Religious Extremism

[kidcanman]

The Taliban is not based in Iraq. Yes I can confirm that Saddam was not a threat to us because if he was a threat to us then Bush would have revealed that threat in order to justify his attack.

 

[Stormcrow]

Yes I can confirm that Saddam was not a threat to us because if he was a threat to us then Bush would have revealed that threat in order to justify his attack.

Been sitting in on many NSA meetings, have you?

This thread has now "jumped the shark." I'm bored. Peace. Out.

 

[kidcanman]

Stormcrow, I'm surprised that you actually presented an honest piece of evidence in regards to my point instead of just presenting hyperbole and randomly attacking Islam.

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure that you will continue with random attacks in the future and so, even though your argument is surprisingly reasonable, I won't respond to it.

 

[jasoncran]

The Taliban is not located in Iraq. Yes I can confirm that Saddam was not a threat to us because if he was a threat to us then Bush would have revealed that threat in order to justify his attack.

he did.

President Bush, in a sober but chilling address, warned the public tonight that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “a murderous tyrant†who poses an immediate threat to the United States and American lives.
Seeking to rally support for a congressional resolution that would authorize him to order unilateral U.S. military action against Iraq, Bush said, “While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.â€
Bush said that the resolution did not mean that war with Iraq was “imminent or unavoidable.†But, he said, it would show “the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice.â€
Bush spoke in a televised speech aides said was scheduled so that he could explain his Iraqi policy directly to the American people. While it is seems likely that the resolution Bush seeks will pass both houses of Congress by the end of the week, polls show that public support is waning. Most Americans still support war against Iraq, but have questions about its timing and the lack of support from allies. Monday night, Bush’s Democratic critics in Congress said they remained unconvinced of the need to strike immediately.
As he made his case, Bush offered little new information, borrowing phrases from his U.N. address last month, remarks he made on the congressional resolution at the White House last week, and recent Capitol Hill testimony and news conferences by members of his Cabinet.
Instead, he systematically went through the now-familiar case against Iraq: Saddam’s long defiance of United Nations disarmament demands and barring of U.N. weapons inspectors; evidence that he has stores of chemical and biological weapons and is seeking to build a nuclear device; his repression against his own people. And he repeatedly emphasized that a failure to act quickly could disrupt the balance of power in the Middle East and cost American lives.
Among the measures he is seeking, Bush said, “the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction.â€
Since the administration began its push on Iraq, both in Congress and the U.N, Baghdad has alternately said it is ready to cooperate, and that it will never succumb to U.S. pressure. Iraq has said it has no weapons of mass destruction, and no interest in acquiring them.
The administration has left open the question of whether Iraqi disarmament was sufficient to satisfy U.S. concerns, or, some top officials have insisted, only “regime change†would remove the threat Iraq poses.
“I hope this will not require military action,†Bush said, “but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures,†he said.But the president insisted it would be foolhardy to delay action. “Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.â€

again it may have been on faulty grounds but lets walk through did hussein have them wmds

hmm this says he did.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
and it has a link to a pdf that is unclassified that says what i think could have happened.

but i will go back further.

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/no-wmds-in-iraq/


and that says he didnt. so at point he did have it. so either bush lied for oil. but yet we dont have oil from there do we.?

if it was about oil i dont think obama would have pulled us out.

we get most of our oil from .. canada!

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/100726/top-7-us-oil-importers

so why would we then let that go (yes its number seven) but if one is to do that logic. hmm wouldnt it be easier to invade and have never left?

we did leave iraq ya know and obama ran on that promise, but he didnt want to vacate. so i ask again if the war was about oil then we wouldnt have left as surely them oil supporters of obama

and viola!

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/03/28/4431825-fact-check-obama-and-oil

that is a well a liberal newsource. hmm odd? why wouldnt shell and others want us to leave if its all about oil?

 

[Free]

It's not true. I don't need to do research about a topic that I already know about. I'm not going to sort through the long article in your link in order to find out if the sources are legitimate.

Why don't you present a short example on this board, and then cite the book that it came out of?

It is true. The only ones denying it all are Muslims and their supporters. Why would you need to look through the "long article" to find out if it the sources are legitimate? It's a Muslim site.

I could also provide a citation from a book that I have. One could also look at these books: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...encer-20/103-1603172-8127010?v=glance&s=books

again, that's not true, provide an example.

Again, it is true. I have just given two links to a Muslim site which support my assertions.

The things that you think are consistent with Islam, and the things that you think are done in the name of Islam are to a large extent not true. I know that my claims are no more than that, "claims", but I am simply responding "claim for claim".

