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

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
And what newspapers are these? I dont need to check, since I never make such baseless arguments. I'm sure the newspaper journalists, foreigners as they are, are welcomed by these insurgents to come check their nationality, specially with the kidnappings of foreigners we hear of every day.

Probably every newspaper of any credibility has mentioned some insurgents of foreign origin. Zarqawi himself is Jordanian. Please show me these sources that say all of these Muslim terrorists are Iraqi. Oh wait, you can't.

You don't make baseless arguments? :roll:

Are you the judge of who commits an act on what basis? So Mr. Bush said he BELIEVES that the world is better off without Saddam and therefore he invaded Iraq. That makes him a Christian terrorist?

I judge for myself. Are you the judge of who commits an act on what basis? I make my opinions on the groups, history, demands, group names, and statements released. We have already gone over this before where you lied and said that none of these groups have any religious motivation.

If Bush invaded Iraq for some Christian religious reason then he would be a Christian nightmare. It depends on what your definition of terrorist would be to label him as such.

The last beheading was carried out by a group of people who wanted the women to be freed. I gave you many examples of such other kidnappings and beheadings where the demands were of ransom or for the foreign presence to leave the country. Since you still insist on calling these people Muslim terrorists, you're just showing your own intolerism of Muslims.

And there have been beheadings carried out due to religious purposes..as well as other non-beheading acts partly due to religious purposes.

Again you show your fundamentalist nature.

I don't hate Muslims. But I hate fundamentalist and extremist Muslims. Fundamentalist and extremists of all religions are dangerous, as can be seen in your hateful view of non-Muslims.

Perhaps you should form a club with Hatim.

I believe we've had this argument before and your need to show hatred towards a religion by associating it with a religion has been seen by many. I dont appreciate your judgments about me and my faith, and since I do not attack you and your faith, whatever it is, please do the same.

Your fundamentalist and extremist nature was seen when you advocated the inferiority of non-Muslims. We all know what you are really like...a hateful fundamentalist. It's time to realize how close you are to the point of no return!

Your extremist and fundamentalist nature is clouding your entire mind. Stop being a sheep.

Again, I do not hate non-Muslims, so I would like you to refrain from not putting words into my mouth. I expect more from a Vanderbilt educated person. Sadly, exceptions from good schools turn out to be clowns like you.

You have my pity.

Yeah, you love the non-Muslims..as long as you can discriminate against them.

You have my pity.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

Cluster bombs!=carpet bombing.

More distorted facts from you, which is no surprise to me whatsoever.

You have to realize that Sultan is a fundamentalist. He is Muslim and he believes that you are not. Therefore in his sick and perverted and hateful mind he is always right while you are always wrong.

He is a bigot.

 

[Sultan]

Probably every newspaper of any credibility has mentioned some insurgents of foreign origin. Zarqawi himself is Jordanian. Please show me these sources that say all of these Muslim terrorists are Iraqi. Oh wait, you can't.

You don't make baseless arguments?

Again you have not provided any links or sources. A baseless accusation of no merit.

I judge for myself. Are you the judge of who commits an act on what basis? I make my opinions on the groups, history, demands, group names, and statements released. We have already gone over this before where you lied and said that none of these groups have any religious motivation.

If Bush invaded Iraq for some Christian religious reason then he would be a Christian nightmare. It depends on what your definition of terrorist would be to label him as such

Your judgment ofcourse is always laced with intolerance and bigotry. If a group uses the basis of religion to contradict the very tenets of the religion, then it obviously does not have any religious motivation.

One of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq was his "crusade". Therefore he is the terrorist, not the Iraqis.

And there have been beheadings carried out due to religious purposes..as well as other non-beheading acts partly due to religious purposes.

Again you show your fundamentalist nature.

I don't hate Muslims. But I hate fundamentalist and extremist Muslims. Fundamentalist and extremists of all religions are dangerous, as can be seen in your hateful view of non-Muslims.

Perhaps you should form a club with Hatim.

