Why Islam is disrespected

[*******]

What sickens me is seeing Muslim females walking around in their covering clothes. How can we let Muslim males oppress females this way?

So we're a multicultural country. Which means we must accept Muslims. Which means we're discriminating if we abuse them for their sexist beliefs. That's pretty shit.

And don't try that argument about the Kouran being just a guide. If someone is MADE to dress a certain way for someone else's ego; that's just wrong.

Also; you might say that the females LIKE their religion. It's because they don't know any better.

I see this morning that Quebec has outlawed Muslim law. They try to isolate themselves from the community at large so they can keep their women as chattel even in "free" countries with women's rights.

 

[Veryknowing]

So this situation would be irrelevent for the same reason as the first if the I.R.A. weren't a terrorist organization.

Is the IRA really a terrorist organisation? They don't think they are, neither do many of the Catholics in Northern Ireland.

 

[Veryknowing]

If they did it for other reasons too, why did you mention it? And Communism isn't easy on religion in general.



Riots, civil wars and similar unrest are one thing. Terrorism is quite another, whatever the justification. So this item is also irrelevent.



Military conflicts are by definition not murderous, unless there is some evidence of war crimes.



In how much time? years, weeks, or hours? But like I said, just because you say you are Christian or Muslim doesn't mean you are.



So this situation would be irrelevent for the same reason as the first if the I.R.A. weren't a terrorist organization.



That attack killed three thousand people? Funny you should mention it though, as these groups have cooperated on various ventures before, including Japanese cells.

Overall, it sounds like you're just trying to weasle your way out of the blanket BS claim that you made before - ((Originally Posted by Stuponfucious
Key words being hundreds of years. If you can show me where so-called Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Hindis murdered a few thousand people in recent memory then I'll agree that all religions suck equally.))

admit it, all religions suck equally.

 

[John Doe]

Is the IRA really a terrorist organisation? They don't think they are, neither do many of the Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Most terrorists don't think they are, or they don't care. Reminds me of a George Carlin joke: "If firefighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?"

If you attack civilian targets you are a terrorist. That's the short definition anyway. It doesn't matter what the justification is, it's based on your actions.

 

[Ishmael]

I see this morning that Quebec has outlawed Muslim law. They try to isolate themselves from the community at large so they can keep their women as chattel even in "free" countries with women's rights.

Showing that some French can use uncommonly good sense on occasion.

Did you see where the vote was unamimous?

Ishmael

 

[Veryknowing]

If you attack civilian targets you are a terrorist. That's the short definition anyway. It doesn't matter what the justification is, it's based on your actions.

You better tell the US military that they're really terrorists then.

 

[John Doe]

Overall, it sounds like you're just trying to weasle your way out of the blanket BS claim that you made before - ((Originally Posted by Stuponfucious
Key words being hundreds of years. If you can show me where so-called Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Hindis murdered a few thousand people in recent memory then I'll agree that all religions suck equally.))

admit it, all religions suck equally.

they do, so perhaps I shouldv've been more speific and said if you can site what I mentioned, I will agree for the same reasons.

Anyway, like I said, there's a difference between killing each other in a civil war or religious/ethnic tensions, and mass murder. Doesn't make much difference if you use a jet aircraft, a car bomb or nerve gas as your weapon of choice when you murder innocents.

 

[John Doe]

You better tell the US military that they're really terrorists then.

I expected someone to make an ignorant comment similar to that.

Can you prove that the U.S. Military sets out to kill noncombatants and destroy civilian installations?

 

[*******]

Showing that some French can use uncommonly good sense on occasion.

Did you see where the vote was unamimous?

Ishmael

They aren't fully French. 90% of Canada lives 50 miles or less from the US.



The VeryKnowing charge of the US being baby-killers is as old as Vietnam.

They don't have to prove it. Like John Kerry before the Senate in '71, (or on the stump in '04) they simply don't expect to get called on it because the press votes Democrat to a high degree...

 

[Veryknowing]

they do, so perhaps I shouldv've been more speific and said if you can site what I mentioned, I will agree for the same reasons.