And yet you won't read the sources I have given. I have supported my claim and I will continue to do so.

Again, from a Islamic site: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/43087

 

[Stormcrow]

In the English-language Muslim World Magazine it says: There should be some kind of fear in the western world, one of the causes of which is that since the time it first appeared in Makkah, Islam has never decreased in numbers, rather it has always continued to increase and spread. Moreover Islam is not only a religion, rather one of its pillars is jihad.

Islam spread through violence and the fear of violence.

Christ called His people "sheep." Islam makes its people wolves.

Wolves aren't so tough when the sheep are armed.

'Nuff said.

 

[kidcanman]

Here, I'll post it for you. This is the Yusuf Ali translation from harunyahya.com

I love these verses from the Quran Drummer4Christ.

These are the verses that non-Muslims have taken from the Quran to be the verses that are the most violent.

To be sure, non-Muslims will present other verses. But what makes me proud is that these are considered the most incriminating verses in the Quran when it comes to promoting violence.

What I will point out, and what you, Drummer4Christ, have already tacitly admitted,

Even if Muslims are only acting "defensively"

is that the strongest argument that non-Muslims have that the Quran promotes violence are verses that promote violence, IN SELF DEFENSE.

Every honest person will agree after examining the verses. Here goes:

The summation of these verses is that Muslims had a treaty with the non-Muslims, and the non-Muslims violated the treaty and attacked the prophet. As a result Allah revealed that the treaty is now void and the Muslims are allowed to kill the non-Muslims who violated the treaty. However Allah gave the traitors four months to leave town or die.

This is a just revelation. You see if there were a group of people who made an assassination attempt on the leader of a country, then of course those people will either be jailed, exiled, or killed. Now if they refused to be jailed or exiled, then of course they would have to be put to death. There is nothing unjust about it.

The verses state to only kill the traitors. Verse 9:4 reads:"(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous."

Verse 9:6 states that even though the Muslims were dealing with traitors and people who deserved to be killed, they still were not allowed to kill indisriminantly: "if one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

And of course verse 9:13 is further proof that these verses are speaking of fighting in self defense: "Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!"


Therefore Drummer4Christ. I stated that there are no verses in the Quran that instruct Muslims to be the aggressor and attack anybody and then you presented me verses that instruct Muslims to act in self defense.

I am not surprised because these are verses that non-Muslims have repeatedly quoted out of context in order to prove that the Quran promotes violence. But what is interesting to me is that you would present the verses in context with the evidence against your assertions clearly displayed.

 

[kidcanman]

Jasoncran, I wrote that if Saddam was a threat to us then Bush would have revealed that threat in order to justify his attack.


Then you asserted that he did: the WMD.

The problem is that not only did we not find any WMD after the war was waged, but Bush decided to attack before there was any concrete evidence that Sadam had WMD.

In other words Bush attacked without any concrete evidence that there was a threat.

But actually the case is worse.

There were inspectors sent into Iraq prior to Bush's "Crusade", and those inspectors stated that Saddam did not have any WMD.

So not only did Bush not have any evidence that there was a threat, he had evidence that there was not a threat, and he still decided to attack. Most likely his, "mission from God" was the real motivating factor.

To be sure if Saddam attacked the U.S under the same circumstances and then stated that he was on a "mission from God", everyone would believe that his "mission" was the motivating factor.

 

[kidcanman]

It is true. The only ones denying it all are Muslims and their supporters. Why would you need to look through the "long article" to find out if it the sources are legitimate? It's a Muslim site.

I could also provide a citation from a book that I have. One could also look at these books: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...encer-20/103-1603172-8127010?v=glance&s=books


Again, it is true. I have just given two links to a Muslim site which support my assertions.


And yet you won't read the sources I have given. I have supported my claim and I will continue to do so.

Again, from a Islamic site: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/43087

Free, it is not difficult for you to present an example and then cite what book it came from.

I don't trust that websites are "Muslim" websites just because they have Arabic names. And I am not inclined to believe in the commentary presented by anybody, even Muslim Scholars, unless it either makes logical sense, or is backed up by legitimate sources.

And so I'm waiting for you to present a short example with a citation. You want me to go to your websites and do a massive amount of research while you sit back and post links?...

No

 

[Vic C.]

This thread is closed for a time so it can be reviews and cleaned up.

This has turned into a Christian/Islamic debate and that has led to several violations of the ToS, mainly a disregard of Christianity in general. Be thankful to your god warnings weren't imposed or that you haven't been thrown out of here by now. 2

 

[reba]

In the Words of our Lord

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.