Who's the terrorist now?

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get through all 8 pages before typing this (I'll finish later), but here is my response to the OP.

My problems with Islam are multi-pronged. First, it comes to the fact that terrorism is acceptable. By terrorism I don't just mean guerilla attacks, but specifically targeting civilians. For example, I would not consider the attack on the USS Cole "terrorist," but club bombings are.

While other cultures certainly have an ample supply of loonies as well, Islam seems the most willing to accept the killing of innocent bystanders.

2) Israel certainly holds some fault in the palestinian conflict. They have been willing to share in the past, and I genuinely believe they would be willing to make concessions if they believed palestinians would give them lasting peace. Now consider the fact that many groups will not rest until Israel is driven into the sea. This duplicity tells me that there will never be peace in Israel, nor do they desire peace in Israel.

3) The lack of denouncing/controlling the fundamentalists by "moderate" muslims. In the US, if someone commits a terrorist attack, we go after them. See Timothy McVeigh as an example. In the muslim world, they seem to be given a free pass at the least, but the attack might even be celebrated. Muslims need to denounce this type of violence more than just saying "violence is bad, Islam is the religion of peace."

Those are my biggest problems with Islam, but not the only ones. If these were resolved, I could live with the rest.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Sultan
I thought you left. :)

Very few have replied to my original post. I argue that Iraq invasion is a terrorist action, and cite proof with the deinition of terrorism. I correct misinformation about my religion. I accept the shortcomings of the Muslim nations. I accept extremists elements exist in the Muslim people, and I also argue that similar extremist elements exist in other religions, at an equal level.

Now if you find something in the above that you disagree with, share it, rather than troll and scream "ban ban ban".
All right, I will reply to your post and my opinion might surprise you...

I wouldn't call the Iraq war a terrorist action. After 9/11 the US was ready to go to war with any country directly or indirectly connected to the attack. At the time it was reported that evidence showed Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack and Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. I think it was a mistake to go in without the support of many of our allies but that evidence was good enough for me to support the war. It's now over 2 years later and knowing what I know now I'm not going to defend the invasion of Iraq.

This war has cost many lives on both sides, billions of dollars that could've been put to better use, and turned the reputation of the US from world power to global bully. And the main reason - to provide a safer America - isn't a reailty today. It isn't even close. I don't think I'm any more safe than before and I believe I would be less safe as an American citizen traveling abroad because we've made new enemies. I'm only 38 years old but in my time never have I remember such a poor world opinion of this great country.

As far as your religion, I think you share the same problem as any fanatical follower defending their faith. You believe your faith is above all others and you (often rudely) put down others who don't share your opinion. Isn't there an old saying about never arguing politics and religion? See why?
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: EDoG2K
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: EDoG2K
Good post, Sultan, but I'm afraid you lost the moral high ground falling into the trap of personal attacks and trolling and trying to reply to every response, relevant or not.

Here's the main point as I see it:

Not all muslims are terrorist, so the American people shouldn't assume if someone is muslim he/she is a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. Right now the Americans have a very abrasive foreign policy due to the "Bush Doctrine", so more and more formerly law-abiding/freedom loving muslims are being alienated from the US and becoming more sympathetic to the 'terrorist' causes.

As for who is the terrorist, certain muslim factions use terrorism as a political tool and that is their way of furthering their agenda. They have certain resources and it is how they wage war; it is unfair and naive to expect Al-Queda/other organizations to face the US/Isreal head on in a conventional war.

I don't know if I would call the US a 'terrorist' in Iraq, but we are certainly killing people, and that is a problem. Especially when we never should be there to begin with. Terrorists? No, not really. Hostile occupying foreign invaders? Yup.

Moral high ground? Ha! Most of those who have posted on this thread have shown their Islamophobic attitude, insulted the religion, denigrated the Prophet of Islam and you're telling ME I have lost moral high ground? Thats hilarious.

I dont quite understand the point you are trying to make with the rest of the post. If a suicide bomber blows himself up in a cafe, he IS a terrorist. If a suicide bomber blows himself up at a checkpoint killing soldiers, then he is not a terrorist.

Similarly, if an IDF soldier kills a suicide bomber, he is not a terrorist, but if he kills a 13 year old girl and then proceeds to "confirm the kill", he is definitely a terrorist.

Therefore, both sides have terrorists.

Of course the US invasion in Iraq is a terrorist action. It was unlawful - no WMD existed, or were found, therefore Saddam abided by UN Resolutions of destroying WMD and programs. UN did NOT give authority to go to war. The UN Secretary General said it was unlawful. Period. This administration itself claims the invasion was to bring "democracy", "freedom", "liberation" to Iraq, all of which are ideological goals. They are being imposed by force. That is EXACTLY the definition of terrorism. Look it up.