Anyway, like I said, there's a difference between killing each other in a civil war or religious/ethnic tensions, and mass murder. Doesn't make much difference if you use a jet aircraft, a car bomb or nerve gas as your weapon of choice when you murder innocents.

]


The blurry part is that civil wars, and wars between nations can often be very mixed up with the religious/ethnic tensions. It is not really valid to simply dismiss a conflict such as the one between India and Pakistan when they broke apart from each other as being a secular conflict. You mentioned only the IRA, but what about the ULF, or any of the other groups in Northern Ireland that are composed entirely of members from one religious sect without any from the opposing sect?

You try to classify terrorism as attacking civilian targets, but in wars despite all the rules that people talk about, the truth is that to win, it maybe necessary to aim for civilian targets. If the conflict goes on long enough, the ruthlessness of doing this becomes an easy way to think, and tit-for-tat games make it almost inevitable.

 

[Veryknowing]

I expected someone to make an ignorant comment similar to that.

Can you prove that the U.S. Military sets out to kill noncombatants and destroy civilian installations?

Can you show that they have NEVER done so?

You reveal your own deliberate avoidance of the truth.

 

[Veryknowing]

The VeryKnowing charge of the US being baby-killers is as old as Vietnam.

So? The US military used napalm on Vietnamese villagers and dropped Agent Orange all the countryside, wiping out crops and poisoning people.

 

[Ishmael]

They aren't fully French. 90% of Canada lives 50 miles or less from the US.



The VeryKnowing charge of the US being baby-killers is as old as Vietnam.

They don't have to prove it. Like John Kerry before the Senate in '71, (or on the stump in '04) they simply don't expect to get called on it because the press votes Democrat to a high degree...

Yup, they found that out during the heighth of the sepratist movements back in the 80's when all those businesses in Quebec began to quietly close their doors and moved to Vermont or Ontario.

Of course they don't. Just blurt it out like all the other responsible journalists.

Ishmael

 

[*******]

You know the Muslims didn't give ol' Nick his copy of the Bible or Torah before sawing off his head...



We do know the radicals killed civilians in the Mosques to make it look like American soldiers did it.

But according to Amnesty International, there's a double standard on how people should behave in a Religious War. We have to put them up at the Ritz and provide them with bomb-making materials and transportation in order to reach the standard demanded of us.

 

[*******]

So? The US military used napalm on Vietnamese villagers and dropped Agent Orange all the countryside, wiping out crops and poisoning people.

There were isolated accidents.

Have you ever been to the jungle?

People don't live in them. There are scant resources.

You don't have any more proof that it was a systematic thing then than you do now.

 

[Ishmael]

You know the Muslims didn't give ol' Nick his copy of the Bible or Torah before sawing off his head...



We do know the radicals killed civilians in the Mosques to make it look like American soldiers did it.

But according to Amnesty International, there's a double standard on how people should behave in a Religious War. We have to put them up at the Ritz and provide them with bomb-making materials and transportation in order to reach the standard demanded of us.

That starts to get down to the nut of it. "You must respect our religion, but your's sucks." Very much the "Convert or die" attitude that typified early Islam and 'Cortez' period in Mexico. And a few other similar incidents in the distant past.

We've bent over backwards to accomodate them and I'm wondering why? Many Islamic scholars have publically stated that the terrorists are operating outside the law of Islam and are 'apostate'. If that is the case they've suffered the equivalent of excommunication. Take the Qu'rans away and the problem goes away. Excommunicants aren't entitled to religious material.

I think a great deal of the problem is we, as Americans, tend to measure the rest of the world by our standards. The good news is that that attitude can be applied when dealing with approx. 2/3's of the world. But that leaves the other 1/3 that is not very civilized and behaves in what we believe to be an irrational manner. And trying to deal with them by our 'standards' is a mistake. They have survived and continue to survive. What ever method they have adopted is rational and the proof of that is their survival. The real question is, "Do we have the will to survive?"

Ishmael

 

[*******]

That is a good question.

We saw them push Israel to the hard right when Arafat renigged on the last Peace agreement he signed. We have to begin to wonder, is Islam saving the Republic by pushing it to the right and forcing us to stand up to the more extreme forms of modern Liberalism?

 

[Ishmael]

That is a good question.

