to those who think islam isn't a threat

[mapuc]

It may sound weird, but lets say it's 25th of aug. 2001 and someone in here say to an another in here that Atta is a terrorist and he's gonna do something very terrible.

The answer is given

This person will call him or her, a racist, out of touch with reality.

Yes Atta was o good citizen and so was the suicidebombers in England.

Markus

[Skybird]

Terror is not the problem with Islam, mapuc. It is a sting that sometimes causes us some minor pain, not more. The cultural changes in values, orientation, laws, freedoms; the stagnation, self-limitation, backward-evolution and lethargy that come with Islam - these are the threat it poses. Prevent and stop terrorism, if you can, okay. But don't think that is all about it.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Terror is not the problem with Islam, mapuc. It is a sting that sometimes causes us some minor pain, not more. The cultural changes in values, orientation, laws, freedoms; the stagnation, self-limitation, backward-evolution and lethargy that come with Islam - these are the threat it poses. Prevent and stop terrorism, if you can, okay. But don't think that is all about it.

Ok my faul, I should have been thinking of that, before I launched my thread.

Is it the person it self that abuse the holy quran or is it the quran that made the person to be a suicidebomber?

Markus

[Skybird]

You mix it up.

These questions belong together:

1.Is it the person that abuses the Quaran, or is the Quran abusing the person?

2.Is the Quran making a person a terrorist, or is the terrorist creating a Quran?

Answer to 1. The Quran gives plenty of quotes of beauty, tolerance, and peace - within the limits and borders set out by allah's will. Sharia is meant as a tool to help man to stay within these limits. where the church understands "sin" to be lying in the fact to believe in the false idols, Islam understands "sin" to be in the wrong way of believing , the act of believing itself. Therefor the church focussed on teaching images of God, whereas Islam focussed to educate the right way of believing (Muhammedan education follows this principle, and the Sharia must be understood as a tool to help in this, too). The Quran does not know our Western understanding of "unconditional" freedom, tolerance, peace. All that is allowed only as long as it is subjugated to the definiton of these terms on the ground of Allah's will, as it is understood to be lined out in the Quran. the Quran stands like a total, autark, final and absolute monolith, all values man thinks about must take place within the reach of it's shadow. so when a Muhammedan says to you "Freedom", he means a very different thing than you. He sees it on the ground of the Quran, whereas you may see it on the ground of the american constitution, or the european enlightenment. that's why for muhammedan thinking it is no contradiction at all to say "Freedom!" and demand the censorship of mass medias at the same time - when the freedom is being used to question Islam. The Danish cartoons are a prime example of this. For them, we acted as unreasonable as we think of their hysterical reactions. Maybe you know how there could be a peaceful coexstince between such two thinking traditions, I do not know how that could be possible, and I feel proven by history: whereever Islam came into touch with somethign that was not itself, it became violent, and tried to subjugate this somethign by force. It's a reflex. What I do now is where end of slavery, diverse philosophical thinking, modern medicine and such things have been invented - and that has not been the Islamic orient.

So my answer is: The Quran is abusing the person, by rejecting it's human potential, and excuses this by wanting to avoid the risks that come with growing complexity and growing degrees of freedom.

Answer to question 2: the Quran, in Muhammedan thinking, is the final end and climax of history, the final revelation of God, the end of developement and evolution: "it cannot become any better." Therefore, although historians can prove that there have been many Qurans during early history, and that they have been subjectively and intentionally manipulated to fit the opportunistic interests of local leaders and the group of professional Quran readers (making their income by interpreting the quran in the way the leader wanted it to preserve his power), Muhammedans nevertheless ignore all this and think of the Quran as one and the same Quran that always was, always is and always will be in this form. It cannot be changed or corrected, for that would be the heresy of wanting to change and correct God himself. Imagine the blasphemy.

