Dipping bullets in pork to demoralize terrorists.

[U-533]

Originally Posted by robbo180265

No I'm not DUH!

I'm saying that you lot are exactly the same, both justifying your hate with stuff that "happened" thousands of years ago

Do pay attention 007

Well I ain't justifying my hate of xenos or whatever...using past or recent events.

Honestly, I only hate people who wish to control my way of life I have grown accustom to.

You wanted a more "Firstestyer" contest I gave you proof that the woman who conceived the Islamic people "Hated" first.

Now if it occurred 6000 years or just a few minutes ago...does not matter... the fact remains.

If you wish to discount the Bible as historic proof... because of "whatever"...

Then the prize goes to Avon Lady.

You at the out set did not specify a time frame.

Denying the past and or rewriting it to suite your ego is what keeps draging us back to war.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by robbo180265

You posted it hun, not me

That was my response to John Channing regarding his historically misleading claims about cause and effect. This does not in any way contradict what I responded to you about current events.

Or can you not comprehend that? Or are you just trying to get off cheap?

[Letum]

What is your view on the origional topic Avon?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by U-533

You wanted a more "Firstestyer" contest I gave you proof that the woman who conceived the Islamic people "Hated" first.

Your reply is historically extremely inaccurate. There were no such things as Muslims or Islam before some 1400 years ago. Had you asked Haggar and Yishmael if they were Muslims, they would have responded "whah?" (pronounce like Tim Allen responding to Wilson in "Home Improvement"). It is only Islam that claims its own 6th century invention goes back to Adam and Eve (double "whah?"). So unless you're a Muslim, Hagar and Islam have nothing to do with each other. Besides, Islam claims Abraham was a good Muslim, too ("whah?"), and you'll never see Islam hating in any which way patriarch Ibrahim - nosiree!

In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.

Denying the past and or rewriting it to suite your ego is what keeps draging us back to war.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Letum

What is your view on the origional topic Avon?

Dead pig is unclean according to Islamic law but that will not stop some Imam from finding a precedent or deriving a legal conclusion to issue a fatwa showing that an Muslim's soul will still achieve the highest levels in the world to come when dying in such a way during an act of Jihad.

I do not have the time right now to search for where I saw this discussed on Islamic sites quite some time ago.

While there are many incidents of Muslims becoming very agitated by live pigs or pig figures, you'll find no lack of fatwas saying that lives pigs are simply another one of G-d's creations and there's nothing wrong with petting or holding them at the zoo or farm.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Dead pig is unclean according to Islamic law but that will not stop some Imam from finding a precedent or deriving a legal conclusion to issue a fatwa showing that an Muslim's soul will still achieve the highest levels in the world to come when dying in such a way during an act of Jihad.

Come to think of it, I'm surprised that didn't happen when the British East India Company's army used pork fat bullets.
At first it happened by accident there, but when someone pointed out that pork fat was used to grease the bullets the EIC's army publicised it for a bit to try and reduce the rebellion's moral, until they realised it was a very bad idea!

[DanCanovas]

I love this Avon Lady! she has a way of saying so many things I just cant get out!

[dean_acheson]

Originally Posted by CCIP

And that relates to pork-tipped bullets HOW? :hmm:

In the attitude that if we just do as the Islamofascists like, and properly respect Islam, they will be nice and not blow up our buildings.... I think the Democratic states tried that once, with predictable results...

[U-533]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Your reply is historically extremely inaccurate. There were no such things as Muslims or Islam before some 1400 years ago. Had you asked Haggar and Yishmael if they were Muslims, they would have responded "whah?" (pronounce like Tim Allen responding to Wilson in "Home Improvement"). It is only Islam that claims its own 6th century invention goes back to Adam and Eve (double "whah?"). So unless you're a Muslim, Hagar and Islam have nothing to do with each other. Besides, Islam claims Abraham was a good Muslim, too ("whah?"), and you'll never see Islam hating in any which way patriarch Ibrahim - nosiree!

In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.

Well there you have it then ... I concede to Avon Lady ...

