Another terror blast... in India

[Abraham]

Will it ever end...?
Will lunatics (from whatever creed) ever understand that blowing up innocent civilians does not pave the way to victory or paradise but to more resolve of their opponents and more discrimination and misery towards their own kind...?

It's heartbreaking to see the grief of parents that have to identify the mutulated bodies of their children.

Terrorists cause suffering and bring sadness to many, but do not have the slightest change to topple independent nations through their terror.
Their battle is utterly in fain...
:down:

[darksythe]

Just read about the newest bombings after reading this post. It is so despicable. I believe that in punishment if the people are caught they should be killed in a most painfull way. Then have there corpses burnt so that they can not enter there paradise.

[Abraham]

I sometimes feel the same. But perhaps it's not just more civilised but also better to lock them up for life, so they can see at the end of their lives that their actions resulted into nothing.

When I'm in a generous mood I sometimes wish I could offer mr A. Hitler a 8-days (guided) tour to Israel... just to pis him off.
:D

[The Avon Lady]

When I'm in a generous mood I sometimes wish I could offer mr A. Hitler a 8-days (guided) tour to Israel... just to pis him off. :D
No thanks. I would galdy have pulled the trigger/opened the trap door/fired the bullet/plunged the knife/burried the hatchet/ect.

[darksythe]

I sometimes feel the same. But perhaps it's not just more civilised but also better to lock them up for life, so they can see at the end of their lives that their actions resulted into nothing.

When I'm in a generous mood I sometimes wish I could offer mr A. Hitler a 8-days (guided) tour to Israel... just to pis him off.
:D

Agreeably my response would not be the civilised thing to and our culture teaches us to do the civil thing.... but one must realize that you cant win a war against an enemy whose willing to go to the extremes, and you are not. Fight fire with fire.

We would attack military targets, but their fighters are not honorable enough to show them selves as military instead they do things as citizens. This is also my argument regarding the geneva conventions treatment of POWS* a POW is a term restricted to soldiers in the uniform of a recognized army.... What uniform do these fools wear? Headwraps is about the only thing they have in common. :|\ (kinda like my medic avatar LMAO cept mine is cooler. :up: )

[Abraham]

@ darksythe:
I do not agree with giving up basic human values and I am convinced that the West can fight and win while sticking to its principles.
I do agree with your opinion about their lack of honor and non-P.O.W. status.
I do not agree with this statement of yours:... What uniform do these fools wear? Headwraps is about the only thing they have in common. :|\ (kinda like my medic avatar LMAO cept mine is cooler. :up: )I think mine is cooler... even in a gay bar!
:D

[darksythe]

@ darksythe:
I do not agree with giving up basic human values and I am convinced that the West can fight and win while sticking to its principles.
I do agree with your opinion about their lack of honor and non-P.O.W. status.
I do not agree with this statement of yours:... What uniform do these fools wear? Headwraps is about the only thing they have in common. :|\ (kinda like my medic avatar LMAO cept mine is cooler. :up: )I think mine is cooler... even in a gay bar!
:D

@ Abraham:

I am glad to see that some still have faith that we may win this war without giving up on our values. As much as i respect this i do however not agree, it seems as though every day goes by and there are more cowardly attacks on our (US) troops in iraq by unidentified assailints(sp) imho fighting fire with fire may be the only way to win this. I do however hope that i am proven wrong.

About Headwrap:
LMAO ill let yah have the argument there if youll agree that both our headwraps are cooler :up: then the ones worn by the enemy.

[Abraham]

I am glad to see that some still have faith that we may win this war without giving up on our values. As much as i respect this i do however not agree, it seems as though every day goes by and there are more cowardly attacks on our (US) troops in iraq by unidentified assailints(sp) imho fighting fire with fire may be the only way to win this. I do however hope that i am proven wrong.
I am fully convinced that the West will win. In the end the stronger economic power can bring more pressure to bear on the opponent, and the national product and national growth of many Arab nations is such that they can't even afford their own government policies...
Islam as a religion is OK, but as a political concept it is clearly a disaster and blocks all progress (not unlike other religions or ideologies who had a go at politics...).
About Headwrap:
LMAO ill let yah have the argument there if youll agree that both our headwraps are cooler :up: then the ones worn by the enemy.I see you finally got what you were after with all your postings; a better avatar. I on the contrary am posting out of conviction...
:D

[The Avon Lady]

I am glad to see that some still have faith that we may win this war without giving up on our values. As much as i respect this i do however not agree, it seems as though every day goes by and there are more cowardly attacks on our (US) troops in iraq by unidentified assailints(sp) imho fighting fire with fire may be the only way to win this. I do however hope that i am proven wrong.
I am fully convinced that the West will win. In the end the stronger economic power can bring more pressure to bear on the opponent, and the national product and national growth of many Arab nations is such that they can't even afford their own government policies...
May I suggest reading a counter-argument: Truth on Trial (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20019).

