More evidence... Jihad not about Policy, but religion. (PV_)

[Niner4Tango]

Originally Posted by leftywa

Hear him. Religion is the cause of the vast majority of the violence in the world. Islam is doing a lousy job, but Christianity does not have clean hands.

Rwanda, Crusades, inquisition, treatment of Aztecs, Incas, Caribs and Arawaks, not just mean old catholics either. Calvin (if you are a presbyterian you are a Calvinist) and Luther both believed that heretics like catholics and unitarians and hindus and muslims should be killed. Hell, Calvin himself captured one of his primary rivals (a unitarian) and had him burned.

Kinda funny to single out one religion and claim that they are uniquely violent.

leftywa, I'd like to have a beer with you sometime, even though you're probably a Husky

True, more men have died in history over religion than for any other single cause. But the Muslims are the only ones waging a religious war today, and we refuse to admit that.

We shouldn't excuse them for their violence.

[Judge]

It's not really kind of funny, it's true.

I don't, for example, slam the "barbary pirates' for enslaving people - b/c we all know it's wrong and others, even in America, were doing it too.

In medieval times men had much different perspectives, they wre tougher men, tougher more brutal times. Things to them were much more black and white. I won't judge them b/c I wasn't there. In addition, much of what you claim was done by Christians was done by men who hardly knew how to spell Christian, much less professed the faith.

What we do know is that the last 7 years - for example, and we can go back farther, you've not seen Christians strapping on bombs, flying planes into buildings or using children as bombs. You won't find more charitable orginizations than the Christian ones, to every race and nation. You won't see Christian beheading someone who doesn't accept their faith.

There are many differences, you just have to have eyes to see.

Originally Posted by leftywa

Hear him. Religion is the cause of the vast majority of the violence in the world. Islam is doing a lousy job, but Christianity does not have clean hands.

Rwanda, Crusades, inquisition, treatment of Aztecs, Incas, Caribs and Arawaks, not just mean old catholics either. Calvin (if you are a presbyterian you are a Calvinist) and Luther both believed that heretics like catholics and unitarians and hindus and muslims should be killed. Hell, Calvin himself captured one of his primary rivals (a unitarian) and had him burned.

Kinda funny to single out one religion and claim that they are uniquely violent.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by leftywa

Hear him. Religion is the cause of the vast majority of the violence in the world. Islam is doing a lousy job, but Christianity does not have clean hands.

Rwanda, Crusades, inquisition, treatment of Aztecs, Incas, Caribs and Arawaks, not just mean old catholics either. Calvin (if you are a presbyterian you are a Calvinist) and Luther both believed that heretics like catholics and unitarians and hindus and muslims should be killed. Hell, Calvin himself captured one of his primary rivals (a unitarian) and had him burned.

Kinda funny to single out one religion and claim that they are uniquely violent.

Actually, it's more a prejudicial act than a comedy act. Kinda funny huh
Doing it in the name of (insert religious preference here).

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Judge

It's not really kind of funny, it's true.

I don't, for example, slam the "barbary pirates' for enslaving people - b/c we all know it's wrong and others, even in America, were doing it too.

In Midivel times men had much different perspectives, they wre tougher men, tougher more brutal times. Things to them were much more black and white. I won't judge them b/c I wasn't there. In addition, much of what you claim was done by Christians was done by men who hardly knew how to spell Christian, much less professed the faith.

What we do know is that the last 7 years - for example, and we can go back farther, you've not seen Christians strapping on bombs, flying planes into buildings or using children as bombs. You won't find more charitable orginizations than the Christian ones, to every race and nation. You won't see Christian beheading someone who doesn't accept their faith.

There are many differences, you just have to have eyes to see.

Sorry, read something else first, consider me blind

[leftywa]

Originally Posted by Niner4Tango

lTrue, more men have died in history over religion than for any other single cause. But the Muslims are the only ones waging a religious war today, and we refuse to admit that.

We shouldn't excuse them for their violence.

We certainly should not, but they are not the only ones fighting a religious war. Just about all of the conflicts happening right now are religiously motivated.

Croat v. Serb= These people are the same ethnic group speaking the same language, but one side is Catholic and the other Orthodox

Kosovo- The Serbs are likely to go to war again in the near future because Kosovo is the spiritual homeland of the Christian Serb Kingdoms amd if the 90% Muslim population wants to form its own governmen, tough. This is the original seat of the autocephalus Serbian Orthodox Church and its being handed over to infidels will not be tolerated.

Northern Ireland- Although apparently quiet now, has been an ongoing Christian on Christian religious war.