By losing the moral high ground, I meant that you have the stronger arguement but you've allowed your anger and emotions to make you look like an angry extremist. So much anger, you didn't even realize I'm actually on your side. Good luck.

I appreciate your post, and thank you for suggesting you're on my side. I dont want to pick up allies, but want to understand other's view points and present my own. However, the degenerates here need to be repied in kind. As you can see, my reply to you was free of any insulting or derogatory remarks. Continue posting. Intelligent arguments are always welcome.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: ciba
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get through all 8 pages before typing this (I'll finish later), but here is my response to the OP.

My problems with Islam are multi-pronged. First, it comes to the fact that terrorism is acceptable. By terrorism I don't just mean guerilla attacks, but specifically targeting civilians. For example, I would not consider the attack on the USS Cole "terrorist," but club bombings are.

While other cultures certainly have an ample supply of loonies as well, Islam seems the most willing to accept the killing of innocent bystanders.

2) Israel certainly holds some fault in the palestinian conflict. They have been willing to share in the past, and I genuinely believe they would be willing to make concessions if they believed palestinians would give them lasting peace. Now consider the fact that many groups will not rest until Israel is driven into the sea. This duplicity tells me that there will never be peace in Israel, nor do they desire peace in Israel.

3) The lack of denouncing/controlling the fundamentalists by "moderate" muslims. In the US, if someone commits a terrorist attack, we go after them. See Timothy McVeigh as an example. In the muslim world, they seem to be given a free pass at the least, but the attack might even be celebrated. Muslims need to denounce this type of violence more than just saying "violence is bad, Islam is the religion of peace."

Those are my biggest problems with Islam, but not the only ones. If these were resolved, I could live with the rest.

Thank you also for your post.

I agree, terrorim is unacceptable and I agree with what you call terrorism.

Your third sentence bears no evidence to your claim.

Your comment about Israel is partially true. Israel has not "been willing to share", but have made concessions on their own terms. By the UN Resolutions, which Israel is obliged to follow, the Palestinians should be returned the land taken from them. The basis by which you claim "that many groups will not rest until Israel is driven into the sea" also has no evidence. The previous wars were a result of Israel's occupation and its Zionist agenda. All of that has come to pass. Israel's "enemies" like Egypt, Jordan and others have accepted the state of Israel and have normalized relations.

Your third point is also ridiculous and I have pointed many, many, MANY instances where Muslims have condemned in the harshest of words the actions of terrorists and terrorist actions such as 9/11, the Beslan tragedy and others. Muslim majority nations are also doing their utmost to controlling not the fundamentalists (which is an incorrect word) but extremists, such as Pakistan (apprehended many suspected Al-Qaeda elements, fighting in Waziristan), Indonesia (arrested suspects of Bali bombing), Saudi Arabia (tightening financial controls to restrict flow of money to terrorists), etc, etc, etc.

So now, since you have reversed the subject of my OP to your own questions, I would ask you to refute the contents of the first post, tell me why Muslims have suffered so horribly in the past 20 years, and why people like you have a problem with Islam when the followers of Islam have suffered terrorism.
 

MegaWorks

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
3,819
1
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Blah. I meant I could careless for people who wish that the other one's would just die. For example: Trente wishes death on all Palestinians/Muslims and is always jumping in every thread to defend Israel no matter what. If an Israeli kills a civilian he makes an excuse for it. Israel is never wrong in his eyes.

If a Palestinians blows himself up then someone is going to be like well they have no army. Israel has supressed them.

Never ending arguement. However, wishing the other side death is pointless. I could careless for taking sides in that matter. I have an opinion of the situation (they both suck). Not all Israelis/Palestinians are terrorist/killers. However the people that run both countries are horrible leaders.

Never can anyone justify murder. There is no way unless you are filled with hate.

I got a PM from someone calling me a non-Muslims for not defending Palestinians in a thread. Why should I defend them because I am Muslim and they are also Muslims? I notice some Jews defend Israel only because they are a Jew. That is really wrong in my eyes.

I completely agree with you Aimster, the problem is most user here on P&N defend there side as if they're never wrong, if it's like they're borne from haven. They deny the mistakes taking by there side, they even defend crimes againts innocent civilians!
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Funny you should ask but they are the ones giving the tape to ABC that says DON"T VOTE FOR BUSH WE WILL GET YOU!
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Sultan
I thought you left. :)

Very few have replied to my original post. I argue that Iraq invasion is a terrorist action, and cite proof with the deinition of terrorism. I correct misinformation about my religion. I accept the shortcomings of the Muslim nations. I accept extremists elements exist in the Muslim people, and I also argue that similar extremist elements exist in other religions, at an equal level.

