Define conservatism

[Friendindeed]

You yourself said that you don't favor leaving them to their own devices and now you are harping on me for rejecting that point as well?

Reread the thread. What I said to you was that I disagreed with both you and Lilly, my tactic would be to talk with them instead of your way (invading their countries) or Lilly's way (leaving them alone). Lilly then agreed with me that talking is a good idea too.


We did not invade that area. They are, and always have been the invaders. Learn the history.

You learn the history. These charges you make are absurd, casting the west as always good and Muslims as always evil.


Would you like a comprehensive list of terror attacks against american interests going back for decades before we ever invaded any part of the middle east? It exists.

I've seen your list and the only place it can be found is on certified Islamophobe sites like "Jihad Watch".

[vyo476]

We did not invade that area. They are, and always have been the invaders. Learn the history.


I suppose that this is in reference to the fact that Muslims conquered most of the Middle East in the seventh century, yes? Or the fact that failed Muslim invasions of Europe took place throughout the Middle Ages, into the Renaissance? Or perhaps it has to do with the Ottoman Empire's support of Germany during WWI?

Well, yes. Those things did happen. In each of those cases Muslim forces invaded and at least attempted to conquer the natural inhabitants of the areas they were moving towards. You're correct in the assessment that Muslims have, historically been invaders.

However, if we're going to discuss religion and warfare, taking a glance at what historians refer to as the "Age of Religious Warfare" might be a good idea. Especially since all that religious warfare centers on the West - the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics as Protestantism was founded. Especially since it shows that Islam is not the only world religion that has had more than its healthy share of warfare. Especially since despite the extreme violence promoted and propagated by the Catholic Church it is considered a "peaceful" religion today - because it is recognized that all religion is interpretative.

Let's take a quick look at the Five Pillars of Islam.

The first is Shahadah - total submission to the will of God. There's a recitation that is the basis of Shahadah - it goes something like, "The only God is Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger." This is an acknowledgment that, in the Islamic faith, Allah is the only God (Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is monotheistic).

The second is Salah, which requires Muslims to pray five times a day. There are some pretty specific guidelines: pray at this time, use a prayer rug/mat, pray in the direction of the holy city (Mecca, in case you were wondering), etc.

The third is Zakat, or "alms-giving." Basically it is a sort of required charity with varying levels depending on how materially wealthy you are.

The fourth is Sawm, fasting. Muslims use fasting in a number of different ways - it is considered a way to grow closer to Allah and it is considered a form of capitulation for wrongs (analogous to confession in Christianity).

The fifth is Hajj, or pilgrimage, which requires every able-bodied Muslim to make a journey to Mecca at least once in his or her lifetime. Once again, there are guidelines - what to wear and how close you can get to certain things, etc.

Those are the five pillars of Islam, the core beliefs shared by all Muslims (and if they don't follow those in some way then they ain't Muslims). These five pillars can be interpreted in a number of ways - especially that first one, Shahadah, which is the submission to the will of Allah. Where do we find the will of Allah?

The Qur'an. The only "true" version of the Qur'an, according to Muslims, is the one that is written in the original Arabic...so let's take a look at Arabic for a minute.

I think the word we're all the most interested in here is "jihad," because that is central to the Muslim beliefs on warfare. The West has always thought of "jihad" as meaning "crusade"; this is not the case. The closest word we have in English to "jihad" is "struggle."

There are two forms of jihad described by the Qur'an: Lesser Jihad and Greater Jihad.

Lesser Jihad pertains to self-defense of the faith and its followers. One of the biggest tenets of lesser jihad is the idea that no woman, child, or innocent is to be harmed in the defense of the religion.

Greater Jihad pertains to fighting the evil inherent in one's soul. It is mostly an internal conflict, although it has external factors, as well. One of the biggest tenets of greater jihad is the resistance of temptation to disregard other tenets of the faith, such as morning prayers.

So there you have it. That's what jihad is. If you read through the rest of the Qur'an you'll see that the Muslims were pretty high on themselves, but this is their holy book and that's only to be expected. They discuss the "time of ignorance" that came before the realization of Islam (they especially thought that polytheism was heretical); they levy taxes on non-Muslim men ("Jizyas"); they're even willing to forgive murder, so long as the heir of the victim forgives the murderer ("Quisas" being the fine that is levied in case of that happening).

So where does the problem come from? Well, it comes from the word "mujahideen" (literally, "struggler" or "one who struggles") and the fact that the mujahideen are considered to be on a different societal level than the qaid, those who choose not to struggle.

In certain sects of Islam, it is believed that the only way to really defend the faith is to attack non-proponents. You could think of this as being preemptive jihad and its been practiced a lot over the years. It is just as valid an interpretation of the literal meaning of the word "jihad" as those who say that it only means to defend oneself against direct attack. However, because the validity of the aggressive argument is as valid and not more so, it becomes plain to see that all views on jihad are interpretations of an original text.

The bottom line through all of this is that everyone who practices Islam interprets it. No Muslim alive today participated in those conquests. Many Muslims who are alive today live in just as much fear of being killed by extremists because those extremists interpret the meaning of jihad differently; moderate Muslims living in Iraq just want to be left alone (their version of "jihad" is self-defense) whereas extreme Muslims want to blow up everyone who doesn't agree with them (their version of "jihad" is preemptive). Moderate Muslims don't speak out against their wayward cousins because A) it isn't their responsibility and B) the best way to defend one's self is to not provoke an aggressor.

[Lilly Marlene]

The U.S. kept using that rhetoric during the Cold War because the problem was Communism. It was a actual threat during the Cold War, just as radical Islam is a very real threat today.

Communism was the problem ?... Can it not be said that the problem was actually more like *relations between the US and some of the countries which had chosen communism* ??


Radical Christianity or Judaism has never posed a legitimate threat to this country.

Although each of those has posed a fatal threat to various areas at some time in the past (and that alone should prevent us from singling out Muslims as the spawn of hell ... the way some people do on this board).


Radical islam is the biggest threat to Western civilization today. There is no need to vilify when you present the facts about what radical Islam has done.

And I repeat that the actions of radical Islam are the direct consequence of certain western policies, starting around the end of the nineteenth century and souped up after WWII.
Absent those, you would have very little to talk about without reaching back a thousand years.


I am curious to know if you, or any of the others on this board know the reason Osama bin Ladin came to have such hatred for the United States.

I have a fair idea, from reading something he wrote in [I think it was] 1999. Let me see if I can find that later.

[Lilly Marlene]

I suppose that this is in reference to the fact that Muslims conquered most of the Middle East in the seventh century, yes? Or the fact that failed Muslim invasions of Europe took place.....


Lots of good information there, vyo.

[palerider]

Reread the thread. What I said to you was that I disagreed with both you and Lilly, my tactic would be to talk with them instead of your way (invading their countries) or Lilly's way (leaving them alone). Lilly then agreed with me that talking is a good idea too.

Talking with a group that freely admits that they believe it is perfectly fine and acceptable to lie to one's enemy if an advantage can be gained? Which parts of what they say do you suppose we should accept as truth?

I've seen your list and the only place it can be found is on certified Islamophobe sites like "Jihad Watch".

Actually, a comprehensive list of islamic terrorists attacks can be found in numerous locations. And your seemingly never ending ad hominem attacks on sources simply because you don't like them highlights the weakness of your position. You have yet to point out a single inaccuracy at jihad watch. It is clear that you don't like them but since they are telling the truth, one must wonder why you don't like them.

[palerider]

However, if we're going to discuss religion and warfare, taking a glance at what historians refer to as the "Age of Religious Warfare" might be a good idea. Especially since all that religious warfare centers on the West - the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics as Protestantism was founded. Especially since it shows that Islam is not the only world religion that has had more than its healthy share of warfare. Especially since despite the extreme violence promoted and propagated by the Catholic Church it is considered a "peaceful" religion today - because it is recognized that all religion is interpretative.

Interesting, isn't it that with the exception of Ireland, you have to go back hundreds of years to find other religions besides muslims engaging in holy wars while you only need look at today's paper (or tomorrows) to see that mindset at work in "modern" islam.

