africans) DO NOT act like that. They read the same Koran. It is mainly Muslims from the East.

Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Narmer
Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

That's right Mr. Intellectual Capacity, an organization of terrorists targetting civilians is the same as Japanese soldiers targetting enemy ships, not to mention that Osama and his pals are the equivalent of a nation state like Japan :roll:

Too bad you're too obsessed with your alleged IQ to notice thet you're giving terrorist organizations the same legitimacy nations have. I suppose soon enough you'll tell us that the likes of Osama Bin Laden should be given some seats at the UN.

BTW, I noticed how carefully you ordered the targets of suicide bombers in Iraq -- disingenuous, but still careful enough to support your own claims.

Like I said earlier, none of those people give a damn whether or not you accept their way of fighting. But culturally, they are all the same. This has little to do with faith and everything to do with cultural perceptions and acceptance. You and your little friend think that Muslims in general do these things, and I'm trying to point out that it is not an Islamic exercise, but an Eastern way. As I've told him, African Muslims would never act this way.

Idiot. Not all Muslims act like that. Black Muslims (sub-Saharran Africans) DO NOT act like that. They read the same Koran. It is mainly Muslims from the East.
As I've told him, African Muslims would never act this way.

Unfortunately many of the "African Muslims" you describe are in the Janjaweed and Sudanese armed forces. Although many of the Janjaweed are of Arabic origin many are Muslims africans aswell.

"Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African and Muslim - just like Darfur's non-Arabs, who hail from the Fur, Masalit, Zaghawa and a dozen smaller tribes..--Emily Wax, "In Sudan, Death and Denial," Washington Post, June 27, 2004"
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I suppose that by your post-graduate "logic" Shiites would be justified on embarking on terror bombings in the UK, as they are the ones who put the Sunnis in power.

Nevertheless, you are right, these conversation are tedious, since you're the one who believes that your some sort of an expert on "Eastern" cultures. I'm sure that some nationalistic Japanese would be thrilled to hear your theory equating true self-sacrifice by their parents or grandparents during WW2, to that of suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Yep, you're quite a master of your domain.

Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

Originally posted by: Vich
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
I can't say that I'm surprised that you would "understand" the insurgents coming here.
However, what will they be coming here for? Willl Shiites come here to avenge the death of their commrades at the hand of insurgents? Or will it be Sunnis to avenge deaths at the hands of Shiite death squads?

Like it or not, the majority of Iraqis did want Saddam out, and this Iraqi MP expresses it beautifully.
If he were not taken out, people would still be getting killed, just not on live TV, so you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Anyway, history hasn't proven you right -- that's called 20/20 hindsight, and has very little with your preceding statement regarding goverment the first to take the hit.

Sunnis would come here, not Shiites. The Sunnis wanted him in power, the Shi'ites did not.

If you are an American that is well-versed in our foreign policy and you still express surprise that 9/11 or its equivalents would happen, then you are an absolute fool. Having these conversations with you is exhaustive not because of the intellectual adventure we endeavour (we don't) but because of the hand-holding I have to do. It's akin to teaching someone the logic of simple addition in a post-graduate environment. You're too stupid to be a part of this conversation. So, get up out of that chair, and return to your lemming-esque boarding school where you know everything but learn nothing.

No reason to start putting dna down and calling him stupid.

You are the stupid one for initiating personal attacks when your arguments no longer speak for themselves.

Judging by your most recent posts, you fit that category as well. You're both sub-par in terms of the intellectual capacity to reason and comprehened disparate situations.

Judging by my posts I back everything up with actual verses from the Koran to support my arguments. What do you use? Liberal and islamofascist skullduggery.

And its "comprehend" not comprehened.

Ooooh...you can spell. I'll give you a cookie for that.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with the Koran. And everything to do with common sense and observation. Everything you learn doesn't have to come from some book or classroom, it comes from the real world. If there's anything here that I've said that is incorrect, then point it out to me, please. Perhaps, unlike DNA, I can learn from you. Otherwise, accept my observations for what they are. Of course, that means you need to accept reality and stop arguing over facts. If you have an opinion, I'm not interested. Just state where I'm wrong and why based on your facts.

Wow that statement alone proves you are an imbecile. If you read the Koran you would know why Muslims act the way they do. And this proves you overlooked every post i have made because they all included verses and facts about the koran and its teachings. Dont ignore facts if you disagree with them Namer, it just makes you look like a child.

Idiot. Not all Muslims act like that. Black Muslims (sub-Saharran Africans) DO NOT act like that. They read the same Koran. It is mainly Muslims from the East.

Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Narmer
Let's see here...

A Japanese kami-kaze flies a plane full of explosives into an American battleship because the two nations are at war.

Al Qaeda flies multiple planes into multiple American targets five years after declaring war on America.

Suicide bombers in Iraq target American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and anyone in favor of the occupation in the Iraq War.

Yeah, you're right. They are all totally different and one is better than the other.

That's right Mr. Intellectual Capacity, an organization of terrorists targetting civilians is the same as Japanese soldiers targetting enemy ships, not to mention that Osama and his pals are the equivalent of a nation state like Japan :roll:

Too bad you're too obsessed with your alleged IQ to notice thet you're giving terrorist organizations the same legitimacy nations have. I suppose soon enough you'll tell us that the likes of Osama Bin Laden should be given some seats at the UN.

BTW, I noticed how carefully you ordered the targets of suicide bombers in Iraq -- disingenuous, but still careful enough to support your own claims.

Like I said earlier, none of those people give a damn whether or not you accept their way of fighting. But culturally, they are all the same. This has little to do with faith and everything to do with cultural perceptions and acceptance. You and your little friend think that Muslims in general do these things, and I'm trying to point out that it is not an Islamic exercise, but an Eastern way. As I've told him, African Muslims would never act this way.

Idiot. Not all Muslims act like that. Black Muslims (sub-Saharran Africans) DO NOT act like that. They read the same Koran. It is mainly Muslims from the East.
As I've told him, African Muslims would never act this way.

Unfortunately many of the "African Muslims" you describe are in the Janjaweed and Sudanese armed forces. Although many of the Janjaweed are of Arabic origin many are Muslims africans aswell.

"Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous, African and Muslim - just like Darfur's non-Arabs, who hail from the Fur, Masalit, Zaghawa and a dozen smaller tribes..--Emily Wax, "In Sudan, Death and Denial," Washington Post, June 27, 2004"

Those Muslims fighting that civil war in Sudan are not doing martyrdom operations. They are killing the old-fashion way and living (mostly) to fight another day. What does that have to do with our discussion of suicide bombers?