Now if you find something in the above that you disagree with, share it, rather than troll and scream "ban ban ban".
All right, I will reply to your post and my opinion might surprise you...

I wouldn't call the Iraq war a terrorist action. After 9/11 the US was ready to go to war with any country directly or indirectly connected to the attack. At the time it was reported that evidence showed Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack and Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. I think it was a mistake to go in without the support of many of our allies but that evidence was good enough for me to support the war. It's now over 2 years later and knowing what I know now I'm not going to defend the invasion of Iraq.

This war has cost many lives on both sides, billions of dollars that could've been put to better use, and turned the reputation of the US from world power to global bully. And the main reason - to provide a safer America - isn't a reailty today. It isn't even close. I don't think I'm any more safe than before and I believe I would be less safe as an American citizen traveling abroad because we've made new enemies. I'm only 38 years old but in my time never have I remember such a poor world opinion of this great country.

As far as your religion, I think you share the same problem as any fanatical follower defending their faith. You believe your faith is above all others and you (often rudely) put down others who don't share your opinion. Isn't there an old saying about never arguing politics and religion? See why?

Your opinion does not surprise me and it follows my presumption that the US needs a common enemy every few years to stay under the blanket of scare tactics of the assumption.

Whatever so-called link you are stating between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before the invasion was disputable AT BEST. So please, stop lying to yourself, that would be a good start. The evidence of WMD was also false and was ridiculed the world over - like Mr. Powell's presentation to the UN General Assembly. The UN Secretary General HIMSELF said the war was illegal. The world supported us when we went to Afghanistan, hardly anyone supported us in the Iraq war.

Again, I repeat, "liberation", "democracy", "freedom" are ALL ideological objectives and imposition of them by force is the VERY definition of terrorism.

Your next paragraph is true and very well thought. It has no bearing on my original post but its true.

As far as my religion, I have no where claimed my religion is above the rest. I only lash out at the degenerates who choose to demonise my religion. Read Yolner's signature where he has insulted a Prophet of Islam. I dont do any such thing with your religion, or any other religion. So your accusation is a complete lie.

Thank you for a civil post.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Sultan
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Sultan
I thought you left. :)

Very few have replied to my original post. I argue that Iraq invasion is a terrorist action, and cite proof with the deinition of terrorism. I correct misinformation about my religion. I accept the shortcomings of the Muslim nations. I accept extremists elements exist in the Muslim people, and I also argue that similar extremist elements exist in other religions, at an equal level.

Now if you find something in the above that you disagree with, share it, rather than troll and scream "ban ban ban".
All right, I will reply to your post and my opinion might surprise you...

I wouldn't call the Iraq war a terrorist action. After 9/11 the US was ready to go to war with any country directly or indirectly connected to the attack. At the time it was reported that evidence showed Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack and Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. I think it was a mistake to go in without the support of many of our allies but that evidence was good enough for me to support the war. It's now over 2 years later and knowing what I know now I'm not going to defend the invasion of Iraq.

This war has cost many lives on both sides, billions of dollars that could've been put to better use, and turned the reputation of the US from world power to global bully. And the main reason - to provide a safer America - isn't a reailty today. It isn't even close. I don't think I'm any more safe than before and I believe I would be less safe as an American citizen traveling abroad because we've made new enemies. I'm only 38 years old but in my time never have I remember such a poor world opinion of this great country.

As far as your religion, I think you share the same problem as any fanatical follower defending their faith. You believe your faith is above all others and you (often rudely) put down others who don't share your opinion. Isn't there an old saying about never arguing politics and religion? See why?

Your opinion does not surprise me and it follows my presumption that the US needs a common enemy every few years to stay under the blanket of scare tactics of the assumption.

Whatever so-called link you are stating between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before the invasion was disputable AT BEST. So please, stop lying to yourself, that would be a good start. The evidence of WMD was also false and was ridiculed the world over - like Mr. Powell's presentation to the UN General Assembly. The UN Secretary General HIMSELF said the war was illegal. The world supported us when we went to Afghanistan, hardly anyone supported us in the Iraq war.

Again, I repeat, "liberation", "democracy", "freedom" are ALL ideological objectives and imposition of them by force is the VERY definition of terrorism.

Your next paragraph is true and very well thought. It has no bearing on my original post but its true.

As far as my religion, I have no where claimed my religion is above the rest. I only lash out at the degenerates who choose to demonise my religion. Read Yolner's signature where he has insulted a Prophet of Islam. I dont do any such thing with your religion, or any other religion. So your accusation is a complete lie.