Let's take a quick look at the Five Pillars of Islam.

[QUOTE=vyo476;4127]The first is Shahadah - total submission to the will of God. There's a recitation that is the basis of Shahadah - it goes something like, "The only God is Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger." This is an acknowledgment that, in the Islamic faith, Allah is the only God (Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is monotheistic).

And good muslims are called on to fight the infidel until only allah is worshipped. Any good muslim will tell you that.

The second is Salah, which requires Muslims to pray five times a day. There are some pretty specific guidelines: pray at this time, use a prayer rug/mat, pray in the direction of the holy city (Mecca, in case you were wondering), etc.

And anyone who doesn't pray to allah 5 times a day is an infidel. See pillar 1.

The third is Zakat, or "alms-giving." Basically it is a sort of required charity with varying levels depending on how materially wealthy you are.

Well, the money certainly does flow within islam. To the terrorists for training and weaponry, and from the terrorists to buy the loyalty of those whom they are using as human shields

The fourth is Sawm, fasting. Muslims use fasting in a number of different ways - it is considered a way to grow closer to Allah and it is considered a form of capitulation for wrongs (analogous to confession in Christianity).

What do you know. Something that doesn't involve killing the infidel wherever he may be found.

So where does the problem come from? Well, it comes from the word "mujahideen" (literally, "struggler" or "one who struggles") and the fact that the mujahideen are considered to be on a different societal level than the qaid, those who choose not to struggle.

Sure, read the qur'an. Allah says that only 1 out of 100 will get into paradise and the only way to be sure not to end up in hell is to fight against the enemies of allah and the enemies of allah are anyone who does not worship him. The qur'an clearly says that those who fight are superior in they eyes of allah to those who don't.

The bottom line through all of this is that everyone who practices Islam interprets it. No Muslim alive today participated in those conquests. Many Muslims who are alive today live in just as much fear of being killed by extremists because those extremists interpret the meaning of jihad differently; moderate Muslims living in Iraq just want to be left alone (their version of "jihad" is self-defense) whereas extreme Muslims want to blow up everyone who doesn't agree with them (their version of "jihad" is preemptive). Moderate Muslims don't speak out against their wayward cousins because A) it isn't their responsibility and B) the best way to defend one's self is to not provoke an aggressor.

According to the qur'an, the "extremists" are the only good muslims. Those who don't fight are in constant danger of being labeled infidels and killed themselves.

Once again and always, islam is the problem.

[palerider]

And I repeat that the actions of radical Islam are the direct consequence of certain western policies, starting around the end of the nineteenth century and souped up after WWII.
Absent those, you would have very little to talk about without reaching back a thousand years.

The actions of "radical" (read as good islamists) are just more of the same that has been going on since mohammed manufactured the religion in the first place. The violence isn't anything new, and didn't begin as the result of anything the west has ever done. Islam started this fight and is called upon by allah to win it.

[vyo476]

[QUOTE=vyo476;4127]
However, if we're going to discuss religion and warfare, taking a glance at what historians refer to as the "Age of Religious Warfare" might be a good idea. Especially since all that religious warfare centers on the West - the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics as Protestantism was founded. Especially since it shows that Islam is not the only world religion that has had more than its healthy share of warfare. Especially since despite the extreme violence promoted and propagated by the Catholic Church it is considered a "peaceful" religion today - because it is recognized that all religion is interpretative.

Interesting, isn't it that with the exception of Ireland, you have to go back hundreds of years to find other religions besides muslims engaging in holy wars while you only need look at today's paper (or tomorrows) to see that mindset at work in "modern" islam.

Let's take a quick look at the Five Pillars of Islam.



And good muslims are called on to fight the infidel until only allah is worshipped. Any good muslim will tell you that.



And anyone who doesn't pray to allah 5 times a day is an infidel. See pillar 1.



Well, the money certainly does flow within islam. To the terrorists for training and weaponry, and from the terrorists to buy the loyalty of those whom they are using as human shields



What do you know. Something that doesn't involve killing the infidel wherever he may be found.



Sure, read the qur'an. Allah says that only 1 out of 100 will get into paradise and the only way to be sure not to end up in hell is to fight against the enemies of allah and the enemies of allah are anyone who does not worship him. The qur'an clearly says that those who fight are superior in they eyes of allah to those who don't.



According to the qur'an, the "extremists" are the only good muslims. Those who don't fight are in constant danger of being labeled infidels and killed themselves.

Once again and always, islam is the problem.

So, did you just ignore my post or what...?

It does not implicitly state, anywhere in the Qur'an, "Go invade other countries and kill all who oppose you," without anything else to qualify the statement.

Take a look.

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors. Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out [of the place] from which they drove you out and [remember] persecution is worse than carnage. But do not initiate war with them near the Holy Kabah unless they attack you there. But if they attack you, put them to the sword [without any hesitation]. Thus shall such disbelievers be rewarded. However, if they desist [from this disbelief], Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah’s religion reigns supreme. But if they mend their ways, then [you should know that] an offensive is only allowed against the evil-doers. A sacred month for a sacred month; [similarly] other sacred things too are subject to retaliation. So if any one transgresses against you, you should also pay back in equal coins. Have fear of Allah and [keep in mind that] Allah is with those who remain within the bounds [stipulated by religion]." Qur'an 4:75-76

That is the directive to jihad in the Qur'an. Note the first sentence: "Fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you." This is often interpreted as being a self-defense directive, not an offensive one. Everything else that follows in the entire passage deals with these "transgressors" - that is, people who have violated Muslims. If you had to sum this up it'd go something like, "Do everything you have to in order to protect yourselves." I can already hear you jumping on "Keep fighting against them, until persecution does not remain and Allah's religion reigns supreme." Don't take it out of context though. The "them" mentioned in that sentence still refers to people who have already transgressed against the Muslims; and the statement "Allah's religion reigns supreme" could just as easily be amongst the secular group of Muslims as it could mean the world. Remember that one of the principal definitions of "jihad" is that it is an internal struggle - so Allah's religion reigning supreme could simply mean that the Muslims are then free from the persecution of outside aggressors and allowed therefore to practice their religion in full.

And also noting that according the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are not infidels, but "People of the Book" - people who believe in the earlier teachings of Allah but have yet to see the truth of the Qur'an - is probably a good idea. They aren't considered infidels until they attack Islam. The extremist view of an attack on Islam is their very existence, which goes against Islamic principles. The moderate view is an actual, physical attack or just plain hostility - when we invaded Iraq in 2003 we were met by joyous mobs of people who thanked us for deposing Saddam Hussein. Nowadays they aren't so fond of us being there, as our continued presence in their country constitutes, in their eyes, aggression.

There are also extensive rules for warfare described by the Qur'an that include restrictions on collateral damage. No woman or child is supposed to be killed, according to the Qur'an. While there is no passage stating that infidels are not human (only misguided), extremists combine the belief that infidels are unreachable with the idea that they are all transgressors (see above) and boom - radical terrorism. These are two extreme views within the religion, as most Muslims take those passages for what they're worth - unless an infidel attacks you, leave him alone, since he too is Allah's child only misguided; do not ever kill women and children, whether they be Muslim or otherwise.

[Dave]

Communism was the problem ?... Can it not be said that the problem was actually more like *relations between the US and some of the countries which had chosen communism* ??


Although each of those has posed a fatal threat to various areas at some time in the past (and that alone should prevent us from singling out Muslims as the spawn of hell ... the way some people do on this board).


And I repeat that the actions of radical Islam are the direct consequence of certain western policies, starting around the end of the nineteenth century and souped up after WWII.
Absent those, you would have very little to talk about without reaching back a thousand years.

I have a fair idea, from reading something he wrote in [I think it was] 1999. Let me see if I can find that later.

The problem during the Cold war was the actions of countries that chose Communism as their path. It may just be coincidence, but it seems that every country that chose Communism also chose a anti-western stance, oppression of the masses, and a complete disregard for human rights in all forms. That is not the fault of the West.