[caspofungin]

all quotes from the link above...

We must teach the history of jihad against infidels, and the history of how infidels (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians) were treated under Islam.

I'm guessing that that history will emphasize the bits involving persecution, but won't mention the parts about tolerance.

We must insist that criticism of America and Israel be balanced, not pathological, obsessive and cult-like as it is now

Fair enough, but will we also insist that those defending the policies of America and Israel aren't pathological, obsessive, or cult-like in their blind support?

[Abraham]

I'm guessing that that history will emphasize the bits involving persecution, but won't mention the parts about tolerance.I absolutely agree that all information should be as balanced and objective as possible. If not we'll only drift further apart.
One way to realise that is to honestly state your own position but to keep listening to opposing opinions and to accept facts from good sources, even if these facts are presented by your opponent.
We should also realise that any criticism on anybodies religious conviction hurts the other. That doesn't mean that we should not state our onw opinions frankly, but we should show some respect and avoid getting personal.

[Konovalov]

Will it ever end...?

Of course it will. In 10 or 20 or 30 years time though depending on our continued worldwide response to this threat. That is on the assumption that you are talking about the current worldwide Jihadist terrorist movement. Then of course I am working on the assumption that the attacks in India were the result of a Kashmiri terrorist group which is most likely but as yet hasn't been absolutely confirmed. Give it some time though.

Terrorism of course will never end. There will always be some group around the globe who has a grievance be it just or unjust, that will resort to political violence in order to achieve it's goals. It's just a sad given of the imperfection of man and woman.

[tycho102]

all quotes from the link above...

We must teach the history of jihad against infidels, and the history of how infidels (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians) were treated under Islam.

I'm guessing that that history will emphasize the bits involving persecution, but won't mention the parts about tolerance.


You mean Sura 9:29, where the Dhimmi tolerated paying the jizya with willing submission and feeling themselves subdued? Or do you mean tolerated their beards being pulled and slapped on the face with a sandal while paying the jizya? Or did you mean wearing a tan or yellow belt to indicate their Dhimmi status?

In your post, it's the word "tolerance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolerance)" part that confuses me.

I understand if you're confused by my use of a capital "D" in dhimmi.

[caspofungin]

surah 9:29

"Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and his Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled"

specifically about idolaters, not Christians or Jews. And don't extrapolate this to mean i have anything against people other than jews, christians, or muslims.

And why not quote 4:123

"And who is there that has a fairer religion than he who submits his will to God being a do-gooder, and who follows the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith? And God took Abraham for a friend."

Or,

"Surely those who believe and do deeds of righteousness -- unto them the All-merciful shall assign love"

"believers" being People of the Book -- christians, Jews, and Muslims.

we could sit here all day quoting and counter-quoting, but that won't get us anywhere.

and the point that i was trying to make is that, while at times non-muslims have been persecuted in islamic lands, there were other times when they were not, when islamic lands were a haven for those persecuted elsewhere. if we are going to look back at history and use it to justify our arguments, we have to look at history as a whole, not just the bits that support our arguments, ignoring those that weaken our stand.

and before you say it, yes, i know it goes both ways.

[caspofungin]

I'm guessing that that history will emphasize the bits involving persecution, but won't mention the parts about tolerance.


You mean Sura 9:29, where the Dhimmi tolerated paying the jizya with willing submission and feeling themselves subdued? Or do you mean tolerated their beards being pulled and slapped on the face with a sandal while paying the jizya? Or did you mean wearing a tan or yellow belt to indicate their Dhimmi status?

In your post, it's the word "tolerance (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolerance)" part that confuses me.