Thank you for a civil post.
No offence but it's easy to say the evidence was disputable in hindsight. I based my comments and my support of the war on what was being reported at the time. Keep in mind that some of the harshest critics of the war were countries that had a personal interest in Iraq.

You say the war in Iraq is a terrorist action. I say no because the US is not deliberately killing innocent civilians. There are civilian casualties but that happens in war and steps are taken to reduce the number as much as possible. On the other hand, deliberately detonating a bomb in a public area with the intention of killing as many innocent people as possible in an effort to send a message is pretty much the definition of a terrorist act.

My accusation is not a lie because all religious fanatics think their religion is above the rest, including you. People mention terrorism and Islam in the same sentence and you come flying in to defend it. No one is saying all Muslims are terrorists - I'm sure you don't really think that. The point is many of the recent terrorist acts are being carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam. I don't see any US soldiers cutting the heads off Muslims and chanting "Praise Jesus" while being video taped then broadcasting it on TV and the 'net. I don't see the US soldiers in "jihad" against the Muslims in Iraq. The US is going after terrorists, not Muslims. The difference between a US soldier and a Muslim terrorist is a US soldier will kill a Muslim terrorist because they are a terrorist. A Muslim terrorist will kill any US citizen simply because they are an American - military or not. I think there's a big difference between the two.

Don't worry, you can not possibly insult my religion because I don't have one.
 

zzzz

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2000
5,498
1
76
* Kashmir - According to former State Minister of Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah?s 1996 statement estimated 50,000 killings "since the beginning of the uprising." People have still never been given the right to exercise their freedom of choice, and approximately 600000 Indian soldiers are stationed in Kashmir.
How many of the 50,000 are hindus? How many Hindus were driven out of the valley by the terrorists?
There were elections in J&K recently.
 

edmundoab

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2003
3,223
0
0
www.facebook.com
ahh in short, Asians get the target no matter what.
whether you are chinese, indian, malay, etc...
look at how we are being treated in the airport, gosh, they don't even treat you like a student.

I wonder after contributing to the US economy in that way, and this is the way we get treated back in appreciation.. sigh
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
No offence but it's easy to say the evidence was disputable in hindsight. I based my comments and my support of the war on what was being reported at the time. Keep in mind that some of the harshest critics of the war were countries that had a personal interest in Iraq.

You say the war in Iraq is a terrorist action. I say no because the US is not deliberately killing innocent civilians. There are civilian casualties but that happens in war and steps are taken to reduce the number as much as possible. On the other hand, deliberately detonating a bomb in a public area with the intention of killing as many innocent people as possible in an effort to send a message is pretty much the definition of a terrorist act.

My accusation is not a lie because all religious fanatics think their religion is above the rest, including you. People mention terrorism and Islam in the same sentence and you come flying in to defend it. No one is saying all Muslims are terrorists - I'm sure you don't really think that. The point is many of the recent terrorist acts are being carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam. I don't see any US soldiers cutting the heads off Muslims and chanting "Praise Jesus" while being video taped then broadcasting it on TV and the 'net. I don't see the US soldiers in "jihad" against the Muslims in Iraq. The US is going after terrorists, not Muslims. The difference between a US soldier and a Muslim terrorist is a US soldier will kill a Muslim terrorist because they are a terrorist. A Muslim terrorist will kill any US citizen simply because they are an American - military or not. I think there's a big difference between the two.
Don't worry, you can not possibly insult my religion because I don't have one.

No offence, but its easy to dismiss the disputable evidence as hindisght. Even BEFORE the invasion, there was no credibility to the reports of Al-Qaeda - Saddam/Iraq connection, nor was there any credibility to the charges of WMD. That is precisely why there was such an intense debate not only the world over, but here in the US itself which saw massive protests against the war even before the invasion started. Yes, some people like you did believe in the lies of the administration, but a significant number of Americans believed that the administration was falsifying the information. This number may have even exceeded the number of those who believed the administration.

Regardless, now that its proven that the war was based on false information, the current action no doubt is unlawful, the administration promotes ideological reasons, and therefore the CURRENT action is still a terrorist action. Even if you deny that the INITIAL reasons were disputable, the current reasons clearly prove that our continuing action in Iraq is a terrorist action.

You say that our action in Iraq is not a terrorist action because the US in not deliberately killing innocent civilians. Thats preposterous. Terrorism is NOT targetting innocent civilians. That's called MURDER. Here is the DEFINITION of terrorism which I have repeated again and again:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Do you see the word "killing" in the above definition?