When have Christians and Jews posed a "fatal threat" in the past? Other than the crusades, which was initiated by Muslims, I cannot think of a time when Jews and Christians have fought to completely destroy a people based on religious grounds.

Osama bin Ladin's hatred of the United States, and Saudi Arabia stems from the first Gulf War. Bin Ladin was living in Saudi Arabia as a wealthy man, and forming his own private religious army. When Iraq began its invasion of Kuwait, bin Ladin offered to use his army as a defense for the Saudis. The royal family told him thanks but no thanks, and said they would be more comfortable with America getting involved. Bin Ladin was extremely offended by this gesture. The Koran states that no infidels should set foot on the Arabian Peninsula, and bin Ladin took this as a slap in his face that Arabs would trust Westerners with their defense over other Arabs. He was especially offended to see white women in combat on the Arabian Peninsula. He was exiled after he decided that the Saudi government was a puppet for America and started making threats. He traveled to Sudan where he met Ayman al-Zawahiri and then began his terrorist operations.

My point is that yes, it is the hatred of non-Muslims that is the driving force behind Al-Qaida. The fact that we were willing to stop an invasion, and in turn saved the lives of thousands of Muslim people, caused hatred for America amongst countless Muslims.

[palerider]

So, did you just ignore my post or what...?

It does not implicitly state, anywhere in the Qur'an, "Go invade other countries and kill all who oppose you," without anything else to qualify the statement.

Then you haven't read the book.

"Those who barter their life in this world for the next should fight in the way of Allah; whether he is killed or victorious, a glorious reward awaits." "Urge the believers to fight...to keep back the might of the Infidels." "Seize them and kill them wherever they are." "Muslims who sit idle are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has exalted those who fight for Islam." 4th surah

And who is the infidel?

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

And also noting that according the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are not infidels, but "People of the Book" [/quote]

Maybe you should read the books rather than depend upon someone who might pick out the "VERY FEW" passages in the qur'an that might be interpreted in a peaceful way. The qur'an states quite clearly who the infidel is.

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

"O believers, do not hold Jews and Christians as your allies. They are allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is one of them." Qur'an 5:51



- people who believe in the earlier teachings of Allah but have yet to see the truth of the Qur'an - is probably a good idea. They aren't considered infidels until they attack Islam. The extremist view of an attack on Islam is their very existence, which goes against Islamic principles. The moderate view is an actual, physical attack or just plain hostility - when we invaded Iraq in 2003 we were met by joyous mobs of people who thanked us for deposing Saddam Hussein. Nowadays they aren't so fond of us being there, as our continued presence in their country constitutes, in their eyes, aggression.

There are also extensive rules for warfare described by the Qur'an that include restrictions on collateral damage. No woman or child is supposed to be killed, according to the Qur'an. While there is no passage stating that infidels are not human (only misguided), extremists combine the belief that infidels are unreachable with the idea that they are all transgressors (see above) and boom - radical terrorism. These are two extreme views within the religion, as most Muslims take those passages for what they're worth - unless an infidel attacks you, leave him alone, since he too is Allah's child only misguided; do not ever kill women and children, whether they be Muslim or otherwise.

"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." Ishaq:587

"Arabs were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us." Tabari IX:69

Grab yourself a qur’an. Right after 2:190 you will find the following passage:

"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."

If you want to play dueling scriptures, I have to warn you that you are going to run out of peacefull material in the books of the qur'an a very long time before I run out of explicit instructions from allah and the prophet to do violence.

[vyo476]

Then you haven't read the book.

"Those who barter their life in this world for the next should fight in the way of Allah; whether he is killed or victorious, a glorious reward awaits." "Urge the believers to fight...to keep back the might of the Infidels." "Seize them and kill them wherever they are." "Muslims who sit idle are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has exalted those who fight for Islam." 4th surah

And who is the infidel?

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

And also noting that according the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are not infidels, but "People of the Book"

Maybe you should read the books rather than depend upon someone who might pick out the "VERY FEW" passages in the qur'an that might be interpreted in a peaceful way. The qur'an states quite clearly who the infidel is.

"They are surely Infidels who say Christ, the Messiah is God." (5:72)

"O believers, do not hold Jews and Christians as your allies. They are allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is one of them." Qur'an 5:51



- people who believe in the earlier teachings of Allah but have yet to see the truth of the Qur'an - is probably a good idea. They aren't considered infidels until they attack Islam. The extremist view of an attack on Islam is their very existence, which goes against Islamic principles. The moderate view is an actual, physical attack or just plain hostility - when we invaded Iraq in 2003 we were met by joyous mobs of people who thanked us for deposing Saddam Hussein. Nowadays they aren't so fond of us being there, as our continued presence in their country constitutes, in their eyes, aggression.



"Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." Ishaq:587

"Arabs were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us." Tabari IX:69

Grab yourself a qur’an. Right after 2:190 you will find the following passage:

"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."

If you want to play dueling scriptures, I have to warn you that you are going to run out of peacefull material in the books of the qur'an a very long time before I run out of explicit instructions from allah and the prophet to do violence.

And what is "fighting for Islam"? Many throughout history have interpreted it as being conquest. That's all that is though - interpretation. I find it ironic that "Seize them and kill them wherever they are," showed up in your first block of quotes as I had previously quoted the full passage from which that comes - as a means of showing that it discusses self-defense.

In terms of Christians and Jews, there's also this: "And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit." 29:46.

And admittedly, there's also this: "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" 29:30

There's a xenophobic streak in much of Muhammad's writing; he expected that Muslims would have defend themselves a lot and, as he'd already predicted the decline and eventual fall of polytheistic religions, it stands to reason that Muhammad believed the Muslims would wind up having to defend themselves against Christians and Jews.

Pale rider, I seriously doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on this. I am in no way stating that Islam is inherently good; I'm simply stating that it is inherently interpretative. While I do believe that Islam is interpretative, I also recognize that it has been interpreted for aggressive and (from our point of view) evil means over the course of its history. If we can both agree that Islam is interpretative but has more often been interpreted for bad than for good than I'm willing to concede the debate.

[palerider]

Pale rider, I seriously doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on this. I am in no way stating that Islam is inherently good; I'm simply stating that it is inherently interpretative. While I do believe that Islam is interpretative, I also recognize that it has been interpreted for aggressive and (from our point of view) evil means over the course of its history. If we can both agree that Islam is interpretative but has more often been interpreted for bad than for good than I'm willing to concede the debate.


There is very little in the books of the qur'an that could be interpreted as peaceful. Maybe 2% of the verses could be construed in such a way as to present an image of a peaceful islam. The bulk of the books are incitements to kill the infidel and to fight all of mankind until only allah is worshipped.

By the way, God is not allah. Most of the qur'an is a twisted and distorted version of the Old Testament. The only characters that are in it, that are not in the Old Testament are mohammed, two men from an imaginary, non existant city, and Alexander the Great. Did you know that Alexander was a muslim prophet?

Mohammed invented the religion to justify his desire for revenge, for pillage, and for women.

[Friendindeed]

Talking with a group that freely admits that they believe it is perfectly fine and acceptable to lie to one's enemy if an advantage can be gained? Which parts of what they say do you suppose we should accept as truth?

I notice that you are ignoring the point made earlier that Jews have the same advice in their holy book, to lie or not honor oaths if an advantage can be gained. Do you think we should stop talking to Jews too ?



Actually, a comprehensive list of islamic terrorists attacks can be found in numerous locations. And your seemingly never ending ad hominem attacks on sources simply because you don't like them highlights the weakness of your position. You have yet to point out a single inaccuracy at jihad watch. It is clear that you don't like them but since they are telling the truth, one must wonder why you don't like them.

You always tell me that your list can be found in numerous locations yet the only locations you have ever given are Jihad Watch and that other similar one which was also categorized as a hate site. In fact I could not even access the other one from my office because it was firewalled appaerntly as a hate site. Then you say that since those sites are "telling the truth" then you wonder why I dislike them. I dislike them because their biased slant on events is so obvious.

