Why don't Muslin leaders condemn the actions of terrorists?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan
TastesLikeChicken

iow, terrorism is OK (in the name of "jihad"), it's just the actual killing of children that was considered bad. Sounds as if it's a statement of disassociation from the action because they don't want the bad PR and image problem.

And here's a standard tactic. Let's blame the Jews:

Since when is kidnapping=terrorism??? Kidnappings happen here at home. Do you call the Christians or the Jews or the Buddhists terrorists?

Kidnapping=terrorism thusly:

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.

Did I state anywhere that all kidnapping=terrorism? I don't know where you got that impression either or how you made that massive conclusional jump.

Yes, I would be concerned about the image of my faith, since I was not involved in the action that resulted in those deaths. Chechnyans may follow the Islamic faith but Chechnyans are fighting for independence of Chechnya, which can only in your own perverted mind be associated with a religious action.

In my own mind?

WTF are you talking about? Do you understand exactly what is behind the Chechnyan separatist movement, their motivation? They want to have their own Islamic state. It's Wahhabi ideology. It has everything to do with religion. Sure, that moron Stalin kick started the whole mess by his massacre of Chechnyans but the movement has progressed beyond that history and has become something all its own.

What do you make of this:
Link

So by the above, do you infer that all Christians (the major religion of Russia) are rapists and murderers and even turn a blind eye to those who commit such actions?

The man was put on trial and imprisoned. That doesn't seem much like a blind eye was turned.

His pardon seems more of a retaliation for the massacre than anything else.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan
TastesLikeChicken

iow, terrorism is OK (in the name of "jihad"), it's just the actual killing of children that was considered bad. Sounds as if it's a statement of disassociation from the action because they don't want the bad PR and image problem.

And here's a standard tactic. Let's blame the Jews:

Since when is kidnapping=terrorism??? Kidnappings happen here at home. Do you call the Christians or the Jews or the Buddhists terrorists?

Kidnapping=terrorism thusly:

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.

Did I state anywhere that all kidnapping=terrorism? I don't know where you got that impression either or how you made that massive conclusional jump.

Yes, I would be concerned about the image of my faith, since I was not involved in the action that resulted in those deaths. Chechnyans may follow the Islamic faith but Chechnyans are fighting for independence of Chechnya, which can only in your own perverted mind be associated with a religious action.

In my own mind?

WTF are you talking about? Do you understand exactly what is behind the Chechnyan separatist movement, their motivation? They want to have their own Islamic state. It's Wahhabi ideology. It has everything to do with religion. Sure, that moron Stalin kick started the whole mess by his massacre of Chechnyans but the movement has progressed beyond that history and has become something all its own.

What do you make of this:
Link

So by the above, do you infer that all Christians (the major religion of Russia) are rapists and murderers and even turn a blind eye to those who commit such actions?

The man was put on trial and imprisoned. That doesn't seem much like a blind eye was turned.

His pardon seems more of a retaliation for the massacre than anything else.

In our hope to discover that Muslims don't all think in black and white, we must decide absolutely yes or no.

 

[Sultan]

Kidnapping=terrorism thusly:

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.

Did I state anywhere that all kidnapping=terrorism? I don't know where you got that impression either or how you made that massive conclusional jump.

Dictionary.com, eh?? haha. So now please refer to that website again and let me know how you consider kidnapping of foreign people, not wanted by the Iraqis as "UNLAWFUL", and how is it ideological or political for these people to demand the release of women prisoners and to demand the foreign presence leave the country. Idiot.

In my own mind?

WTF are you talking about? Do you understand exactly what is behind the Chechnyan separatist movement, their motivation? They want to have their own Islamic state. It's Wahhabi ideology. It has everything to do with religion. Sure, that moron Stalin kick started the whole mess by his massacre of Chechnyans but the movement has progressed beyond that history and has become something all its own.

lol. You're hilarious and your bigot nature becomes more apparent with each post. The Chechnyans want their OWN state whether it be Islamic or non-Islamic. Here our government is purporting the need to LIBERATE people and here your bigoted nature wont let the Chechnyans decide how they want to run their own government and their own life. What an idiot :roll:

The man was put on trial and imprisoned. That doesn't seem much like a blind eye was turned.