Yes, your first statement is right. No religion dictates beheading as part of the religion, its customs or tradition.

Again, I do not hate non-Muslims. You repeatedly like to claim so even though I have stated otherwise. You on the other hand openly discriminate against the Muslims and are full of intolerance and hate against people following the Islamic faith as can be seen by your labelling of acts of violence being carried out as being carried out by 'Muslim' terrorists.

Your fundamentalist and extremist nature was seen when you advocated the inferiority of non-Muslims. We all know what you are really like...a hateful fundamentalist. It's time to realize how close you are to the point of no return!

Your extremist and fundamentalist nature is clouding your entire mind. Stop being a sheep.

Get over it dude. I did not advocate any such thing. Stop crapping out of your mouth.

Yeah, you love the non-Muslims..as long as you can discriminate against them.

You have my pity.

I do not discriminate against anyone. You're a pathetic bigot and I feel sorry for you. You have my pity.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

Cluster bombs!=carpet bombing.

More distorted facts from you, which is no surprise to me whatsoever.

Cluster bombs!=Precision Bombing.

Cluster bombs, as the Navy Rear Admiral Crag Quigley primly calls it "area munition" spread destruction over a large area which is what carpet bombing does. There is no "Carpet Bomb" as such. Carpet bombing

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

I think Rabid just enjoys dishing out ridiculous and laughable statements to see the reaction from others. His claims are mostly laughable and his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

Cluster bombs!=carpet bombing.

More distorted facts from you, which is no surprise to me whatsoever.

Cluster bombs!=Precision Bombing.

Cluster bombs, as the Navy Rear Admiral Crag Quigley primly calls it "area munition" spread destruction over a large area which is what carpet bombing does. There is no "Carpet Bomb" as such. Carpet bombing

Quigley called cluster bombs an "area munition" as a means to define its capabilities better. He never, ever said anything about it spreading destruction over a large area. Please quit distorting official statements in some patently dishonest attempt to align them with your views. Also keep in mind this is the internet. Claiming such BS is only going get you slammed on the truth.

Now, carpet bombing is an indiscriminate and large scale bombing of an area, such as a city. Dresden was carpet bombed in WWII. Baghdad and Iraq were not carpet bombed by any stretch of the definition and all the contortions and spin in the world doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

Just fess up and move on.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

I think Rabid just enjoys dishing out ridiculous and laughable statements to see the reaction from others. His claims are mostly laughable and his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.

Rabid and me have had our clashes and arguments and have actually come to respect eachother even though our opinions differ from time to time.

You will have to excuse me if i don't take your word for it.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

I want you to give me Jewish leaders speaking out against what's going on in South America

Thank you

[Edit] Christianity as a religion isn't under a worldwide miscroscope when it comes to what's happening in Africa.

To be Muslim in America is to be asked the implied question of "How do you feel about terrorism?"

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

Cluster bombs!=carpet bombing.

More distorted facts from you, which is no surprise to me whatsoever.

Cluster bombs!=Precision Bombing.

Cluster bombs, as the Navy Rear Admiral Crag Quigley primly calls it "area munition" spread destruction over a large area which is what carpet bombing does. There is no "Carpet Bomb" as such. Carpet bombing

Quigley called cluster bombs an "area munition" as a means to define its capabilities better. He never, ever said anything about it spreading destruction over a large area. Please quit distorting official statements in some patently dishonest attempt to align them with your views. Also keep in mind this is the internet. Claiming such BS is only going get you slammed on the truth.

Now, carpet bombing is an indiscriminate and large scale bombing of an area, such as a city. Dresden was carpet bombed in WWII. Baghdad and Iraq were not carpet bombed by any stretch of the definition and all the contortions and spin in the world doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

Just fess up and move on.

I dont believe you read the entire article. Let me quote some passages for you:

"Pentagon sources say that 26 of the 28 JSOWs missed their aimpoints. "

"The 1,000 pound, 14-foot-long weapon carries 145 anti-armor and anti-personnel incendiary bomblets which disperse over an area that is approximately 100 feet long and 200 feet wide. In short, this weapon, which Quigley describes as a "long-range, precision-guided, stand-off weapon," rains down deadly bomblets on an area the size of a football field with six bombs falling in every 1,000 square feet. So much for precision."