[Friendindeed]

Pale rider, I seriously doubt that we're going to come to an agreement on this. I am in no way stating that Islam is inherently good; I'm simply stating that it is inherently interpretative. While I do believe that Islam is interpretative, I also recognize that it has been interpreted for aggressive and (from our point of view) evil means over the course of its history. If we can both agree that Islam is interpretative but has more often been interpreted for bad than for good than I'm willing to concede the debate.


Conceding the debate, already? That's a shame. If you look back in this thread you would find that Lilly and TVOff found many positive quotes from the Qu'ran. It is good not to allow yourself to be intimidated.

[palerider]

I notice that you are ignoring the point made earlier that Jews have the same advice in their holy book, to lie or not honor oaths if an advantage can be gained. Do you think we should stop talking to Jews too ?

The jews have proven themselves trustworthy. Which islamic nation has proven itself trustworthy?

You always tell me that your list can be found in numerous locations yet the only locations you have ever given are Jihad Watch and that other similar one which was also categorized as a hate site. In fact I could not even access the other one from my office because it was firewalled appaerntly as a hate site. Then you say that since those sites are "telling the truth" then you wonder why I dislike them. I dislike them because their biased slant on events is so obvious.

Here. I wouldn't want you to get a callous doing some actual research on your own.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

Since you can't point out any inaccuracies on jihad watch, it stands to reason that they are telling the truth and a site that tells the truth is, by definition, not a hate site. Maybe you hate to see the truth, but that is beside the point.

[palerider]

Conceding the debate, already? That's a shame. If you look back in this thread you would find that Lilly and TVOff found many positive quotes from the Qu'ran. It is good not to allow yourself to be intimidated.

Many? If he looks back over the thread, he will se that I provided quotes that identify islam as the violent "religion" it is at a rate of about 5:1. The number of verses in the books of the qur'an that could be used to show that islam is a religion of peace is less than 5% of the total. Hardly convincing.

[Lilly Marlene]

Good afternoon Dave; just very quickly and I can elaborate on these replies as soon as I have more time;
you wrote:

The problem during the Cold war was the actions of countries that chose Communism as their path. It may just be coincidence, but it seems that every country that chose Communism also chose a anti-western stance, oppression of the masses, and a complete disregard for human rights in all forms. That is not the fault of the West.

In my opinion it was not coincidence; the anti-western (and specifically anti-US) stance was the result of our multiple interferences.
In those cases, the nationalization of a country's resources was a setback for business interests in the US, so the US would send what were known as "jackals" to do a little persuading ...failing that there was more forceful action.



When have Christians and Jews posed a "fatal threat" in the past? Other than the crusades, which was initiated by Muslims, I cannot think of a time when Jews and Christians have fought to completely destroy a people based on religious grounds.

The crusades were not initiated by Muslims; they were initiated by one of the popes of my church.
:/
For one example of a time when Jews have posed a fatal threat to people based on a religious rationale, you need look no further than the book of Exodus [ I think it's that, or maybe it's the book of Deuteronomy ...whichever one of them tells of Joshua's leading the Israelites into the Promised Land].
Please recall the words "...and kill every man, woman, child, and animal".
Note that present day Jews asserting their rights to a State in Palestine regard themselves as having a direct lineage down from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were the progenitors of Joshua, etc. In fact, that is the grounds of their claim to the land (that God gave it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

For examples of Christians posing fatal threats to people, apart from the Crusades, one could cite the treatment of Cathars, Hugenots, pagans of varying stripes, American Indians, probably more when I have additional time.


Osama bin Ladin's hatred of the United States, and Saudi Arabia stems from the first Gulf War. Bin Ladin was living in Saudi Arabia as a wealthy man, and forming his own private religious army. When Iraq began its invasion of Kuwait, bin Ladin offered to use his army as a defense for the Saudis. The royal family told him thanks but no thanks, and said they would be more comfortable with America getting involved. Bin Ladin was extremely offended by this gesture. The Koran states that no infidels should set foot on the Arabian Peninsula, and bin Ladin took this as a slap in his face that Arabs would trust Westerners with their defense over other Arabs. He was especially offended to see white women in combat on the Arabian Peninsula. He was exiled after he decided that the Saudi government was a puppet for America and started making threats. He traveled to Sudan where he met Ayman al-Zawahiri and then began his terrorist operations.

Yes, bin Laden has long been antagonized by the faulty observance of Islam by Saudi Arabia and about the continuing interventions of the US and our unsolicited presence in their lands. But his antipathy began actually at the age of thirteen, from a conversation he had with his father.


My point is that yes, it is the hatred of non-Muslims that is the driving force behind Al-Qaida. The fact that we were willing to stop an invasion, and in turn saved the lives of thousands of Muslim people, caused hatred for America amongst countless Muslims.

That is where I must disagree with you. It is not hatred for non-Muslims per se. All you have to do to see that is to research the very friendly relations - even affection and love - between Muslims and Neturei Karta Jews, for example.
It is the contempt for non-Muslims who interject themselves into Muslim affairs, invade Muslim lands, and so forth.
Hope to talk again soon; have a good Friday night,
Lilly

[Lilly Marlene]

The jews have proven themselves trustworthy. Which islamic nation has proven itself trustworthy?

Here. I wouldn't want you to get a callous doing some actual research on your own.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm




palerider, just in passing ...your link to the state.gov site does not corroborate your 1400 year list from the Prophet of Doom/Jihad Watch sites. That link you just gave is a list of terrorist attacks by people from all different countries, from Japan to Ireland.

As I have already told you in this thread I just do not have time to research each one of the various claims of Muslim atrocities made on those two anti-Islam sites, so I will continue the discussion as though the whole list is correct - but I just wanted to point that out to you.

Hope you had a nice Easter,
Lilly

[vyo476]

Conceding the debate, already? That's a shame. If you look back in this thread you would find that Lilly and TVOff found many positive quotes from the Qu'ran. It is good not to allow yourself to be intimidated.

I haven't been intimidated. I'm a full-time college student and I have finals coming up and quite frankly I don't have the time to spare to run around looking up verses from the Qur'an.

If you all feel like continuing the debate than that is, of course, up to you. I just don't have the energy to keep it up the way I have been and I refuse to stop backing up my posts with actual information (rather than just using my own knowledge pool, which has been known to be wrong - from time to time).

[palerider]

palerider, just in passing ...your link to the state.gov site does not corroborate your 1400 year list from the Prophet of Doom/Jihad Watch sites. That link you just gave is a list of terrorist attacks by people from all different countries, from Japan to Ireland.

It wasn't supposed to. It was just a list of terrorist attacks over the past half century or so. It illustrates that islam is responsible for most of the terrorist attacks in the modern world. Not just against US interests either as you have suggested. Islam is an equal opportunity terrorizer. They gladly go after people who haven't "invaded" their countries. Their only requisite that their target not bow to mecca 5 times a day.

As I have already told you in this thread I just do not have time to research each one of the various claims of Muslim atrocities made on those two anti-Islam sites, so I will continue the discussion as though the whole list is correct - but I just wanted to point that out to you.

Hope you had a nice Easter,
Lilly

I have checked them out. The last thing I would want is to post information and have someone be able to prove that it was incorrect. I believe that if my positions aren't formed on rock solid facts, then they aren't worth expressing. You should have guessed that about me by now.

I had an OK Easter. Thanks for asking. How was yours? (how is that for "chit chat?)

[palerider]

The crusades were not initiated by Muslims; they were initiated by one of the popes of my church.



If you mean that the muslims didn't twist the pope's arm and force him to respond to islamic aggression, then I suppose you are correct. But if you are suggesting that the crusades were not a response to islamic aggression, then you are patently wrong. Historical fact is difficult to argue with and your 19th century romantic authors were hardly historians.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2006/crusades-0706.htm

And if you don't like the sources, too bad. Prove them wrong or accept what they are saying as the truth.

[Dave]

Good afternoon Dave; just very quickly and I can elaborate on these replies as soon as I have more time;
you wrote:



In my opinion it was not coincidence; the anti-western (and specifically anti-US) stance was the result of our multiple interferences.
In those cases, the nationalization of a country's resources was a setback for business interests in the US, so the US would send what were known as "jackals" to do a little persuading ...failing that there was more forceful action.