We find it deeply offensive that Muslims want to prevail and convert the world to Islam, and then go to church on Sunday and sing, "One day every tongue will confess you are God, One day every knee will bow..."

It is the same thing if you ask me. We are just more familiar with one and the other is foreign.

P.S. Not a Husky

[rucker]

Originally Posted by Judge

The gist of the entire article is that moslem teachings can allow for murdering 'infidels' in the name of jihad... it doesn't have geographical significance, you just kill as many infidels as you can.

Where better to find infidels than the US and Britain??

You didn't answer the question. Why do they predominately choose the US and Britain?

If it is a "global battlefield" and geography doesn't matter then why not Mexico, Canada, Australia, Brazil, or even South Africa? I checked on CIA World Factbook and all these nations have about the same percentage of Christians as the US.

It seems like a hell of a coincidence that the whole world is their battlefield yet, by chance, they chose the two countries who have been meddling in their affairs the longest.

Your own story proves that if the whole world is their battlefield then there must be some extra reason that would make them come around the globe to attack us here.

Spin it how you will but that reason is: policy.

[leftywa]

Originally Posted by rucker

You didn't answer the question. Why do they predominately choose the US and Britain?

If it is a "global battlefield" and geography doesn't matter then why not Mexico, Canada, Australia, Brazil, or even South Africa? I checked on CIA World Factbook and all these nations have about the same percentage of Christians as the US.

It seems like a hell of a coincidence that the whole world is their battlefield yet, by chance, they chose the two countries who have been meddling in their affairs the longest.

Your own story proves that if the whole world is their battlefield then there must be some extra reason that would make them come around the globe to attack us here.

Spin it how you will but that reason is: policy.

Agreed. The "They hate us because we love freedom" crap just does not fly. The Swiss love freedom, the Mexicans love freedom, they love freedom in Argentina.

[AZXD]

Have patience, the truth will come out.
Policy is truth?
Truth is policy?
Truth is Truth?
Policy is policy?

What did page 4 say?
Found it!


















Policy is, what policy is

[sammi]

Apart from the fact that there were several flaws in the accuracy of his statements, this is an opinion article which really doesnt hold much wait.

For the first part it is true that these terrorists like islamicthinkers and islamicjihad do push for the idea of an Islaamic state. But there is a reason they do this in the first place. I have mentioned before than their main enmity is toward the muslim rulers in the muslim lands not the nonmuslims living in england or usa or wherever they maybe. They do not believe the rulers are muslim so they believe in there eyes that it becomes obligatory to fight them and replace them with "proper sharia". If it wasnt for this then they wouldnt be going around killing people in the first place. If they believed that the muslim rulers were indeed muslims they would not have split from the main body of muslims and form their own gangs to build an "islamic state".

Now that we have that out of the way, it is crucial to understand that the actions of the rulers in the muslim lands although they may not always be islamic one cannot revolt against them and doing so is strictly prohibited in the sharia. So theese groups are ignorant of the sharia in the first place.

Once they have declared themselves as the "true leaders" of the muslims then they act as if they are the government. They believe that since the united states and the UK are attacking muslim lands that they now have the duty as they are the "new government" to defend the muslims even though their own country (saudi arabia for example) is not at war with the united states. So they are renegades, revolutionists, acting without the approval of the scholars nor their leaders.

They do believe that they can kill civillians because they think in dar al harb (place of war), that women and children are targets as well. However this is contrary to the sharia as the prophet made it clear that even in war time your not even allowed to cut down trees, kill women or children or even munks in their temples. But not only are they not at war, they are not even at a battlefield. Fighting is when 1 army meets another army in the battlefield not how they are doing it. So it is really a case of ignorance over ignorance over ignorance.

Some of there errors:
1-splitting away forming their own group 2-self appointing themselves to be leaders 3-using verses that are meant to be for the muslim goverment headed by an amir (ruler) for a warfare situation on inocent civilians 4-neglating all the rules of combat on the battlefield when they kill children women and even themselves.

So its not just as this mans opinion was on the article. It is more than that but it seems that he is also ignorant of what he got himself into. If it makes anyone feel any better as to the accuracy of my statements i know more than one muslim who used to think like the one in that article and now they are strong believers against terrorism and against this ignorant belief that is spread by these kharijees.

[leftywa]

Originally Posted by Judge

I In addition, much of what you claim was done by Christians was done by men who hardly knew how to spell Christian, much less professed the faith.

Luther, Calvin hardly knew how to spell Christian? This is a new theory. Tell us more.