I understand if you're confused by my use of a capital "D" in dhimmi.

see my included quote above -- am i prescient or what?

[caspofungin]

look, i'm astute enough to know that the threat facing the west comes from an islamic background. all i'm trying to show is that it isn't islam itself necessarily that is what turns people into suicide bombers -- it's people twisting islamic precepts, presenting their own version of history, all to give themselves political and hence actual power.

the same thing has happened in other religions over the centuries.

when terrorists or insurgents or whatever you want to call them make their videos or are questioned after being apprehended, they don't go "Oh, i was doing this because the quran said strap dynamite to your chest and run into a resteraunt." They have greivances against the policies of those they see as oppressors. Some guy in a mosque with an agenda says, "Oh, i know you have greivances, but by the way, if you die fighting them, you'll go to paradise." They're using religion to give people the extra push to go and do something with a political objective.

[Abraham]

look, i'm astute enough to know that the threat facing the west comes from an islamic background. all i'm trying to show is that it isn't islam itself necessarily that is what turns people into suicide bombers -- it's people twisting islamic precepts, presenting their own version of history, all to give themselves political and hence actual power.You're right on all that.
However somehow I have the impression that too many within Islam don't mind, look for excuses, put the blame with "the usual suspects" (Jews & Americans) and just don't realise how much all that hurts their own religion in the eyes of the world.
Also too many support or favour terror attacks. (I consider even 5% - 10% as too many, given the fact that we are talking about huge masses).
the same thing has happened in other religions over the centuries.As far as Christianity is concerned, you're really talking about past centuries, before the separation of State and Church. There was no world-widespread Christian support for Hitler fight ("Gott mit uns") to 'protect' the Christian Civilisation (as he sometimes brought it) against Bolshevism, nor for Apartheid, nor for the IRA or Ulster Protestants during the 'Troubles'.
Some guy in a mosque with an agenda says, "Oh, i know you have greivances, but by the way, if you die fighting them, you'll go to paradise." They're using religion to give people the extra push to go and do something with a political objective.So why are these guys (including their agenda's) not banned from the mosque and from Islam?
And why not quote 4:12
"And who is there that has a fairer religion than he who submits his will to God being a do-gooder, and who follows the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith? And God took Abraham for a friend."On that point Judaism, Christianity and Islam concurr.
:D

[The Avon Lady]

And why not quote 4:12
"And who is there that has a fairer religion than he who submits his will to God being a do-gooder, and who follows the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith? And God took Abraham for a friend."On that point Judaism, Christianity and Islam concurr.
:D
Concurr on this: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html).

As the introduction (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html) says:

"Bukhari (full name Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin al-Mughira al-Ja'fai) was born in 194 A.H. and died in 256 A.H. His collection of hadith is considered second to none. He spent sixteen years compiling it, and ended up with 2,602 hadith (9,082 with repetition). His criteria for acceptance into the collection were amongst the most stringent of all the scholars of ahadith."

[Abraham]

And why not quote 4:12
"And who is there that has a fairer religion than he who submits his will to God being a do-gooder, and who follows the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith? And God took Abraham for a friend."On that point Judaism, Christianity and Islam concurr.
:D
Concurr on this: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html).
Nothing wrong with a little bit of humor, every now and then, Avon Lady...
I once made caspofungin laugh during Hurricane Kathrina (remember caspofunging: Hans Brinkers). So take off your helmet for a moment and smile (unless of course you don't like or get the joke...).
There should be some fun in posting on this forum.
:D

[Sixpack]

One thing:
Adolf Hitler was (a.f.a.i.k.: openly) an ANTI-christian. None of what he believed and persecuted was out of christian religion. I recall he took away crosses from churches as the only allowed cross was the nazi-swastika 'cross'. I dont think there was much room left for church-going in the Third Reich.

[Abraham]

Yep Sixpack, he despised the Christian religion as too meek. Also the general guidelines of Christianity as can be found in the Ten Commands and the Serman on the Mount (Mattew 5) didn't quite appeal to Nazi's.
Hitler had plans to devellop a new Germanic religion, mixing Christian elements with ancient Teutonic ones, in which Romantic concepts like "Blud und Boden" (Blood and Earth) and a "Supreme Being" stood central.

[Sixpack]

....Ten Commands and the Serman on the Mount (Mattew 5) didn't quite appeal to Nazi's..