The crusades were not initiated by Muslims; they were initiated by one of the popes of my church.
:/
For one example of a time when Jews have posed a fatal threat to people based on a religious rationale, you need look no further than the book of Exodus [ I think it's that, or maybe it's the book of Deuteronomy ...whichever one of them tells of Joshua's leading the Israelites into the Promised Land].
Please recall the words "...and kill every man, woman, child, and animal".
Note that present day Jews asserting their rights to a State in Palestine regard themselves as having a direct lineage down from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were the progenitors of Joshua, etc. In fact, that is the grounds of their claim to the land (that God gave it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

For examples of Christians posing fatal threats to people, apart from the Crusades, one could cite the treatment of Cathars, Hugenots, pagans of varying stripes, American Indians, probably more when I have additional time.


Yes, bin Laden has long been antagonized by the faulty observance of Islam by Saudi Arabia and about the continuing interventions of the US and our unsolicited presence in their lands. But his antipathy began actually at the age of thirteen, from a conversation he had with his father.


That is where I must disagree with you. It is not hatred for non-Muslims per se. All you have to do to see that is to research the very friendly relations - even affection and love - between Muslims and Neturei Karta Jews, for example.
It is the contempt for non-Muslims who interject themselves into Muslim affairs, invade Muslim lands, and so forth.
Hope to talk again soon; have a good Friday night,
Lilly

There is difference between destroying a city and destroying a people as a whole. You cannot compare the exploits of Joshua to what fundamental Isalm is trying to do to all Christian, Jewish, and pretty much all white people today. Jews and Christians weren't setting out with the sole purpose of destroying an entire people in the examples you provided. Muslims today are. If you want to look at why we have such a difference in religions today, we have to look at their founders. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all peaceful people. Jesus constantly taught peace. Muhammad led countless military campaigns, and set a precedent of violence for the Islamic religion.

Fundamentalist Muslims have made it clear that the Middle East is their land, and they are not willing to share it with anyone. Because they consider it their holy land, they will not have any non-muslim set foot on this land. That is why bin Ladin began his campaign against American, and why Arabs will never allow a peaceful Israel to exist.

I can hardly call the Gulf War unwanted interference in Muslim affairs. We were invited there by Muslims, and defended Muslims with every step. The problem comes when bin Ladin came to the conclussion that if a Muslim is willing to work with an infidel, then he is not a true Muslim and should therefore die.

[Lilly Marlene]

It wasn't supposed to. It was just a list of terrorist attacks over the past half century or so. It illustrates that islam is responsible for most of the terrorist attacks in the modern world.

Go to your link. Count the total number of terrorist attacks. Now count how many were from Muslims.


Not just against US interests either as you have suggested.

WHERE did I suggest that they were "just" against US interests? I stated that the ones against US interests were most commonly reactions to post WWII US foreign policy.


Islam is an equal opportunity terrorizer. They gladly go after people who haven't "invaded" their countries. Their only requisite that their target not bow to mecca 5 times a day.

When are you going to stop representing that Muslims ardently seek to kill everyone who isn't a Muslim ? Your contention has already been shown insupportable, multiple times in this thread ...not only by the existence of the dhimmi laws, but also by the Muslim presence at the conference on coexistence, which I substantiated.


I have checked them out. The last thing I would want is to post information and have someone be able to prove that it was incorrect. I believe that if my positions aren't formed on rock solid facts, then they aren't worth expressing. You should have guessed that about me by now.

You have not reinforced your "rock solid facts" with input from any unbiased source.
Like most people who insist on being hardliners about a topic, you sometimes fall short also because of generalizations.
For example, there was an occasion last month on which you made a statement using the word "always", which I was able to demonstrate as incorrect.
That is a common problem for uncompromising ideologies; the real world simply does not conform to rigorous stereotyping.


I had an OK Easter. Thanks for asking. How was yours? (how is that for "chit chat?)

*Mine was lovely, thank you;
*That is very commendable.

[Lilly Marlene]

If you mean that the muslims didn't twist the pope's arm and force him to respond to islamic aggression, then I suppose you are correct. But if you are suggesting that the crusades were not a response to islamic aggression, then you are patently wrong. Historical fact is difficult to argue with and your 19th century romantic authors were hardly historians.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2006/crusades-0706.htm

And if you don't like the sources, too bad. Prove them wrong or accept what they are saying as the truth.


Irony alert:
You reject sources as "romanticists" if they provide information contrary to your own, and you tell me that the various authors of the accounts I've quoted "are not historians" even though they were, with the exception of one who was a journalist.
Yet,
When anyone points out that your sources consist entirely of Islamophobic hate sites, you complain of "ad homs".

In other words,
You challenge people to stop dismissing your sources with ad homs; instead of berating your sources - you say - people should work on proving them incorrect.
However,
when anyone brings contrary evidence, no matter how respectable the scholarship, YOU dismiss THEIR source with ad homs.
Think about it.

***********************

Now, looking over your first source, theamericanthinker ...even though it is blatantly hostile to Islam from the outset, it shows your theory about Muslim intentions to be inaccurate.
Why?
Here is the first entry in their 'timeline':


630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

Note, as I've said numerous times, if Muhammed's unswerving desire is to kill anyone who did not adopt his religion ("bow to mecca", etc), that he would hardly have bothered hammering out 'agreements' with the northern tribes for paying the jizya.

*************************

By the way, here is something you should know, palerider: thanks to the Iraq invasion, the situation for Christians in Iraq is now more bleak than it has been in decades. I hope you and Mr. Winn are very happy about that.

[Lilly Marlene]

Dave, I'll be back in a little while to read your reply ...

[Lilly Marlene]

There is difference between destroying a city and destroying a people as a whole.

Let me remind you of what you wrote in post #259:

"When have Christians and Jews posed a "fatal threat" in the past? Other than the crusades, which was initiated by Muslims, I cannot think of a time when Jews and Christians have fought to completely destroy a people based on religious grounds."

I have shown you some of those times.
In each case, it was not a matter of just "destroying a city". In the case of Joshua and the invading Israelites, it was a matter of killing "every man, woman, child, and animal" ...as I already reminded you and if you don't believe me, take a look at a Bible.
Likewise,
the extermination of Cathars, Hugenots and various pagan groups was about eradicating people, not cities.


You cannot compare the exploits of Joshua to what fundamental Isalm is trying to do to all Christian, Jewish, and pretty much all white people today. Jews and Christians weren't setting out with the sole purpose of destroying an entire people in the examples you provided.

I just did compare them.
As a matter of fact, that is EXACTLY what Jews and Christians were doing in each of the examples I gave you; did you read the post ?


Muslims today are. If you want to look at why we have such a difference in religions today, we have to look at their founders. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all peaceful people. Jesus constantly taught peace. Muhammad led countless military campaigns, and set a precedent of violence for the Islamic religion.

Says you, palerider, and the Jihad Watch site. And any evidence to the contrary - from no matter how distinguished a scholar - is dismissed as "romanticizing". Yes, I've heard the whole routine by now.


Fundamentalist Muslims have made it clear that the Middle East is their land, and they are not willing to share it with anyone. Because they consider it their holy land, they will not have any non-muslim set foot on this land. That is why bin Ladin began his campaign against American, and why Arabs will never allow a peaceful Israel to exist.

Incorrect, on several levels.
First, Jews have lived among Arabs in the Middle East for centuries with no apparent rancor - which proves you wrong (so have a minority of Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus by the way).
Please realize,
The discordant relations began at the end of the 19th century when European Jews started migrating in significant numbers for the first time, under the leadership of Theodore Hertzl.
From there it got worse in the early 20th century, when Great Britain reneged on its agreements with Arabs about the area known as Palestine.
And of course the really punishing blow was in 1948.
Uhm,
How you can write the words "a peaceful Israel", presumably with a straight face, is beyond my comprehension.


I can hardly call the Gulf War unwanted interference in Muslim affairs. We were invited there by Muslims, and defended Muslims with every step. The problem comes when bin Ladin came to the conclussion that if a Muslim is willing to work with an infidel, then he is not a true Muslim and should therefore die.