Your assumptions of my "thinking" are ridiculous unless you are suggesting you are a psychic and can somehow read my mind. I believe in my religion. Period. I dont need to compare it to any other religion and have never made the attempt to do so. If you can find any such posts where I have compared Islam to other religions, please let me know. Until then, your accusation is still a lie.

As for your suggestion which claims "No one is saying all Muslims are terrorists", perhaps you should read the above posts because that is NOT the claim of my original post. Many terrorists attacks have been inflicted on Muslims, but Muslims dont blame Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any religion for such acts. What is apparent is the amount of Islamophobia in some on this forum who continue to believe that "Islam preaches hatred", "most Muslims hate America", etc, etc. Other comments include "all Muslims are in cahoots to take over the world with Islam, That would make sense as it's a tenet of the Muslim religion to do just that. ", "How about feeding the troops kids to a pack of hungry dogs? That seems about on par with Islamic justice." and thats a short list.

The point you made that "many of the recent terrorist acts are being carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam" and "I don't see the US soldiers in "jihad" against the Muslims in Iraq." is hilarious in light of Mr. Bush's crusade. Thats 100,000 dead in a crusade by one estimate, or 15000-37000 if you like by another estimate. Pat Robertson, another far right-wing Christian voice, called Muslims "worse than the Nazis.". Baptist minister Jerry Falwell felt he had the divine right to verbally attack the Islamic faith as a religion of pure evil. Many of South Asian origin were attacked post 9/11 here in the United States itself, including members of the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faith. Hey, did you see me calling Christians, Hindus, Jews, whatever terrorists? Even after the Oklahoma bombing, Muslims were targetted.

Balbir Singh Sodhi, a 49-year-old Sikh and father of three, was killed as he planted flowers at his gas station four days after the 11 September attacks.
Read more

The US itself is committing terrorism. Insurgents are not terrorists. You blame Zarqawi and his band terrorists because they beheaded Westerners like Ken Bigley and others? This may surprise you, but they have beheaded FAR more Muslims that Weesterners. They recently killed around 50 more Muslims who were police trainees. Are they still "Muslim terrorists"? They're just fvcked up individuals committing these horendous acts for their own personal motivations. Dont get me wrong, they are obviously committing a terrorist act, just as the US military, both using violence to achieve ideological or political gain.

The words you have chosen are very funny, since you seem to imply that US soldiers in Iraq are fighting terrorists only, thereby labelling all Iraqi insurgents as terrorists. Ridiculous. Anyone who wishes to fight against an occupation force thats on the opposite of your favorite side automatically becomes a "Muslim" terrorist while "Muslim" terrorists in Iraq kill US citizens only - and they are terrorists even if the US citizen in question is a military personnel.

The US has killed 100,000, or 15000-37000 if you like by another estimate. I cannot believe they were all terrorists. Just killing them is NOT terrorism. Read the definition of terrorism above. Terrorists are not only after American life, they are after Bosnian life, Iraqi life, Israeli life, Palestinian life, Chechnyan life, Russian life, Afghan life, etc, etc, etc. Just centering your entire premise that America is the only one under attack shows you dont fully comprehend the magnitude of the world's problems.

Dont worry, I dont want to, nor have insulted anyone's religion, and your religious orientation is absolutely no concern of mine.
 

LordPhoenix

Golden Member
Jul 1, 2004
1,341
0
0
Wow...... but weren't the 50 Iraqi police trainees shot in the head and not BEHEADED?

But it is true that the US has killed more than the terrorists.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
I really don't have the time or energy to debate you on this subject any further. As I said in a previous reply, you have your view and I have mine and nothing either of us says is going to change that. I think it's best just to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Sultan

Very few have replied to my original post. I argue that Iraq invasion is a terrorist action, and cite proof with the deinition of terrorism. I correct misinformation about my religion. I accept the shortcomings of the Muslim nations. I accept extremists elements exist in the Muslim people, and I also argue that similar extremist elements exist in other religions, at an equal level.

Now if you find something in the above that you disagree with, share it, rather than troll and scream "ban ban ban".

Calling the U.S. Terrorists is wrong. You cannot compare an Imperialistic invasion as the same as Terrorism.

You don't see the U.S. Military setting up roadside Bombs and killing anything that moves.

You should change the Thread Title.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: LordPhoenix
Wow...... but weren't the 50 Iraqi police trainees shot in the head and not BEHEADED?