His pardon seems more of a retaliation for the massacre than anything else.

I dont think you read the whole story. Another one of his mates was given amnesty. This guy was first acquitted even. And moreover, there are THOUSANDS of other cases which has received no attention. Is this an example of CHRISTIAN TERRORISM? And you not condemning it also makes you an ACTIVE supporter of Christian terrorism, regardless of what faith you follow.

And your reasoning for his pardon? HA! Hey, this way I can justify EVERY act of terrorism... oh, it was done in retaliation for this and retaliation for that. Grow up kid.

Why dont you take your own advise and start condemning terrorism where it exists and rid yourself of your anti-Islamic or anti-any faith sentiments.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In our hope to discover that Muslims don't all think in black and white, we must decide absolutely yes or no.

Yes, let's create the strawman impression that those who question Muslim reaction on the whole paint every Muslim as thinking as one.

And this strawman is coming from some of the very same folks who won't hesitate to designate anyone and everyone who supports the invasion of Iraq as "neocons."

Man, the irony just slays me.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Idiot.

What an idiot

Grow up kid.

Your mastery of the ad hominem attack leaves me unimpressed. Please try again when you have outgrown resorting to simplistic invectives.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It appears to me that Islam is quite a de-centralized Religion, aka it has no Pope or other singular Head. As such the Leadership is quite large in number and likely quite varied in opinion. That also makes it difficult to get a finger on the pulse of the "Muslim World" as it's far from the Monolithic Society that many here(P&N) seem to view it as.

Echo that. Who are these Muslim leaders who are supposed to condemn? Do a google news search of muslims, condemn, beheadings and you we see "groups" of mulsims who are denoucing terrorism.

They don't really have a pope like figure head that can speak for them. Maybe they should?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: sandorski
It appears to me that Islam is quite a de-centralized Religion, aka it has no Pope or other singular Head. As such the Leadership is quite large in number and likely quite varied in opinion. That also makes it difficult to get a finger on the pulse of the "Muslim World" as it's far from the Monolithic Society that many here(P&N) seem to view it as.

Echo that. Who are these Muslim leaders who are supposed to condemn? Do a google news search of muslims, condemn, beheadings and you we see "groups" of mulsims who are denoucing terrorism.

They could condemn bin Laden, Zawqari, al Qaeda, and terrorism in general. There are large meetings of Imams and Ayatollas at times where such proclamations would be issued as a general concensus.

They will condemn specific acts of terrorism but hesitate to condemn terrorism in general because doing so could limit the "proper" interpretation of the Quran in regards to jihad and issuing fatwas.

They don't really have a pope like figure head that can speak for them. Maybe they should?

That's because Muslim sects can't agree with each other, just as many Christian sects can't. Even within Muslim sects you have Imams declaring other Imams "infidels," much like Catholic priests declaring other Catholic priests to be "heretics."

 

[RabidMongoose]

Since when is kidnapping=terrorism??? Kidnappings happen here at home. Do you call the Christians or the Jews or the Buddhists terrorists?

You're welcome to call them terrorists if you want to. They are certainly criminals. If they do it for political or religious reasons then they are definitely terrorists in my views.

Dictionary.com, eh?? haha. So now please refer to that website again and let me know how you consider kidnapping of foreign people, not wanted by the Iraqis as "UNLAWFUL", and how is it ideological or political for these people to demand the release of women prisoners and to demand the foreign presence leave the country. Idiot.

How is it "LAWFUL"? I would say any kidnapping or murder based on political or religious beliefs is a terrorist act.

And, as I have shown you in a previous thread, many of these groups are due to religious beliefs.

 

[Sultan]

They could condemn bin Laden, Zawqari, al Qaeda, and terrorism in general. There are large meetings of Imams and Ayatollas at times where such proclamations would be issued as a general concensus.

They will condemn specific acts of terrorism but hesitate to condemn terrorism in general because doing so could limit the "proper" interpretation of the Quran in regards to jihad and issuing fatwas.

Many Muslims "Imams" have openly said OBL does not represent Muslims, and so do I. I had never heard of Zarqawi before this Iraq debacle. Muslims dont have "Ayatollahs" as figureheads.

There is NO interpretation of Quran which supports terrorism, so that statement of yours is completely false. You're lying out of your teeth man.

Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

No, I think that position is yours ever since you proclaimed that non-Muslims are inferior who should pay a tax in order to live. Actually, maybe it belongs to Hatim since he shares that view, along with the 'just' execution of homosexuals.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

No, I think that position is yours ever since you proclaimed that non-Muslims are inferior who should pay a tax in order to live. Actually, maybe it belongs to Hatim since he shares that view, along with the 'just' execution of homosexuals.

Wrong. I never claimed that non-Muslims are inferior, and I said they pay a tax called Jizyah, as do Muslims, Zakat. Stop putting words into my mouth, liar. Go read the posts again.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

I've done some research on your post history in P&N and notice that when you begin losing an argument you consistently use name-calling as a diversionary tactic, and as a tactic in general simply when you have nothing of substance to reply with. Apparently you are under the false impression that this tactic will work on me as well, and that by your mighty power of suggestion it somehow magically becomes true. It's rather hilarious indeed.

 

[Moonbeam]

I like how the Christian community, except fot the Pope, is condemning the Bush killings in Iraq. The ridicule for preemptive war without evidence is really just stunning.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like how the Christian community, except fot the Pope, is condemning the Bush killings in Iraq. The ridicule for preemptive war without evidence is really just stunning.

Google is your friend:

Pope condemns war in Iraq

 

[rufruf44]

Better check that sarcasm meter. Moonbeam is just being his old senile sarcastic self.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like how the Christian community, except fot the Pope, is condemning the Bush killings in Iraq. The ridicule for preemptive war without evidence is really just stunning.

Google is your friend:

Pope condemns war in Iraq

Now guess why I excepted him.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like how the Christian community, except fot the Pope, is condemning the Bush killings in Iraq. The ridicule for preemptive war without evidence is really just stunning.

Google is your friend:

Pope condemns war in Iraq

Now guess why I excepted him.

Sorry.

It can often be a bit difficult to separate the sarcastic from the truly clueless in this forum.

 

[Moonbeam]

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of George Bush going on before.
Bush, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his American flag go!

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of George Bush going on before.

At the sign of triumph Saddam's host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.

Like a mighty army moves the Fundi Chirsh;
brothers, we are treading where the Devil trots.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in insanity.

Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Bush Think constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst a moron prevail;
we have Bush's own promise, and that cannot fail.

Onward then, ye sheeple, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud, and honor unto Bush the King,
this through countless goons and chimps sing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like how the Christian community, except fot the Pope, is condemning the Bush killings in Iraq. The ridicule for preemptive war without evidence is really just stunning.

Google is your friend:

Pope condemns war in Iraq

Now guess why I excepted him.

Sorry.

It can often be a bit difficult to separate the sarcastic from the truly clueless in this forum.

Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

Since the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his condemnation only really applies to Catholics. Many Christians do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I'm sure you knew that though, or did I miss some further sarcasm somewhere along the line?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan
Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

I've done some research on your post history in P&N and notice that when you begin losing an argument you consistently use name-calling as a diversionary tactic, and as a tactic in general simply when you have nothing of substance to reply with. Apparently you are under the false impression that this tactic will work on me as well, and that by your mighty power of suggestion it somehow magically becomes true. It's rather hilarious indeed.

hahah. You can carry on your searches. Fact is not only I but quite a bit of others have seen how big a bigot you are. And you still fail to condemn terrorist actions of others and do not reply to the substance of my posts.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan
Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

I've done some research on your post history in P&N and notice that when you begin losing an argument you consistently use name-calling as a diversionary tactic, and as a tactic in general simply when you have nothing of substance to reply with. Apparently you are under the false impression that this tactic will work on me as well, and that by your mighty power of suggestion it somehow magically becomes true. It's rather hilarious indeed.

hahah. You can carry on your searches. Fact is not only I but quite a bit of others have seen how big a bigot you are. And you still fail to condemn terrorist actions of others and do not reply to the substance of my posts.

Thanks for verifying my reply. You did a wonderful job of backing up my statement 100% percent.

A note to you as well: Terrorist actions of others is not the topic here. The topic of this thread is questioning the condemnation of terrorism by Muslims. If you want to discuss your own OT offshoot, start another thread. Otherwise it comes off as nothing more than the diversion strawman that it actually is.