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

I want you to give me Jewish leaders speaking out against what's going on in South America

Thank you

There is a genocide being committed by Jews in South America?

I am talking about the mutilation of babies, chopping off their limbs and leaving them to die committed by christians.

Don't be blinded by the muslim scumbags, these idiots are prevalent in EVERY religion, and no, Judaism is NOT innocent either, but missiles against civilians would be a better example.

I have no problem with mentioning that, i won't defend violent fundamentalists of ANY sort, and that includes Jews.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

I think Rabid just enjoys dishing out ridiculous and laughable statements to see the reaction from others. His claims are mostly laughable and his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.

Rabid and me have had our clashes and arguments and have actually come to respect eachother even though our opinions differ from time to time.

You will have to excuse me if i don't take your word for it.

Incidentally, I have also experienced similar bouts of clashes with Rabid and at our last clash, he was speaking quite logically. Therefore I stated 'his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.'

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

I want you to give me Jewish leaders speaking out against what's going on in South America

Thank you

[Edit] Christianity as a religion isn't under a worldwide miscroscope when it comes to what's happening in Africa.

To be Muslim in America is to be asked the implied question of "How do you feel about terrorism?"

YES IT IS! At least it is here. or maybe it is just me who don't think about people in terms of muslim, christian, white, black, semite...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

Cluster bombs!=carpet bombing.

More distorted facts from you, which is no surprise to me whatsoever.

Cluster bombs!=Precision Bombing.

Cluster bombs, as the Navy Rear Admiral Crag Quigley primly calls it "area munition" spread destruction over a large area which is what carpet bombing does. There is no "Carpet Bomb" as such. Carpet bombing

Quigley called cluster bombs an "area munition" as a means to define its capabilities better. He never, ever said anything about it spreading destruction over a large area. Please quit distorting official statements in some patently dishonest attempt to align them with your views. Also keep in mind this is the internet. Claiming such BS is only going get you slammed on the truth.

Now, carpet bombing is an indiscriminate and large scale bombing of an area, such as a city. Dresden was carpet bombed in WWII. Baghdad and Iraq were not carpet bombed by any stretch of the definition and all the contortions and spin in the world doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

Just fess up and move on.

I dont believe you read the entire article. Let me quote some passages for you:

"Pentagon sources say that 26 of the 28 JSOWs missed their aimpoints. "

"The 1,000 pound, 14-foot-long weapon carries 145 anti-armor and anti-personnel incendiary bomblets which disperse over an area that is approximately 100 feet long and 200 feet wide. In short, this weapon, which Quigley describes as a "long-range, precision-guided, stand-off weapon," rains down deadly bomblets on an area the size of a football field with six bombs falling in every 1,000 square feet. So much for precision."

Erm...great. It's still not carpet bombing. Stop the wiggling, fess up, and move on.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

I think Rabid just enjoys dishing out ridiculous and laughable statements to see the reaction from others. His claims are mostly laughable and his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.

Rabid and me have had our clashes and arguments and have actually come to respect eachother even though our opinions differ from time to time.

You will have to excuse me if i don't take your word for it.

Incidentally, I have also experienced similar bouts of clashes with Rabid and at our last clash, he was speaking quite logically. Therefore I stated 'his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.'

Hey i am not telling you that you are wrong either, i just want Rabid to answer himself.

I have a feeling he just got a bit too damn worked up over something (i do that all the time) and i will rather give him the benefit of the doubt than to dismiss him because he has a lot of damn good points all over this forum and other forums too.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Carpet bombing has not been used in Iraq. So called precision munitions have.

Some sites you should read about your "precision munitions":

Link1
Link2
Link3

Cluster bombs!=carpet bombing.

More distorted facts from you, which is no surprise to me whatsoever.

Cluster bombs!=Precision Bombing.