But it is true that the US has killed more than the terrorists.

emm, relevance of this? the killing of policemen was NOT a terrorist attack. It was an action taken against men wearing uniform.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
I really don't have the time or energy to debate you on this subject any further. As I said in a previous reply, you have your view and I have mine and nothing either of us says is going to change that. I think it's best just to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

After I have defined terrorism, presented a valid case to show the current US action in Iraq is a terrorist action, showed that the acts of the terrorists who behead and kill people are not in accordance with Islamic principle, proved that Muslims have been on the receiving end of terrorism, not only in Iraq, but in Chechnya, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc, and yet their religion, culture and race is being demonised, you still disagree without presenting a valid argument. Please explain why. I cannot seem to understand your viewpoint. Disregard the Iraqi comment, as that was but one part of my original post. I would really like to hear your perspective.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Sultan

Very few have replied to my original post. I argue that Iraq invasion is a terrorist action, and cite proof with the deinition of terrorism. I correct misinformation about my religion. I accept the shortcomings of the Muslim nations. I accept extremists elements exist in the Muslim people, and I also argue that similar extremist elements exist in other religions, at an equal level.

Now if you find something in the above that you disagree with, share it, rather than troll and scream "ban ban ban".

Calling the U.S. Terrorists is wrong. You cannot compare an Imperialistic invasion as the same as Terrorism.

You don't see the U.S. Military setting up roadside Bombs and killing anything that moves.

You should change the Thread Title.

I did not call the US terrorists. I called the current Iraq conflict initiated by the US as a terrorist action. I have laid down the definition of terrorism given in Dictionary.com and have shown that the current motivations behind this action clearly constitutes terrorism.

By what notion do you believe setting up roadside bombs is terrorism? These roadside bombs are meant to target "coalition" military vehicles and personnel.

I dont know what you mean by "killing anything that moves". If you were more specific, I could reply to that. Many innocent civilians in Iraq were killed by checkpoints because soldiers raised their hands as an indication to stop. Raising hands in Iraq is a sign of greeting. People didnt stop, they were killed. Many cases like this have been reported. Is this what you mean by "killing anything that moves"?

The thread's title is fine. This current US action is PART of my original post. If you will read the original post, I have commented that Muslims have suffered in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, etc, etc, etc, and not all of the incidents were related to American action.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Sultan, you are appologizing for your fellow muslim thugs *aka terrorists*.

tell your bs to the family of the woman who is held hostage in Iraq. muslim thugs are threatening to behead her .... this is a middle age woman!!! who is trying to help IRAQIS!

im sick of these people siding with terrorists
 

LordPhoenix

Golden Member
Jul 1, 2004
1,341
0
0
"Sultan, you are appologizing for your fellow muslim thugs *aka terrorists*.

tell your bs to the family of the woman who is held hostage in Iraq. muslim thugs are threatening to behead her .... this is a middle age woman!!! who is trying to help IRAQIS!

im sick of these people siding with terrorists "


If the US wouldn't put their foot in Iraq there wouldn't be beheadings.

US strikes first.
Terrorists just strike back.
It's the US' fault for putting their foot in Iraq and you're acting like that is the only innocent person.
More innocent non-americans were killed so I don't know what you're talking about.

Here's an example...

Let's switch the countries around. Iraq is America and America is Iraq. Iraq decides to invade America for no reason. America "fights back" and i KNOW FOR SURE you wouldn't call that terrorism. While I don't support terrorism I still believe the fact that the beheadings wouldn't have been if it wasn't for the invasion and it's America's fault that Americans are being beheaded. It's as simple as that.
 

Finalnight

Golden Member
Mar 5, 2003
1,891
1
76
Originally posted by: faiznne
From an article, I wrote a couple of year ago...

Interestingly enough, Islam is much closer to Christianity than Judaism. For instance, Judaism condemns the Virgin Mary as a prostitute and viciously condemns Jesus an evil sorcerer and a bastard. The Talmud even claims Jesus was a sexual pervert who had intercourse relations with his donkey. In stark contrast, although Islam certainly does not share all the Christian views of Jesus Christ, it views Christ as a true prophet of God, virgin-born, and that God resurrected Jesus to Heaven, where he will return to destroy the anti-Christ. Ironically, the chief religious book of Islam, the Qur'an, actually defends Jesus Christ from the obscene slanders made against Him in the Jewish Talmud.

I know that I am shocking many of you who are hearing this for the first time. I am sure some of you are thinking that this cannot be true! I don't blame you for thinking so because many of you have never been told of these facts by the Jewish-dominated media or by the televangelists. So, I will document these things for you right now in the little space I have here.

The Talmud not the Torah (Bible) is the chief authority of Judaism.