Thanks for playing. Now please drive through.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

Since the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his condemnation only really applies to Catholics. Many Christians do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I'm sure you knew that though, or did I miss some further sarcasm somewhere along the line?

There are only two good reasons to kill. One is if your convinced that "God wants you too", and the other is when you are forced into a "kill or be killed" situation.

The terrorists/insurgents are convinced that God is on their side. On the other hand, the majority of our troops are killing because they are in a survival situtation.

Ignore the paraellels between this war and Vietnam, but we are heading the same direction. The leader of N. Vietnam said early on in the war that we will tire of killing them before they tire of dieing. He was right and the same thing is going to happen here.

It is immaterial what rthe Muslim leaders say, they will do as they please as soon as we leave, so AFAIAC the sooner we leave the better. Does anyone really believe that the Kings and Princes are going to give up their power to create a democracy?

I have no doubt that Kerry has the right plan to get us out of there the fastest. Quit hogging the best contracts for the USA and get the rest of the world to start putting troops in, instead of taking them out like they are now. GWB is despised by the majority of the world, even by many of his "allies". If the rest of the world doesn't care what happens, then why should we??

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan
Again, you fail to condemn terrorist actions of others, thereby securing your position as the Number 1 bigot on this forum.

I've done some research on your post history in P&N and notice that when you begin losing an argument you consistently use name-calling as a diversionary tactic, and as a tactic in general simply when you have nothing of substance to reply with. Apparently you are under the false impression that this tactic will work on me as well, and that by your mighty power of suggestion it somehow magically becomes true. It's rather hilarious indeed.

hahah. You can carry on your searches. Fact is not only I but quite a bit of others have seen how big a bigot you are. And you still fail to condemn terrorist actions of others and do not reply to the substance of my posts.

Thanks for verifying my reply. You did a wonderful job of backing up my statement 100% percent.

A note to you as well: Terrorist actions of others is not the topic here. The topic of this thread is questioning the condemnation of terrorism by Muslims. If you want to discuss your own OT offshoot, start another thread. Otherwise it comes off as nothing more than the diversion strawman that it actually is.

Thanks for playing. Now please drive through.

Stop circling around my posts. I and many others have repeatedly stated that Muslims have and do condemn terrorists actions as well as terrorism. Your incessant lying again shows your closed mind and your bigoted nature.

A note to you: Stop falsely criticisng others if you cannot back up your words and do the same thing you falsely accuse others of not doing.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well if you failed to detect the sarcasm you might, instead, have noticed the preposterous notion that the Christians were all over Bush's ass for the killing in Iraq. There are plenty who are, but it's not exactly front page stuff we read about Christendom doing after Bush, eh?

Since the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his condemnation only really applies to Catholics. Many Christians do not recognize the authority of the Pope.

I'm sure you knew that though, or did I miss some further sarcasm somewhere along the line?

There are only two good reasons to kill. One is if your convinced that "God wants you too", and the other is when you are forced into a "kill or be killed" situation.

The Muslim terrorists/insurgents are convinced that God is on their side. On the other hand, the majority of our troops are killing because they are in a survival situtation.

Ignore the paraellels between this war and Vietnam, but we are heading the same direction. The leader of N. Vietnam said early on in the war that we will tire of killing them before they tire of dieing. He was right and the same thing is going to happen here.

It is immaterial what rthe Muslim leaders say, they will do as they please as soon as we leave, so AFAIAC the sooner we leave the better. Does anyone really believe that the Kings and Princes are going to give up their power to create a democracy?

I have no doubt that Kerry has the right plan to get us out of there the fastest. Quit hogging the best contracts for the USA and get the rest of the world to start putting troops in, instead of taking them out like they are now. GWB is despised by the majority of the world, even by many of his "allies". If the rest of the world doesn't care what happens, then why should we??

emm... the Muslim insurgents are actually Iraqis and referring people by their faith is incorrect. No Iraqi came to the United States to kill because they believe "God is on their side". On the contrary, the majority of our troops are not killing because they are in a survival situtation... they're there as an occupation force, and to occupy a foreign land means crushing those who oppose by any means. Funny how you term raining bombs from the sky as "kill or be killed".