Cluster bombs, as the Navy Rear Admiral Crag Quigley primly calls it "area munition" spread destruction over a large area which is what carpet bombing does. There is no "Carpet Bomb" as such. Carpet bombing

Quigley called cluster bombs an "area munition" as a means to define its capabilities better. He never, ever said anything about it spreading destruction over a large area. Please quit distorting official statements in some patently dishonest attempt to align them with your views. Also keep in mind this is the internet. Claiming such BS is only going get you slammed on the truth.

Now, carpet bombing is an indiscriminate and large scale bombing of an area, such as a city. Dresden was carpet bombed in WWII. Baghdad and Iraq were not carpet bombed by any stretch of the definition and all the contortions and spin in the world doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.

Just fess up and move on.

I dont believe you read the entire article. Let me quote some passages for you:

"Pentagon sources say that 26 of the 28 JSOWs missed their aimpoints. "

"The 1,000 pound, 14-foot-long weapon carries 145 anti-armor and anti-personnel incendiary bomblets which disperse over an area that is approximately 100 feet long and 200 feet wide. In short, this weapon, which Quigley describes as a "long-range, precision-guided, stand-off weapon," rains down deadly bomblets on an area the size of a football field with six bombs falling in every 1,000 square feet. So much for precision."

Erm...great. It's still not carpet bombing. Stop the wiggling, fess up, and move on.

Ok, I was wrong to use that particular term - carpet bombing. Lets not keep arguing about semantics

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

I think Rabid just enjoys dishing out ridiculous and laughable statements to see the reaction from others. His claims are mostly laughable and his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.

Rabid and me have had our clashes and arguments and have actually come to respect eachother even though our opinions differ from time to time.

You will have to excuse me if i don't take your word for it.

Incidentally, I have also experienced similar bouts of clashes with Rabid and at our last clash, he was speaking quite logically. Therefore I stated 'his sanity comes and goes for short bursts.'

Hey i am not telling you that you are wrong either, i just want Rabid to answer himself.

I have a feeling he just got a bit too damn worked up over something (i do that all the time) and i will rather give him the benefit of the doubt than to dismiss him because he has a lot of damn good points all over this forum and other forums too.

Agreed :thumbsup:

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Do Muslim leaders condemn terrorists *in Arabic*? Sure they can condemn terrorists till they're blue in the face when they're playing to an American audience, but what about to their own people?

Conjur posted a huge list of Muslim leaders who condemn terrorist actions, do a search for it.

Now i want something to verify christian LEADERS who are speaking out against what is going on in Africa.

Thank you.

I want you to give me Jewish leaders speaking out against what's going on in South America

Thank you

There is a genocide being committed by Jews in South America?

I am talking about the mutilation of babies, chopping off their limbs and leaving them to die committed by christians.

Don't be blinded by the muslim scumbags, these idiots are prevalent in EVERY religion, and no, Judaism is NOT innocent either, but missiles against civilians would be a better example.

I have no problem with mentioning that, i won't defend violent fundamentalists of ANY sort, and that includes Jews.

Are the incidents you are referring to in South America and Africa being done *in the name of* Christianity or Judaism? Anyone can commit atrocities, but it would be the Muslims who are using their religion to justify those atrocities.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Again you have not provided any links or sources. A baseless accusation of no merit.

Hardly. Again, one of the leaders of these groups is not an Iraqi. Go read the news. It is obvious that you do not considering your statements in the other thread that I disproved.

If you have a link contrary to this, then post it. Seems to be well reported though.

Your judgment ofcourse is always laced with intolerance and bigotry. If a group uses the basis of religion to contradict the very tenets of the religion, then it obviously does not have any religious motivation.

Nonsense. It does have religious motivation. Each person is free to interpret and act upon his or her religion as he or she chooses. These people obviously have a perverted view of religion and have decided to act violent in the name of their religion.

You (at least I hope you do) and I disagree with their interpretation, but that doesn't mean that they did not act in any part on their own interpretation of their religion.