So: yes, the Quran can turn a man into a terrorist. The latter then understands it to be the will of God that he shall be a terrorist, in the name of Allah/the Quran. The scripture is in explicit and open defense of violence and brutality towards those who do not accept to become part of Islam's house. Islam hides this cleverly from us, saying for example that the killing of innocents is not allowed - but ruling that civilians in infidel countries are not innocent. Therefore, their killing is acceptable. Muhammedan also say that Islam means "freedom". They usually do not tell you that a freedom under the sword of the prohet is meant. And that there shall not be no any restraint in free practice of religion - but free practice only is possible when the practiced religion is islam, since infidel's religion are basing on forged scriptures or are atheistic misbelief or abberations and thus cannot be able to create free practicing of religion by themselves. And so on and on. Islam does not openly lie in your face often (sometijmes it does). It deceives you by telling you not all, but only one half of what it really means. The missing part is what it really thinks about infidels. to every "yes", there is a hidden "but", limiting the introductory statement.

And Westerns do not stop to fall for this lie that is not an open lie - only a half-truth as dangerous and damaging as a lie, mybe even more so, since you find it much more difficult to reveal it. Talk against it, and they immediately yell "But it is written... this... and that..." I have stopped talking to true Muhammedans. For almolst tens years it has turned out to be a complete waste of time. You only get your words (and laws and rules and values) turned against yourself. Draw a line in the sand, say "not one step beyond anymore", and have a huge, sharp sword ready and on display. that is the only way to negotiate with Islam, else you get talked through the wall.

Muslim clerics have described Muslim families, women and children repeatedly as weapons of jihad. they know that we westerners are extremely hesitent to become tough against kids and females. We are hesitent to kick some ******* out of our country, if that means a blow to his family as well. Families in europe whose father have decided to honour-kill a daughter, often leave the deed to juvenile members of the clan, knowing that we will not deliever them the full penalty of our laws (that they do not accept anyway, since the only law Islam respects is sharia, always and everywhere). they intentionally abuse our own humanitarian attitude, and "kindness". that'S wyh I stopped being kind towards islam.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by mapuc

It may sound weird, but lets say it's 25th of aug. 2001 and someone in here say to an another in here that Atta is a terrorist and he's gonna do something very terrible.

There is nothing hypothetical about this. This is more or less precisely what happened [and in fact this was what led Moussaoui, the 20th would be hijacker, to be arrested on immigration charges one month before 9/11] so you are dead wrong to presume the warnings were dismissed because people were afraid of the PC police. Here are the facts:

the 858-page report of the congressional inquiry is the fullest official accounting to date of what went wrong with the government’s handling of the 9/11 plot. The picture that emerges from its pages (and from information that didn’t make it between its covers) entirely contradicts the administration’s initial portrayal of how 9/11 happened: that a group of quietly efficient attackers slipped unnoticed into the United States and blended into an anonymous, open society, leaving the authorities no chance to pick up their trail—what Seymour Hersh, citing a former FBI counterintelligence official, has labeled “the superman scenario.” Bush himself encapsulated this view two weeks after the attacks when he said: “These terrorists had burrowed in our country for over two years. They were well organized. They were well planned. They struck in a way that was unimaginable.”

In reality, Hersh quotes a top CIA official as saying, the plotters “violated a fundamental rule of clandestine operations.” Instead of “working independently and maintaining rigid communications security, the terrorists, as late as last summer, apparently mingled openly and had not yet decided which flights to target. The planning for September 11th appears to have been far more ad hoc than was at first assumed.”

Moreover, the hijackers did not fly under the radar of the intelligence agencies. The agencies, it turns out, did in fact manage to spot—and even monitor—several several of the 9/11 hijackers before they carried out the attacks, in some cases long before. Yet for reasons that so far remain a mystery, counterterrorism officials at FBI headquarters and the CIA consistently dropped the ball when it came to apprehending them—sometimes acting in ways that ran counter to standard practice, at times to the bafflement and anger of their colleagues.

It’s a point that was underlined during a revealing exchange that took place at a recent meeting between senior FBI agents and relatives of 9/11 victims. At the meeting, Kristen Breitweiser, a widow of one of the dead, posed a question: “How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously FBI agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?”

“We got lucky,” was the reply, according to an account of the meeting by Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer.

Breitweiser then asked how the FBI had known exactly which Portland, Maine ATM machine would turn up a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the terrorist ringleader.

That's only a small teaser from an outstanding expose on the infamous 9/11 report: http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C

[The Avon Lady]

***** Charlie Sheen Wannabee Warning ******

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

That's only a small teaser from an outstanding expose on the infamous 9/11 report: http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C

Teaser.