Bin Laden's problem with the Saudi government was the blatant corruption - for instance the way they conduct legal affairs, exonerating the guilty based on degree of wealth as opposed to using the same standards for all, as their religious ("Sharia") law would prescribe.
Dave,
The nations in the Middle East have every right to want us out of their affairs.
I don't know how neocons ever got the idea that the entire globe is theirs to prosecute or reward, but it is a disastrous idea and the blowback has already begun to burn.

[Dave]

Lilly, I honestly don't care what happened thousands of years ago with regards to this issue, as it makes no difference about what is happening today. If a suicide bomber is actually thinking about Cathers when he goes to blow himself up, then I guess I'm giving him too little credit, but I don't think that is the case.

What exactly are you disputing about my claims that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus were peaceful while Muhammad was a militaristic leader? I have never heard anything to the contrary, and I have done quite a bit of research on the foundation of religion, so I do find it hard to believe that the majority of scholars look at the subject differently.

You say that Jews and Christians lived in peace with Arabs until the 19th century when there was a mass migration, but do you even remember the crusades? The wholesale slaughter of the Rhineland Jews? How far do you want to go back? Come on Lilly, there has been violence in that region for many centuries due to the fact that Muslims refuse to allow the existance Jews on what they have been told was their land.

You say that Israel is not a peaceful state, but I would challenge you to provide examples of Israeli violence which was not provoked by Palestinian terrorist actions. You can argue that Israel overreacts, but the fact is that all of there aggression is still a reaction.

Bin Ladin did not attack "corrupt" governments. He attacked religiousely moderate governments. Iran had high forms of corruption, yet they were safe from the terror attacks of bin Ladin. He chose to go after the moderates in Egypt for not adopting fundamentalist law. His is a holy war, nothing more.

I do not believe that the globe is America's to prosecute, but when other countries refuse to prosecute those within their borders, then America is justified to step in to protect itself and its allies.

[Lilly Marlene]

Lilly, I honestly don't care what happened thousands of years ago with regards to this issue, as it makes no difference about what is happening today. If a suicide bomber is actually thinking about Cathers when he goes to blow himself up, then I guess I'm giving him too little credit, but I don't think that is the case.

I doubt that the suicide bomber is thinking about the Cathars ...I mentioned those examples only because you asked me for some.


What exactly are you disputing about my claims that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus were peaceful while Muhammad was a militaristic leader? I have never heard anything to the contrary, and I have done quite a bit of research on the foundation of religion, so I do find it hard to believe that the majority of scholars look at the subject differently.

If you look at my post, you will see that that is the one thing you wrote which I did NOT dispute.


You say that Jews and Christians lived in peace with Arabs until the 19th century when there was a mass migration, but do you even remember the crusades? The wholesale slaughter of the Rhineland Jews? How far do you want to go back?

Didn't you just tell me that you don't care what happened a thousand years ago ?
I am telling you that Jews, Muslims, and a minority of other religions including Christians ...have lived as neighbors in the regions of Asia Minor for centuries since the Diaspora.

Please see:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/


Come on Lilly, there has been violence in that region for many centuries due to the fact that Muslims refuse to allow the existance Jews on what they have been told was their land.

On the contrary, they have not only allowed the Jews' existence, but they have formulated laws called "dhimmitude laws" to regulate the living together. I am not going to pretend the Muslims have been great guys, I never have said that. But it is simply untrue that they have sought single-mindedly to kill others down through the centuries solely on the grounds of being non-Muslims.


You say that Israel is not a peaceful state, but I would challenge you to provide examples of Israeli violence which was not provoked by Palestinian terrorist actions. You can argue that Israel overreacts, but the fact is that all of there aggression is still a reaction.

Is that why the ratio of Palestinian deaths is so high compared to Israeli deaths ?
Dave,
the "aggression" of Palestinians is very similar to the aggression you would be likely to show if some Norwegian people came to your town and took over because they said their God gave it to them five thousand years ago.
You tell me that Israel's violence is "provoked" by that aggression ...as though it is just normal for people to go and occupy inhabited land and not expect to get any grief for it.


Bin Ladin did not attack "corrupt" governments. He attacked religiousely moderate governments. Iran had high forms of corruption, yet they were safe from the terror attacks of bin Ladin.

No, Iran did not have the type of worldly corruption with which bin Laden takes issue (they are governed by Shariah since Khomenei).
On the other hand,
The Saudi government is not 'religiously moderate'; it is actually religiously apostate according to a fundamentalist like bin Laden.


I do not believe that the globe is America's to prosecute, but when other countries refuse to prosecute those within their borders, then America is justified to step in to protect itself and its allies.

Well, HOW is the US military protecting me right now by being in Iraq, for example ?
How.
The beneficiaries of nearly every foreign war or "intervention" of the US government since the 1950s have been corporations, and the State of Israel.

Dave,
Please also see this thread which contains some interesting information from an additional source on the mideast (I've linked you to page 4 or 5 because before that it's mainly just quibbling between a new person and someone who was a bit under the weather that day):

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802&page=4

I will probably have to wait to see your thoughts til Monday, because I'll be gone tomorrow.

Have a great Sunday,
Lilly
<br>

[Dave]

I doubt that the suicide bomber is thinking about the Cathars ...I mentioned those examples only because you asked me for some.

If you look at my post, you will see that that is the one thing you wrote which I did NOT dispute.

Didn't you just tell me that you don't care what happened a thousand years ago ?
I am telling you that Jews, Muslims, and a minority of other religions including Christians ...have lived as neighbors in the regions of Asia Minor for centuries since the Diaspora.

Please see:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

On the contrary, they have not only allowed the Jews' existence, but they have formulated laws called "dhimmitude laws" to regulate the living together. I am not going to pretend the Muslims have been great guys, I never have said that. But it is simply untrue that they have sought single-mindedly to kill others down through the centuries solely on the grounds of being non-Muslims.

Is that why the ratio of Palestinian deaths is so high compared to Israeli deaths ?
Dave,
the "aggression" of Palestinians is very similar to the aggression you would be likely to show if some Norwegian people came to your town and took over because they said their God gave it to them five thousand years ago.
You tell me that Israel's violence is "provoked" by that aggression ...as though it is just normal for people to go and occupy inhabited land and not expect to get any grief for it.

No, Iran did not have the type of worldly corruption with which bin Laden takes issue (they are governed by Shariah since Khomenei).
On the other hand,
The Saudi government is not 'religiously moderate'; it is actually religiously apostate according to a fundamentalist like bin Laden.

Well, HOW is the US military protecting me right now by being in Iraq, for example ?
How.
The beneficiaries of nearly every foreign war or "intervention" of the US government since the 1950s have been corporations, and the State of Israel.

Dave,
Please also see this thread which contains some interesting information from an additional source on the mideast (I've linked you to page 4 or 5 because before that it's mainly just quibbling between a new person and someone who was a bit under the weather that day):

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=802&page=4

I will probably have to wait to see your thoughts til Monday, because I'll be gone tomorrow.

Have a great Sunday,
Lilly
<br>

The point I was trying to make about your examples is that it seemed as though you were trying to excuse what Islam is doing right now because other religions have had a violent past. I was saying that these things do not matter to me because they are well in the past. What I was saying about the crusades was to counter your argument that there had been peace in the region until Jews began moving there in mass. The history of the slaughter of Jews during the crusades and afterwards proves my point that there has never been a long standing peace with Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine.

The death rate of Palestinians compared to Israelis is the poorest determination of aggression I've ever heard. If a Palestinian blows himself up in a cafe and kills 15 people, it is very easy for Israel to launch air strikes at a training camp and kill 30. By your logic that puts Israel as the aggressor just because they killed more. That is simply nonsense. I am still asking for you to provide one example of an Israeli offensive that was not provoked in some way by Palestinians.

To say that Iran was not corrupt after the revolution is laughable. Bin Ladin did not attack them because he saw eye to eye with them on building an Islamic state, and states that did not practice religion the way he saw fit were standing in the way of that. Egypt was certainly a religiousely moderate government, and it became the first target of bin Ladin when he set up shop in Sudan.