We saw them push Israel to the hard right when Arafat renigged on the last Peace agreement he signed. We have to begin to wonder, is Islam saving the Republic by pushing it to the right and forcing us to stand up to the more extreme forms of modern Liberalism?

Hard telling bro. But virtually every great civilization of the past was reduced by a brutal foe of fewer numbers. Even the Chinese fell prey to the Mongol barbarians. Cortez and Pizzaro were common robbers. Rome tried to farm out it's own defense and let the barbarians through the gates. (Niccolo wrote about the use of mercanaries.)

In my minds eye I can almost see a nation of flower children, the women in bhurkas and the men with their foreheads to the ground with their ass in the air. The thing is, should they be faced with the form of extreme violence practiced by the Islamic radicals, they wouldn't resist, they'd embrace and become even more radical as most reformed anything tends to do.

Ishmael

 

[*******]

Yes, he wrote lots about them and the futility of maintaining a standing army...

You know, that's a spot on obeservation there bro.

Reminds me of the crew that put in my Koy pond!

And that reminds me that I still have work to finish around it, so I'm going to get on out of here.

A_J out!

 

[Lost Cause]

School's in session kiddies.....

Terrorism and the New American Republic

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships.

History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others. Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force.

"There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror."

 

[Lovelynice]

I expected someone to make an ignorant comment similar to that.

Can you prove that the U.S. Military sets out to kill noncombatants and destroy civilian installations?

Yes, they do deliberately target noncombatants and deliberately destroy civilian installations.

What do you think Dresden was? Why destroy cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? These were not valid military targets....they were cities full of civilians.

Now go fuck yourself.

 

[grungalunga]

islam is disrespected because it teaches those savages to slaughter innocent lives.

Violence in Islam

Let's see you argue that those fuckwits are about peace and love now.

 

[Lovelynice]

islam is disrespected because it teaches those savages to slaughter innocent lives.

Violence in Islam

Let's see you argue that those fuckwits are about peace and love now.

Well, the same sort of thing could also be argued about Christianity.

No religion is innocent of bloodshed or violence,
"Every major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals."
- Edward O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, (First edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), p. 144.


"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
- Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"


The god of the Bible measures up to the level of a petty and vicious tyrant. The god of the bible punishes babies for the sins of their parents (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; Numbers 14:18; 2 Samuel 12:13-19); punishes people by causing them to become cannibals and eat their children (2 Kings 6:24-33, Lamentations 4:10-11); gives people bad laws, even requiring the sacrifice of their firstborn babies, so that they can be filled with horror and know that god is their lord (Ezekiel 20:25-26); causes people to believe lies so that he can send them to hell (2 Thessalonians 2:11),
- Doug Krueger, "That Colossal Wreck"


Then there's also these demeaning things against women in the Bible;

1 Timothy 2
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

1 Corinthians 11
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.




Here's some of the horrid violence and atrocities of the Bible;

And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the Lord burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp. And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

READ THE BIBLE PROPERLY. This is just a small sample of the hatred, murder and destruction to be found in the Holy Bible.

 

[Veryknowing]

There were isolated accidents.

Once maybe, but no they weren't isolated. Napalm was used repeatedly. Agent Orange is not discriminatory - it can not tell the difference between civilians, civilian crops, or valid military targets. The USA managed to kill two million people in Vietnam.

Have you ever been to the jungle?
People don't live in them. There are scant resources.

LOL. Yes I have, and like some people, I lived in a jungle for awhile at a lovely place in the tropical Far North of Queensland, with crocodile infested rivers, huge mosquitoes, and the nearest town 80km away. People do live in jungles, not many, but they aren't just empty forest. In Vietnam and Laos, there are many hundreds, thousands of villages surrounded by jungle with some small rice fields nearby. The hill tribes often have their villages right in the midst of jungle.

You don't have any more proof that it was a systematic thing then than you do now.