One of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq was his "crusade". Therefore he is the terrorist, not the Iraqis.

Who said that the Iraqis, which seems to be directed at the populace as a whole, are terrorists? They aren't.

Again, if you think that one of Bush's main motivations in starting this war was due to some sort of Christian teaching that tells him to kill non-Christians then he could be a terrorist. Of course this depends on your definition of the word terrorist. However he would definitely be a Christian extremist.

Again, I do not hate non-Muslims. You repeatedly like to claim so even though I have stated otherwise. You on the other hand openly discriminate against the Muslims and are full of intolerance and hate against people following the Islamic faith as can be seen by your labelling of acts of violence being carried out as being carried out by 'Muslim' terrorists.

Sure, you don't hate non-Muslims.. :roll:

I don't hate Muslims as a whole. However, I hate extremist or fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

G
I do not discriminate against anyone. You're a pathetic bigot and I feel sorry for you. You have my pity.

It's really hilarious when one of the biggest bigots on this forum screams bigot at anyone that disagrees with him.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It seems that you feel that saying 'Muslim extremist' is an attack against Islam, a label of 'Christian extremist' is an attack against Christianity, etc. I disagree with such an assessment.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

Oops, I made a pretty damn big typo there.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright.

That should have been I don't find it too distasteful to label people according to their religion when these people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion.

Religion is an ideology. Just like the white supremacist (based upon an ideology) example, I see no reason to completely drop a very descriptive adjective if it is appropriate for the case.

If a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever killed someone for a reason outside of religion, then it would make sense to not add the religious adjective.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Ok, I was wrong to use that particular term - carpet bombing. Lets not keep arguing about semantics

Thank you.

And, if you don't mind, I just want to make an observation about semantics, since you mentioned it.

Semantics are something different cultures must discuss. A word, or phrase, and their nuances that may mean a specific thing to one culture may mean something less, or something more, or something entirely different to another culture. Until disparate cultures can come to an agreement on meaning, until we resolve our semantic differences, we will never understand each other. It's true in online forums, as has been demonstrated in this thread, and it's true of cultures as well.

And until we understand each other and pound out those semantics, we'll never learn to trust each other.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I would like to see some kind of proof to that, all i have seen has been politicians stating these things, and not surprisingly it is coming from politicians of the admin that is responsible for the invasion.

I am not saying you are wrong, i would just want to see something substantial before i take anyones word for it.

I don't have anything on hand but I would guess that many of them are not Iraqi as well as many of them are Iraqi. Some of the leaders of these groups aren't even from Iraq. I'd guess it would be pretty easy to find something about this though.

Can you understand why a peaceful Muslim would be offended because you define the terrorists by their faith rather than their actions. terrorists is a good enough term, is it not? Why the need to add faith to the term?

Peaceful? No. Blinded by one's faith? Yes.

A rational person would understand. A person blinded by his own faith would not. I believe that saying 'Muslim Terrorist' is describing their actions when their actions are based upon their religion. If the terrorist in question did not perform an act because of his interpretation of his religion, then you would have a better argument.

Catholic terrorists in Africa, the phalangists in Lebanon, IRA, ETA, Hamas, all terrorists of different faiths, isn't it fair to just refer to all of them as terrorists because of their actions and forget what faith they proclaim to follow?

They are all terrorists, but you can distinguish between them as you just did. Catholic terrorists, Muslim Terrorists, etc. seems like an alright designation to me. I don't see why some people are trying to run away from this. Would anyone scream at someone describing a murderer as a white supremacist? Why not just call him a murderer? Because his ideology in white supremacy was the motivating factor.

I have a distaste for labeling people for their religion.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright. I think it's trying to sugarcoat things a little too much though.

I obviously have given you WAY more credit than you deserve if you actually mean that.

Oops, I made a pretty damn big typo there.

I don't find it too distasteful when people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion, but your view is alright.

That should have been I don't find it too distasteful to label people according to their religion when these people commit acts of violence based largely on their religion.