True the Muslim religion did not exsit and the Islamic people did not go by those names however many years ago the Bible was written. BUT what I stated is taught in my Sunday school. I go with what I know.

Wait wait ... umm... Let me ask this please?

Islamics are a people and Muslim is one of their religions?

[Takeda Shingen]

Alright, this little boxing match has run it's course, and is wandering far and wide. The only thing left to come is hurt feelings, so I ask you all to wrap it up so that I don't have to.

Thanks.
The Management

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The only thing left to come is hurt feelings, so I ask you all to wrap it up so that I don't have to.

:p

[gdogghenrikson]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I love it. It is fitting that they die and be one with the pigs they despise so much.

And to the post above about why they hate Americans so much - ask yourself who hated whom first? Yes we, hate terrorists and always will and anything that we can do to make their life miserable is a good thing in my book.

We didn't hate them - they made us hate them. We need to quit dancing aroudn the rose bush like everything is fine and wake up to the fact that those roses have thorns and go ahead and fight fire with fire.

-S

well said

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Dead pig is unclean according to Islamic law but that will not stop some Imam from finding a precedent or deriving a legal conclusion to issue a fatwa showing that an Muslim's soul will still achieve the highest levels in the world to come when dying in such a way during an act of Jihad.

I do not have the time right now to search for where I saw this discussed on Islamic sites quite some time ago.

Basic taqiyya 101. To further jihad and spread the power of the clergy, they can eat pig, screw prostitutes, get completely pissed down at the local boozer. Just so long as when the ganglord attacks, that mujahid has already cut the telephone wires and killed the gate guard.

That's totally in the quran. I don't know where. I always just assume 7 or 9 until shown otherwise. Here's a similar one I googled.
Qur'an:4:94 "Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah's Cause, investigate carefully, and say not to anyone who greets you: ‘You are not a believer!' Coveting the chance profits of this life (so that you may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils and booty."

For mujahideen in the land of Dar al-Harb, anything goes. Yay for despoiling!

However, I support anything that fractures islam along clan and sect lines. Pig bullets sounds like it would just that purpose for a short time before all the ayatollahs got word out to all the clan imams what the new party line was.

[Abd_von_Mumit]

I'll stick on facts. It would be probably very interesting to join the discussion, but I'm affraid it's not possible because of my too poor English. There is enough misunerstanding in this thread, I'm not going to add language issues as another source of it.

But I''ve read whole the thread and found many bull**ts (pig**ts?) here.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Stop having wellmeaning and self-deceiving illusions about Islam. Look at the status it led Islamic societies to over the last 14 centuries. If Islam is so right and wonderful, why did it lead Arabic societies to social stagnation, and loosing the educatioinal and scientific superiority Arabia had over Europe in the Medieval - before Muhammed appeared?

Arabia had none superiority over anyone before Muhammad appeared. They were a big bunch of tribes fighting each other, hearding their camels, enjoying sunny weather, worshipping stones and mountains and writing unbelievably good poetry. In the Medieval 'Arabia', as you call it, id est the Arab-Muslim Empire (as historians call it nowadays), however they reached an extremely high level of civilisation (under Islamic rule, take a note): literature, social and healthcare, medicine, philosophy, mathematics and so on. Much higher than in Europe. There are uncountable reasons of fall down of the Empire, as usually. One of them is time (no empire lasts forever), devastating Mongol invasions, alienation of the rulers etc. etc. But all the best achievements of Arab-Muslim civilisation (BUT poetry) were gained only after Muhammad founded Islam.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why is a man who intimidated others, forced their surrender by violence, gave orders for assassination, blackmailed protection money, massacred whole tribes and murdered even male children of even the yolungest ages while leading all females into slavery and sexual exploitation, who started and ordered 60-70 wars and predatory raids, and whose only idea to defend himself against criticism was to throw critics into prisons, murder them and claim that he was acting in the name of some god - why is such a Mafiosi and mass-murderer still accepted as a holy man, a preacher of peace and freedom - when all he had to show in his deeds was submitting others, act with aggression, teach hate and intolerance against all who refused his authority and power, rob others, and wade in blood thoughout the better part of his life...???