The U.S. military is protecting you right now in Iraq by taking down a government that allowed Islamic terrorists free reign to operate inside its borders. You can argue all you want about what you think the motives for this war are, but saying that nearly all foreign wars or interventions since 1950 have benefitted corporations of Israel is going a bit too far. Lets see...
First Gulf War-protected Muslims
Somalia-protected Muslims
Bosnia-protected Muslims
Afghanistan-liberated Muslims
Iraq-liberated Muslims
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

[palerider]

You have not reinforced your "rock solid facts" with input from any unbiased source.

Fact doesn't require an unbiased source. It is either true, or it is not. In this case, what is there is true. Suggesting bias doesn't constitute a valid argument on your part since the information is true.

Like most people who insist on being hardliners about a topic, you sometimes fall short also because of generalizations.

I haven't generalized. I have freely admitted that not all muslims are out killing whoever doesn't worship allah. I have pointed out that only good muslims are out doing allah's business. Those who aren't are being quiet as church mice so that the good muslims don't identify them as the infidels that they are and go after them as well.


For example, there was an occasion last month on which you made a statement using the word "always", which I was able to demonstrate as incorrect.

HOLY CRAP!!!! In all that has been written in this thread and on others you got me using always when I should have said nearly all of the time? Well hell, I guess I should just concede the debate huh?

That is a common problem for uncompromising ideologies; the real world simply does not conform to rigorous stereotyping.

Good muslims are stereotypes.

[palerider]

In other words,
You challenge people to stop dismissing your sources with ad homs; instead of berating your sources - you say - people should work on proving them incorrect.
However,
when anyone brings contrary evidence, no matter how respectable the scholarship, YOU dismiss THEIR source with ad homs.
Think about it.

Respectable scholarship does not dismiss historical fact. The myth of andalusia REQUIRES that one dismiss massacres, nearly constant uprisings, mass crucifictions, lopsided law, etc., etc., etc.


Note, as I've said numerous times, if Muhammed's unswerving desire is to kill anyone who did not adopt his religion ("bow to mecca", etc), that he would hardly have bothered hammering out 'agreements' with the northern tribes for paying the jizya.

If one lives for conquest, theft, rape and pillage as mohammed did, one can hardly go about killing all of one's victims can one? And even today, the number of muslims or their armament isn't adequate to kill all who don't worship allah. But you must give them credit, because they are killing us off as quickly as they can.

[Lilly Marlene]

The point I was trying to make about your examples is that it seemed as though you were trying to excuse what Islam is doing right now because other religions have had a violent past.

I have never "excused" violent acts by Muslims.

I have tried to explain what the motivation is. Israel is supplied with cutting edge weaponry, with which it can take down many people at a time. The only response Palestinians can think of as a parallel way of fighting, is the suicide bombing ...because they do not have a superpower arming them.



I was saying that these things do not matter to me because they are well in the past. What I was saying about the crusades was to counter your argument that there had been peace in the region until Jews began moving there in mass. The history of the slaughter of Jews during the crusades and afterwards proves my point that there has never been a long standing peace with Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine.

I'm afraid that does no such thing as 'prove your point'.

The slaughter of Jews was chiefly by Christians in the Crusades; that fact is borne out by so much historical research that if I were you I'd just drop my contention right now.
It was not Muslims who stuffed "nostrils full of nails, and stomachs full of feathers", as the Jewish poem recounts.

Muslims most certainly DID abide in peace beside Jews and other minorities in the Near East - most of the time - for centuries. It is true that they imposed dhimmitude codes which taxed a tribute from non-Muslims, but it was not a draconian tax, and taxing is not specifically an act of war in most circumstances.

I have given you three sources which document what I say here, and if you want to argue with it, then I'll need more than your opinion. Show me a source which contradicts mine.



The death rate of Palestinians compared to Israelis is the poorest determination of aggression I've ever heard. If a Palestinian blows himself up in a cafe and kills 15 people, it is very easy for Israel to launch air strikes at a training camp and kill 30. By your logic that puts Israel as the aggressor just because they killed more. That is simply nonsense. I am still asking for you to provide one example of an Israeli offensive that was not provoked in some way by Palestinians.

LOL
Is it my birthday, that you should ask me such an easy one ??
One example of an Israeli offensive that would not have been provoked in any way by Palestinians ...is the act of European Jews moving into their country and getting the UN - out of sympathy about the Holocaust - to declare that area to be "the State of Israel".




To say that Iran was not corrupt after the revolution is laughable.

Dave, the only thing laughable is your incorrect paraphrase of what I wrote.

I told you that Iran was not corrupt (apostate) in the observance of Islam in the way that the Saudi government was. Any other corruption that may or may not have existed in the Iranian government was not a topic of my post.



The U.S. military is protecting you right now in Iraq by taking down a government that allowed Islamic terrorists free reign to operate inside its borders. You can argue all you want about what you think the motives for this war are, but saying that nearly all foreign wars or interventions since 1950 have benefitted corporations of Israel is going a bit too far.

Another misquote. I did not say "corporations of Israel". Go back and reread my post please.
Soooo...
Iraq was allowing Islamic terrorists free reign to operate inside its borders, eh?
Prove it.
And if you CAN prove it, then after that show me that there are FEWER Islamic terrorists operating inside the borders now, after four years of this "intervention".



Lets see...
First Gulf War-protected Muslims
Somalia-protected Muslims
Bosnia-protected Muslims
Afghanistan-liberated Muslims
Iraq-liberated Muslims
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.


The pattern is that they are not stupid and they know dang well that the "protection of Muslims" is a cover story.

[Lilly Marlene]

Fact doesn't require an unbiased source. It is either true, or it is not. In this case, what is there is true. Suggesting bias doesn't constitute a valid argument on your part since the information is true.


I've already told you that I'm willing to carry on as though all those incidents from a thousand years ago are true, simply because I don't have time to visit the library and hope there is a book on "Debunking Accusations Against Muslims from Islamophobe Websites".

What do I care ?

It doesn't affect my argument even if Muslims DID do horrific things in the first centuries of their religion

...Christians were still burning people at the stake for much longer than a thousand years after the inception of Christianity also.
Are you even able to imagine what kind of death that is ?
To be on fire but be tied up so you can't run ?
To feel your eyelids burning off you ?



HOLY CRAP!!!! In all that has been written in this thread and on others you got me using always when I should have said nearly all of the time? Well hell, I guess I should just concede the debate huh?

Yes, you should.
:cool:
And it wasn't an occasion when you should have said "nearly all the time". It was an occasion when you should have said "now and then".

[And incidentally thanks loads for your help on that other discussion - we managed to muddle through surprisingly well so no worries.]

[Lilly Marlene]

Respectable scholarship does not dismiss historical fact. The myth of andalusia REQUIRES that one dismiss massacres, nearly constant uprisings, mass crucifictions, lopsided law, etc., etc., etc.

Whoops, you forgot to substantiate that ...all you did was furnish a quote from "Jihad Watch" which SAID it.
On the other hand,
I provided you with video from the history channel which utilized archaeology as well as personal accounts from that time period on the Iberian peninsula.



If one lives for conquest, theft, rape and pillage as mohammed did, one can hardly go about killing all of one's victims can one? And even today, the number of muslims or their armament isn't adequate to kill all who don't worship allah. But you must give them credit, because they are killing us off as quickly as they can.

Yes, well if we can't villify then let's demonize, okay got it.
Just keep spreading fear and loathing, I'm sure that is WJWD, right ?

[Lilly Marlene]

I see that my friend palerider is on; since the subsequent thread has seemed to be assessed in a definite way by some, I'm going ahead and whacking this one up for Mr. Rider.

Have a good afternoon everybody !

[palerider]

[And incidentally thanks loads for your help on that other discussion - we managed to muddle through surprisingly well so no worries.]

Sorry. My sister in law (spina biffida patient) started having siezures and my wife's mom called and asked us to come to the hospital. It is a 3 hour drive and I was gone most of the day. By the time I got back, and read the message, the thread looked pretty inactive.