:rotfl: The understatement of the week !

S!

[Abraham]

....Ten Commands and the Serman on the Mount (Mattew 5) didn't quite appeal to Nazi's..

:rotfl: The understatement of the week !
S!
I'll use any linguistic skill in my battle against (Neo-)Nazism and anti-Semitism...
:D

[tycho102]

Here's the reason why they're bombing India (and the US, and Britain, and Indonesia, and Thailand):

Abrogation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28exegesis%29)

You can find, in the Old Testament, some really outstanding ass-kicking passages. Who was it, David? Asked to bring back 20 penises (oh, yeah, like he was going to take the time to chop off just the foreskin, right!), and he brought back a bag of 200? Smiting Amalek.

But, see, that's why there's a New Testament. Jesus rolled through and said, "You used to do it that way with Moses and Abraham and stuff, but here's the new way to do it these days. Those were the old days, and that's what you did in the old days, but we've got this New Way of doing stuff."

Abrogation. Genesis and Exodus were extraordinarly violent. And when Islamic sympathizers quote "The Bible", they quote the Old Testament. Certainly those passages apply to the Jews, since the Old Testament applied to them; their Old Way.

The Old Testament. The New Testament. And naturally the Jews were a little preturbed by this, because it would have put all the Rabbis out of a job. They'd have to learn all new stuff, because their Old Stuff was no longer applicable. Without Abrogation, the Mullahs and the Imams and the Ayatollahs and the Grand Ayatollahs would be out of a job. They wouldn't be expanding to the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa, or India.

Which is why the Koran works the exact opposite of the Bible. The violent passages (Suras 6 through 9) are the ones being taught at the madrassas these days. Go forth and kick ass and smite the Great Satan and spare them not; turn the other cheek if it gains you a better shooting vantage. Taqiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya) and the Peace of Saladin. The "tolerant" and "peaceful" passages have been overthrown..



So they bomb the kuffars. In the old days, they used swords. But apparently, the madrassas have abrogated those portions of the Koran.

[mog]

look, i'm astute enough to know that the threat facing the west comes from an islamic background. all i'm trying to show is that it isn't islam itself necessarily that is what turns people into suicide bombers -- it's people twisting islamic precepts, presenting their own version of history, all to give themselves political and hence actual power.You're right on all that.
However somehow I have the impression that too many within Islam don't mind, look for excuses, put the blame with "the usual suspects" (Jews & Americans) and just don't realise how much all that hurts their own religion in the eyes of the world.
Also too many support or favour terror attacks. (I consider even 5% - 10% as too many, given the fact that we are talking about huge masses).
We are indeed talking about huge masses.

As of July 37% of Indonesians surveyed agreed that Osama bin Laden would "do the right thing regarding world affairs." If that survey was representative of the entire population, that translates to 89 million people in Indonesia alone who support the war against us. :o

51% of Pakistanis were of the same opinion. Add another 80 million Muslims to that figure.

If Islam is a religion of peace, then why are the moderates so impotent in stemming support for this perversion of their faith?

[The Avon Lady]

And naturally the Jews were a little preturbed by this, because it would have put all the Rabbis out of a job.
If you insist on stygmatizing.......................

They were "perturbed" because, from the Torah's viewpoint, Jesus was simply another heretic, plain and simple. There were already no lack of them at that time.

He didn't impress rabbis nor the masses of observant laypersons.

You wound up with one of our rejects.

[Sixpack]

You wound up with one of our rejects.

You...You...Infidel ! :hulk:

(Your choice ;) )

[The Avon Lady]

You wound up with one of our rejects.

You...You...Infidel ! :hulk:

(Your choice ;) )
Well, I have to admit, he's most appropriate for K.I.S.S. apostles. :yep:

:D

[Sixpack]

You wound up with one of our rejects.

You...You...Infidel ! :hulk:

(Your choice ;) )
Well, I have to admit, he's most appropriate for K.I.S.S. apostles. :yep:

:D

I guess I really shouldnt smile now....

[The Avon Lady]

You wound up with one of our rejects.

You...You...Infidel ! :hulk:

(Your choice ;) )
Well, I have to admit, he's most appropriate for K.I.S.S. apostles. :yep:

:D

I guess I really shouldnt smile now....
:cry: :-?