Probably for the same reasons, as Moses, Jozue and Israelites (you can found the story in the Bible), who murdered whole cities and wiped quite a few civilisations. Religion is a strange thing, man, and takes one's reason away...

Take a note: Muhammad is NOT treated as a 'holy man' in Islam, it would be a heresy to call him that. Learn more about Islam, it's always good to know more than know less, even if Islam is your enemy.

Also refrain from using the term "Muhammedans", which is highly offensive to Muslims, as they don't worship Muhammad, but the God, Allah.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Judge Islam - not by our standards, but by it's own standard. Learn to differ between what you want it to be (with the intention to make it something that you can deal with according to your own standards and instruments), and what it really is. Stop being a fool. Start to be a realist. Stop reading the Quran. Read history books. And then try to find parrallels to the teachings of humanistic philosphers of the West, Buddha or Jesus. You will fail. Islam is the anti-thesis to it all. It is not the victim, but the perpetrator. where it is violant, it does not violate it's teachings, but fulfills them.

Islam is like any other religion or ideology. It evolves. Christianism had to go through its 2k years history full of blood, hatred and suffering before it became a (quite) peacefull religion. Even Bhuddism has blood on its hands. As almost every ideology does. But that doesn't mean that "Islam is evil". If it's so, that means any human ideology or thought is evil. Democracy is evil too, as thousands of people die now in Iraq, because Americans want to plant it on Iraqi ground with their military power.

Never forget, that there are hundreds of millions muslims in the world. And the so called Al-Qaida is run probably by no more than like 1k men, if that many. Whole the rest of the Muslims wish rather to stay home, live their own lives, earn money, grow children, watch TV and play computer games. The fundamentalists are dangerous regardless of their religion or ideology. Are they communists, Islamic, Jewish or Christian fanatics, nazis or greens...

When you discuss the reasons of the actual terrorist issue, never forget King David Hotel in Jerusalem. NEVER forget that. Islam is not the very origin of the terror. The Palestine is. If not the Palestine problem, there would not be any Hamas, Hizbullah, PLO, IJ. And in the Palestinian conflict neither side is clean, nor the international community is. There is no black and white, there are only flavours of grey, my friends.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Islam says that all what is is it's own sooner or later, and that it has the obligation to help that fate to become fulfilled.

Remember the infamous Treaty of Tordesillas? If too long, look for the word 'pope' in the text.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You bettter start to take that serious. the history of the Nazi'S rise shows that you do need only a gang of five or ten determined thugs taking on their black gloves to intimidate and make stopping to maove and make turning around a demonstration column of hundreds.

History of manking and Christianity tells me, that you do need only one Empire that takes christianity as it's religion to dip the world in a never ending crusade. Sounds similar? It would be better to skip using such a propagandist language.

Originally Posted by August

In 614 the country fell to the Persians. The conquest of Jerusalem was a bloody affair in which thousands of inhabitants were massacred. Many churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, were destroyed and others were damaged. The sacred cross upon which Jesus was crucified was looted. Fifteen years later, in 620, the Emperor Heraclius restored Byzantine rule and returned the cross to its place. But within a decade, in 638, Jerusalem surrendered again, this time to the forces of a rising power on the stage of history -- the Muslim Arabs.

The bolded massacre was done by the Persians - what does it have in common with then rising Muslim empire?

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Your reply is historically extremely inaccurate. There were no such things as Muslims or Islam before some 1400 years ago. Had you asked Haggar and Yishmael if they were Muslims, they would have responded "whah?" (pronounce like Tim Allen responding to Wilson in "Home Improvement"). It is only Islam that claims its own 6th century invention goes back to Adam and Eve (double "whah?"). So unless you're a Muslim, Hagar and Islam have nothing to do with each other. Besides, Islam claims Abraham was a good Muslim, too ("whah?"), and you'll never see Islam hating in any which way patriarch Ibrahim - nosiree!