[palerider]

Yes, you should.
:cool:


Well I won't unless you can put together a hell of a lot better argument than you have come up with so far. At this point, it seems that the best you can do is complain about a source that you have yet to prove is wrong. Calling them names doesn't change the factual nature of their information.

[Dave]

I have never "excused" violent acts by Muslims.

I have tried to explain what the motivation is. Israel is supplied with cutting edge weaponry, with which it can take down many people at a time. The only response Palestinians can think of as a parallel way of fighting, is the suicide bombing ...because they do not have a superpower arming them.





I'm afraid that does no such thing as 'prove your point'.

The slaughter of Jews was chiefly by Christians in the Crusades; that fact is borne out by so much historical research that if I were you I'd just drop my contention right now.
It was not Muslims who stuffed "nostrils full of nails, and stomachs full of feathers", as the Jewish poem recounts.

Muslims most certainly DID abide in peace beside Jews and other minorities in the Near East - most of the time - for centuries. It is true that they imposed dhimmitude codes which taxed a tribute from non-Muslims, but it was not a draconian tax, and taxing is not specifically an act of war in most circumstances.

I have given you three sources which document what I say here, and if you want to argue with it, then I'll need more than your opinion. Show me a source which contradicts mine.





LOL
Is it my birthday, that you should ask me such an easy one ??
One example of an Israeli offensive that would not have been provoked in any way by Palestinians ...is the act of European Jews moving into their country and getting the UN - out of sympathy about the Holocaust - to declare that area to be "the State of Israel".






Dave, the only thing laughable is your incorrect paraphrase of what I wrote.

I told you that Iran was not corrupt (apostate) in the observance of Islam in the way that the Saudi government was. Any other corruption that may or may not have existed in the Iranian government was not a topic of my post.





Another misquote. I did not say "corporations of Israel". Go back and reread my post please.
Soooo...
Iraq was allowing Islamic terrorists free reign to operate inside its borders, eh?
Prove it.
And if you CAN prove it, then after that show me that there are FEWER Islamic terrorists operating inside the borders now, after four years of this "intervention".






The pattern is that they are not stupid and they know dang well that the "protection of Muslims" is a cover story.

I apologize for misquoting you about corporations and Israel. I mistyped and it should have said "corporations or Israel." Either way, you have yet to prove anything backing up that statement.

Proof that Saddam was funding terrorism and allowing terrorists to operate within its borders:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

How do you consider the formation of a Jewish state to be an offensive act on the part of the Jews? No Arabs were murdered, they were allowed to keep their homes, their land, and their lives really didn't change until Arab aggressors started a war. The only difference is that they now had Jewish neighbors, and we all know that can be hell on earth to a racist.

I would not consider the dhimmitude taxes to really be a peaceful solution. It is nothing more than a mob tactic of demanding a protection fee. When you are told to pay up, or else we kill you, I can hardly see that as a legitimate peace process.

As for U.S. wars and interventions using Muslims as a cover for the true intentions of the government, I ask you only one thing. Prove it.

[Lilly Marlene]

I apologize for misquoting you about corporations and Israel. I mistyped and it should have said "corporations or Israel." Either way, you have yet to prove anything backing up that statement.

Thanks for acknowledging the mistype. Dave, if you are ever of a mind to read the entire length of this thread, you will see that this ground has been covered. For now, just to glance the corporate aspect, I will remind you of the 70% (or is it 75% ?) of the Iraqi oil reserved for western corporations, which was struck early last winter.

The part that Israel plays is better discussed in the World Politics, Mideast section ...but I surely hope you have taken a look at the websites I provided, at least the two more prominent ones (cactus.org and mideast.com).


Proof that Saddam was funding terrorism and allowing terrorists to operate within its borders:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

I think it is a little circular to bring agitprop from the whitehouse.gov site in order to prove a point that they are asserting.
But I'll look at that and also the other one you provided, thank you. I'm sorry that I'm so sporadic here these days; I have had a sudden project afoot.


How do you consider the formation of a Jewish state to be an offensive act on the part of the Jews? No Arabs were murdered, they were allowed to keep their homes, their land, and their lives really didn't change until Arab aggressors started a war. The only difference is that they now had Jewish neighbors, and we all know that can be hell on earth to a racist.

You have chosen to believe one version of the story. I hope for your sake you have at least looked at the other version (I know I would never listen to only one side in a dispute). After you go to the cactus and mideast websites, and also the jewsnotzionist sites, you will see how the claim of "racism" can simply not be made in this situation.



I would not consider the dhimmitude taxes to really be a peaceful solution. It is nothing more than a mob tactic of demanding a protection fee. When you are told to pay up, or else we kill you, I can hardly see that as a legitimate peace process.

And of course no one has claimed it was a "peace process". But it does dismantle the argument that neocons routinely advance, about Muslims foaming at the mouth to kill any one who does not believe in their religion.



As for U.S. wars and interventions using Muslims as a cover for the true intentions of the government, I ask you only one thing. Prove it.

Another birthday for me ?
:)
Please acquaint yourself with the "Project for a New American Century".
I rest my case.

[Lilly Marlene]

Well I won't unless you can put together a hell of a lot better argument than you have come up with so far. At this point, it seems that the best you can do is complain about a source that you have yet to prove is wrong. Calling them names doesn't change the factual nature of their information.


Except that my argument does not revolve around proving Mr. Winn's "timeline" to be incorrect. As I already told you numerous times, I am fine with carrying on as though it were.

Now let's get to the point.

If these Muslims are the scum of the earth, worshipping a god who is a devil, scheming to kill us in horrific ways ...
what does palerider wish to do about that ?
Here is the answer you have given me thus far on this thread:
'Introduce as many of them to their god as quickly as possible'.
I'm paraphrasing from memory but you either said exactly that or amazingly close to that.
Now ...

1. How many Muslims would you leave alive and still be able to feel your loved ones are safe ...any ?

2. What are we going to use for money to fight long enough to kill this many millions of people ?


I have ideas for a couple more questions but I have to leave now ...
Have a good evening you two,
Lilly

[Dave]

Thanks for acknowledging the mistype. Dave, if you are ever of a mind to read the entire length of this thread, you will see that this ground has been covered. For now, just to glance the corporate aspect, I will remind you of the 70% (or is it 75% ?) of the Iraqi oil reserved for western corporations, which was struck early last winter.

The part that Israel plays is better discussed in the World Politics, Mideast section ...but I surely hope you have taken a look at the websites I provided, at least the two more prominent ones (cactus.org and mideast.com).


I think it is a little circular to bring agitprop from the whitehouse.gov site in order to prove a point that they are asserting.
But I'll look at that and also the other one you provided, thank you. I'm sorry that I'm so sporadic here these days; I have had a sudden project afoot.

You have chosen to believe one version of the story. I hope for your sake you have at least looked at the other version (I know I would never listen to only one side in a dispute). After you go to the cactus and mideast websites, and also the jewsnotzionist sites, you will see how the claim of "racism" can simply not be made in this situation.

And of course no one has claimed it was a "peace process". But it does dismantle the argument that neocons routinely advance, about Muslims foaming at the mouth to kill any one who does not believe in their religion.

Another birthday for me ?
:)
Please acquaint yourself with the "Project for a New American Century".
I rest my case.

If you look at Walid Shoebat's site, you can see that the claim of racism does apply in this situation. His first hand experience with the other side of terrorism gives him a level of credibility that you simply can't get from Jews that, for all we know, have never talked to an Arab.

As for the taxes placed on Jews, I do not believe Muslims are foaming at the mouth to kill non-believers, I believe that many Muslims wish to oppress anyone that will prevent Islam from becoming the dominant force in every area of the Middle East, and eventually the world. Israelis have reached such numbers that the cannot be oppressed, therefore the solution for them is death.

I'm familiar with the PNAC and their membership. That fact does nothing to prove motive in any of America's military intervention, especially motive in leaning toward corporations or Israel.

[The Founders Intent]

Follow the Constitution as intended.

[vyo476]

Follow the Constitution as intended.

Ladies and gentlemen, the can of worms has been opened.