Most Christians are under the impression that Judaism is primarily based on the biblical Old Testament. Actually, the ultimate authority for Judaism is not the Bible but on what they call the Babylonian Talmud, a series of writings set down in Babylon in the sixth century after Christ. The American Heritage Dictionary describes the Talmud as "constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism." The authoritative Universal Jewish Encyclopedia compiled by the leading Rabbinic organizations of the world, makes it very clear that the Talmud, not the Torah or Old Testament, is the supreme authority for Judaism. Thus, the ultimate authority for Orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory. (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, "Authority," pg. 637)2

What does the Talmud, the chief authority of Judaism, have to say about Jesus Christ?

?Balaam [Jesus] fornicated with his jackass. (Sanhedrin 105a-b)3?
?Jewish priests raised Balaam [Jesus] from the dead and punished him in boiling hot semen. (57a Gittin)4?
?She who was the descendant of princes and governors [The Virgin Mary] played the harlot with a carpenter. (Sanhedrin 106a) [Jesus] was lowered into a pit of dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. (Sanhedrin 52b) 5?


Now obviously, I am not saying that all Jews share this hateful attitude toward Jesus Christ, but the official position of Judaism is defined by the quotations I just read. Obviously, it is important that Jewish groups don't let Christians know the truth about the hateful Judaic attitude toward Jesus Christ. Some Jews seek to deflect Christian criticism by saying that Balaam was not the name that Jews used to denote Christ. Yet, no less a major authority than the Jewish Encyclopedia, an encyclopedia compiled by the leading rabbinic organizations in the world, says that Balaam is the name they use to denote Jesus Christ. Under the heading "Balaam," it says, "?the pseudonym 'Balaam' given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a."6 Such use of deceptive terms such as "Balaam" was a common practice in the middle ages as Jews tried to disguise their anti-Jesus and anti-Christian hatred from Gentiles who might dare to pry into the Talmud.

Now some Christians might think that these are simply old beliefs of the Jewish religion, and that Judaism might have softened its attitudes toward Jesus Christ and Christians. In fact, these are the formal policies of the Israeli state. In fact, In Jewish schools in Israel it is forbidden to even read from the New Testament gospels or even mention the name of Jesus Christ. It is even a criminal offense in Israel for a Christian to preach the salvation of Jesus Christ to a Jew. Israel so hates the Christian cross that they have specified that elementary schools use a "T" instead of a plus sign because it so resembles the hated Christian cross! The Israeli government has even supported public burnings of the New Testament!

One of the Jews I have most respected, the man to whom I dedicated my book, Jewish Supremacism, is the late Dr. Israel Shahak. He was a holocaust survivor and professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Professor Shahak reported that the Zionists publicly and ceremoniously burned hundreds of copies of the New Testament in Jerusalem on March 23, 1980. They were destroyed under the auspices of Yad Le'akhim, a Jewish religious organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions.

Judaism is imbued with a very deep hatred toward Christianity and Islam combined with ignorance about it?

According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources that mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the Talmudic account, the Romans are not even mentioned. . .

The very name Jesus was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable, and this popular tradition persists. The Gospels are equally detested, and they are not allowed to be quoted (let alone taught) even in modern Israeli schools. 8

To think that this is the same anti-Christian, Israeli government that some Christian ministers wants us to support with American tax dollars! Dr. Shahak also exposes the vicious hatred against Christians taught to Jewish Children in Israel:

Jewish children are actually taught - passages such as that which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if it is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead if it is non-Jewish. . . it became customary to spit (usually three times) upon seeing a church or a crucifix ...9

Imagine for a moment if Christians were taught that when they pass Jewish cemeteries they should "curse the mothers of the dead" and that they should spit three times when seeing a synagogue or a Star of David. Would not the media react to that kind of vicious hatred with outrage? Evangelical leaders such as Falwell would forcefully condemn Christians who would utter such vile curses against Jews, but why don't they dare condemn the hatred of Jews who utter vile curses against Christians.

Not only does Israel act against Christianity, so does every major organized Jewish group in the United States. The American Jewish Committee, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Birth) and a host of other Jewish organizations in America have been at the forefront destroying Christian traditions in the United States. They have led the fight, to not only ban simple prayers in school, but also even to prohibit Christmas carols to be sung in schools or in any public facility. They have been the leaders of the movement for legalized abortion, something that every evangelical opposes.

They have been at the forefront of the cultural war that Jewish Hollywood has waged against Christian tradition, belief and ethics. Jews also led early Bolshevism in Russia, which were the greatest suppresser and mass murderer of Christians in the history of the world. The Jewish Bolsheviks murdered millions of Christians. Now, some evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are urging Christians to financially support Israel and the Jewish supremacist establishment around the world, by far the most powerful enemy of Jesus Christ on the planet.