Saying bullshit again to cover up your deliberate ignorance doesn't make it fact.
# A report in the Scottish Sunday Herald (17th July 2000) said that Professor Thomas Nagy of Georgetown University obtained a copy of a Defense Intelligence Agency report issued on the day after the First Gulf War started entitled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities. This report, which was issued to all major Allied commands, analysed the vulnerability of Iraq’s water system and how it could be impacted by military means. In light of the targeting decisions made by the Allies – all eight of Iraq’s dams were repeatedly hit, four of seven major pumping stations destroyed, 31 municipal water and sewage facilities destroyed – it's obvious that there was a deliberate plan to target Iraq’s water system, which would violate Article 54 of the Geneva Convention, which makes it a war crime to target food, water, or anything which is a basic necessity of life for the civilian population.

# In the Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately targeted civilian electric power plants, civilian communications, seed and fertilizer factories, factories producing vaccines, oil wells and pumps, bus depots, bridges, and a host of other non-military targets. (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm, Ramsey Clark International War Crimes Tribunal) Senior U.S. government officials admitted during the course of the war that many targets were selected, not with a view to their military significance, but "to create postwar leverage over Iraq," (Washington Post, June 23, 1991, article by Barton Gellman)

# The United States deliberately targeted and systematically destroyed Iraq’s water treatment facilities during the first Gulf War in order to create "favorable conditions for disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas" (according to a 1991 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document) and followed that with a deliberate policy of blocking humanitarian supplies to deny necessary repairs, medicines and medical equipment, Denis Halliday, former Deputy Under Secretary of the UN, declared the policy as “genocidal.”

# Near the end of the First Gulf War, after Saddam had given the order for his troops to withdraw from Kuwait, which, of course, was all that was covered by your Security Council mandate (UN Security Council Resolution 678), thousands of fleeing civilians and soldiers were brutally bombed and gunned and incinerated on the so-called Highway of Death. Taxis, buses, and other obviously civilian vehicles were targeted, as were military vehicles flying white flags. More thousands were buried alive in their bunkers, without being able to resist in any way. The Geneva Convention outlaws the killing of retreating soldiers (especially when they’ve been ordered to stop fighting) (Article 3)and of soldiers who are incapacitated or unable to fight.

MORE RECENTLY IN THE CURRENT WAR IN IRAQ
# US soldiers forced fleeing Fallujan families back into the bombing zone-a violation of Articles 35, 49, and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 48, 51, and 57 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions; in one case shooting dead a family of five as they tried to escape across the Euphrates River. Amnesty International estimates that about half of Fallujah’s 300,000 residents managed to flee before the attack. But tens of thousands more were caught inside the burning city, where more than 70 percent of homes and shops were bombed to the ground-a violation of Articles 53 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 35, 51, 57 and 85 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions. History teaches that the majority of those who stay behind in combat zones are women caring for those too vulnerable to flee-children, the elderly, the sick, and the wounded.

# In fact, the cluster bombs, air strikes, and long-distance tank fire favored by the US have caused indiscriminate destruction-a clear violation of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 35, 51 and 85 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions. There is also mounting evidence that the US is using banned weapons- napalm, phosphorous bombs, and depleted uranium-in Fallujah, violating Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention and Article 35 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

# US soldiers also deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure in Fallujah, which began with the takeover of Fallujah General Hospital on November 7, 2004-a flagrant violation of Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Articles 35, 51 and 85 of the First Protocol of the Geneva Conventions. According to the military, the hospital was targeted because it was a “center of propaganda” that spread rumors of civilian casualties during last April’s assault. During the siege, patients were rounded up and ordered to lie on the floor with their hands tied behind their backs-again, in direct violation of international law. Two days later, the US bombed Fallujah’s Central Health Center-a war crime-killing 20 nurses and doctors and an uncounted number of patients.

The fact that the United States could not only contemplate a strategy of creating enormous civilian suffering but actually make it a part of a conscious strategy is incontrovertible. One needs look no further than the US Air Force doctrine document, Strategic Attack, where the following comments are quoted regarding the Gulf War:
~ “The electrical attacks proved extremely effective. By 0310L (H+10) CNN (Cable News Network) reported that Baghdad had completely lost commercial power. ... The loss of electricity shut down the capital’s water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River.”

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Can you show that they have NEVER done so?

You reveal your own deliberate avoidance of the truth.

Iraqi weddings, anyone?