That's not true. Islam doesn't refer to any of the 'patriarches' as "Muslim". They were "righteous worshippers of the [one] God", no more, no less. Abraham, Moses, Jesus and so on were NOT Muslims, as one could become Muslim only after foundation of Islam itself.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

In addition, historically, there was a tremendous amount of population mixes 2500 years ago in the entire region, courtesy of the Babylonians. Claiming that Arabs are purebred descendents of Yishmael is simply false.

Same applies to any 'nation'. In these times there was not such a name as "Arab", nor was it one people, nation or anything. Various tribes dwelled in the Arabian peninsula, speaking different languages, with different cultures. The same applies to Israelites - you can't say they were "sons of Abraham and Sarah", as historians seem to prove that they were a union of some semitic tribes (related extremely closely the what we call 'Arabic tribes').

The Peninsula was never under Babylonian rule, by the way.


PS To the guys who have "Lan astaslam" (لن أستسلم) phrase in their sig: you are using a wrong word. The verb 'astaslama' means "to surrender, to capitulate", but has no connection to Islam. Other word derivated from this verb are: 'istislam' - 'capitulation'; 'istislami' - 'capitulant [the one who capitulates']. If you'd like to express surrending AND taking Islam, you should use other verb, the very one that word 'Islam' comes from: 'aslama' (to submit, to take Islam). Words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Islami' all come from the verb 'aslama' (NOT 'astaslama'). So, if you want to express the idea of 'not surrending to Islam', you should use the correct phrase: Lan aslam (لن أسلم). :rotfl:

And remember to shoot you propaganda guy. He hasn't done well.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Abd_von_Mumit

I'll stick on facts

At least you get an "A" for effort.

I will let Skybird REPEAT his answers to many of your claims to his posts (we've been there, done that). I will respond to your claims against my posts.

Same applies to any 'nation'.

Well, there you go then.

In these times there was not such a name as "Arab", nor was it one people, nation or anything. Various tribes dwelled in the Arabian peninsula, speaking different languages, with different cultures.

"And all the kings of Arabia (Hebrew: "Malchei Arav") and all the kings of the allies who dwell in the desert."
- Jeremiah, 25:24

This was precisely at the time of Babylonian rule. There is also a reference to Arabian kings in Kings I, 10:15. As implied, there were numerous such kings, inidcating seemingly tribal kingdoms, quite common at the time.

The same applies to Israelites - you can't say they were "sons of Abraham and Sarah", as historians seem to prove that they were a union of some semitic tribes (related extremely closely the what we call 'Arabic tribes').

Very misleading. Jew law is very specific what qualifies a person as being either Jewish by birth or by conversion. However, even at the exodus from Egypt the Torah mentions a "mixed multitude" (Hebrew: "eirev rav") of converts who joined the exodus. These were Egyptians and other "foreign nationals" who joined the Israelites, with the begrudging approval of Moses but not of G-d's, with disasterous consequences from that point in Jewish history onward.

The Peninsula was never under Babylonian rule, by the way.

Tons of refugees fled Egypt and Mesepotamia to the Arabian peninsula and Babylonian king Nabonidus went on a campaign against Arabia around 550BCE and settled there for the remainder of his life. BTW, Nabonidus' son was the biblicall famous Belshazzar, who couldn't read the writing on the wall.

PS To the guys who have "Lan astaslam" (لن أستسلم) phrase in their sig: you are using a wrong word. The verb 'astaslama' means "to surrender, to capitulate", but has no connection to Islam.

Not directly. At least I know that. The point of the signature is that we will not tolerate Islam's intended subjugation of us non-Islamic infidels. A clear and elementary message.

Other word derivated from this verb are: 'istislam' - 'capitulation'; 'istislami' - 'capitulant [the one who capitulates']. If you'd like to express surrending AND taking Islam, you should use other verb, the very one that word 'Islam' comes from: 'aslama' (to submit, to take Islam). Words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Islami' all come from the verb 'aslama' (NOT 'astaslama'). So, if you want to express the idea of 'not surrending to Islam', you should use the correct phrase: Lan aslam (لن أسلم). :rotfl:

Sound right either way.

And remember to shoot you propaganda guy. He hasn't done well.

On the contrary!