I would have never thought in a billion years that Islam and the "original" revelation of Christianity were the same message of God, and that the Moslems should be our true allies for peace.


We constantly hear how the biggest enemy of Christianity and America are Moslems. The truth is that although Moslems do not share all Christian beliefs, Islam is far closer to Christianity than Judaism. I already quoted the obscene attacks made on Jesus Christ by the Jewish Talmud. How many American Christians even realize that the Holy Qur'an of Islam actually defends Jesus Christ and His mother Mary from the hateful slanders of Judaism? As I pointed out earlier, the Talmud claims that the Gospels lie about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The Talmud actually boasts that the Jews and not the Romans were the ones who actually nailed Jesus to the Cross. These Talmudic Jews hate Jesus so much that they want to take all the credit for his murder. Amazingly, the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an disputes this Jewish lie and actually defends the truth of the gospel. They (Jews) have incurred divine displeasure: in that, they broke the covenant? And little is it they believe. That they rejected faith and they uttered against Mary a grave false charge? That they said (in boast) "we killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah- but they killed him not, nor crucified him. But so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts? (Sura 4 AlNisa 153- 159)


If you are an evangelical Christian, do you still need more proof of the anti-Christian evil of Israel? A perfect example can be found in one of the evil tactics that Israel uses to destroy Palestinian resistance. The French Press Agency (AFP), much like AP in the United States, of March 2, 2002, had a report on the Israeli occupation of Ramallah last year. I quote:

In the recent Israeli occupation of the Palestinian town Ramallah, the army took over three of the four television stations. In control of the three stations, Al-Watan, Ammwaj, and Al-Sharaq channels. The Israelis began broadcasting hard-core pornography into the Palestinian homes beginning about 3:30 pm in the first day of their occupation. The reaction of the devoutly religious Palestinians, both Christian and Moslem, to the Israeli pornography been pointed. The article quotes a some of the Palestinians on this latest Israeli outrage, I quote:

Anita, a 52-year-old mother of three children, complained about "the deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts.?

"I am furious, these are the people who are shooting at us that also play this disgusting trick on us," she said.


Yes, the supposedly moral, upstanding nation of Israel that some Christian televangelist leaders support, is broadcasting hardcore pornography as part of their war to destroy the Palestinian people. Next time a Christian minister says we should support Israel; ask him if we should send our money to Israel so that it can broadcast hardcore pornography to Palestinian Christian and Moslem children.

You always hear from those ministers who support anti-Christian Israel two things: (1) that the Jews of today are the "chosen people of God" and have a covenant with God that we must respect, and: (2) that the Bible says that, "I will bless thee that blesses you and curse thee that curses you." As I showed earlier, clear New Testament scripture quotes Jesus as saying that the Jews, "whose fathers were led out of the land of Egypt" had "no longer, continued in God's covenant saith The Lord."

The coming of Jesus Christ made a new covenant for those Israelites and for all people who accepted the salvation of Christ. Belief in Jesus Christ is the one and only requirement to join the New Covenant. Those who don't accept Jesus Christ are clearly not in this New Covenant. Those who embrace Judaism, a religion that hates and rejects Jesus Christ are certainly not in this New Covenant. Those who believe in Jesus Christ have become the Chosen of God, the elect, regardless of ethnic descent. By Christian principle, those that hate Jesus Christ are obviously in the service of Satan and not God and His son and are certainly not in the Covenant. Christ himself describes them as "the Synagogue of Satan."

Footnotes
Talmud Sanhedrin, Simon, M. Trans. (1936). 57a Gittin. London. Soncino Press. p.261
Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, "Authority" p. 637
Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.717.
Simon, M. Trans. (1936). 57a Gittin. London. Soncino Press. p.261.
Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 52b. p.356.
Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Balaam. p.469.
Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. p.21.
Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. 97-98.
Shahak, I. (1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion. 23 & 93.
KJV Hebrews 8:6-7, 9-10, and 13.
RSV 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
KJV John 8:42-48.


One of the best posts I have EVER read. Finally someone who gets that in Islamic tradition, it is Muslims who are supposed fight side by side with Christians during the apoclypse, etc.
 

skreet

Senior member
Sep 7, 2004
681
0
0
Good write :D I agree with the way this country (America, I'm from New Hampshire) views everything being kinda off a bit.. everyone likes to gang up on an enemy if it's not Afganistan it's Iraq. And we (as a whole) cant seem to tell the differance between any middleeastern-decended person.

I think it's horrible and I agree entirely. Again good work putting your feelings together in a non-aggressive way :D