Religion is an ideology. Just like the white supremacist (based upon an ideology) example, I see no reason to completely drop a very descriptive adjective if it is appropriate for the case.

If a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever killed someone for a reason outside of religion, then it would make sense to not add the religious adjective.

Thank you, i could not agree more!

I am glad i didn't jump to conclusions this time.

It didn't sound like anything you would say at all.

 

[Sultan]

Hardly. Again, one of the leaders of these groups is not an Iraqi. Go read the news. It is obvious that you do not considering your statements in the other thread that I disproved.

If you have a link contrary to this, then post it. Seems to be well reported though.

Zarqawi is hardly an insurgent. He is there as the US of A is, for political gain. Using one example which I consider to be an exception is hardly proof that many insurgents are foreigners. And say I even agree with you on this, what difference does it make if there are foreigners? If the Iraqis fight alongside them, they are welcome foreigners.

Nonsense. It does have religious motivation. Each person is free to interpret and act upon his or her religion as he or she chooses. These people obviously have a perverted view of religion and have decided to act violent in the name of their religion.

You (at least I hope you do) and I disagree with their interpretation, but that doesn't mean that they did not act in any part on their own interpretation of their religion.

I disagree. Each person is definitely free to interpret and act upon his or her religion but completely going against the tenets is not an interpretation, nor a perverted view. It is COMPLETELY contrary to the religion and therefore these people are not motivated by the religion.

Who said that the Iraqis, which seems to be directed at the populace as a whole, are terrorists? They aren't.

Again, if you think that one of Bush's main motivations in starting this war was due to some sort of Christian teaching that tells him to kill non-Christians then he could be a terrorist. Of course this depends on your definition of the word terrorist. However he would definitely be a Christian extremist.

Your first statement is very well said. Based on that, your saying Muslim terrorists seems to be directed at the populace as a whole. So I would really appreciate it if you can stop using that label, as you have agreed that labelling it as such speaks for the whole populace. I do hope the preceding argument can settle this long standing argument between us regarding your use of the term "Muslim terrorist" and I say this without even a hint of sarcasm.

Sure, you don't hate non-Muslims..

I don't hate Muslims as a whole. However, I hate extremist or fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

Again, I do not hate non-Muslims.

It's really hilarious when one of the biggest bigots on this forum screams bigot at anyone that disagrees with him.

I feel so sorry for you.

I'll ignore the above in light of one logical statement you made above which I hope can lead to resolution of the matter I stated.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Zarqawi is hardly an insurgent. He is there as the US of A is, for political gain. Using one example which I consider to be an exception is hardly proof that many insurgents are foreigners. And say I even agree with you on this, what difference does it make if there are foreigners? If the Iraqis fight alongside them, they are welcome foreigners.

I would say that Zarqawi is a terrorist. Do you have a source explaining his gains in this instance? Do you have a source that says that these people that are also bombing the Iraqis are welcome?

But really it doesn't matter as we discussed in the other thread that some of these groups do have religious motivations.

I disagree. Each person is definitely free to interpret and act upon his or her religion but completely going against the tenets is not an interpretation, nor a perverted view. It is COMPLETELY contrary to the religion and therefore these people are not motivated by the religion.

Then we disagree.

Your first statement is very well said. Based on that, your saying Muslim terrorists seems to be directed at the populace as a whole. So I would really appreciate it if you can stop using that label, as you have agreed that labelling it as such speaks for the whole populace. I do hope the preceding argument can settle this long standing argument between us regarding your use of the term "Muslim terrorist" and I say this without even a hint of sarcasm.

You are really assuming too much. When I say "Muslim terrorists" I am targetting people of Muslim ideology that kill others because of their perverted and twisted view/interpretation of Islam.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that 'Muslim terrorists' is meant to describe all Muslims or Iraqis.

I feel that calling a certain group of people 'Muslim terrorists' is appropriate, just as calling another group of people 'Christian terrorists' would be appropriate. Neither one is descriptive of the majority of their respective population; it isn't meant or implied to be.