Homegrown Terrorists

[fossten]

Bush smarter than liberals

I would like to take this time to point out that yesterday Bush had not only the liberals, but also the liberal media snowed. Everybody was faked out over who he was going to pick for SCJ. Edith Clement this, Edith Clement that. I watched them scramble to figure out just who this Roberts guy is. I watched Leaky Leahy and Upchuck Schumer on the podium trying to sound like they knew what they were talking about. Total losers. Petulant. Crying, whining babies. Obstructionist. I know most Americans saw through that.

Bush is smarter than any of you realize.

 

[MonsterMark]

The guy is brilliant and always mis-underestimated.

Smart as a ...............................................................I always say

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Clearly what he said is that he was wondering if the BuSh administration hadn't created some more homegrown terrorists. The operative word being "more". Nothing was said about BuSh creating Randolph. Clearly the war on terror had resulted in more terrrorist acts. You would have to be blind not to see that.

Thanks barry for clarifying what I thought was perfectly clear in my original post in my brief absence. Next time I'll bring it down closer to the ground so all those here can understand.

Talk about comparing apples to watermelons! Somehow there is a connection between a religious zealot bombing an abortion clinic over abortion rights and a Muslim extremists bombing people over religious issues? The only thing in common is that they are both using bombs but they are both doing it for completely different reasons, so I just don't get it.

Both are bombing people over religious issues. Both perps are religious radicals. SSDD, apples and apples.

Personally, unless we eliminate all current inventory of WMD's, we are on the slippery slope to destroying ourselves. For me, it is only a matter of time at this point. As a species, we have sucked up all the worlds resources. I think our time is coming unless mankind makes some dramatic changes in the way we treat each other.

OMG, :I That, I think, is the second time Bryan and I actuall agree on something (can't remember what that other thing was though).

That may be, but Bush didn't start the war with the 3,000 New Yorkers deaths... Islamic terrorists did, and Muslims throughout the world rejoiced.

One could (and the anti-Clintonians do..... they just misplace the blame) easily argue that this "war" started LONG before 9/11. Don't give those 9/11 terrorists so much credit. This religious war between Christians and Muslims have been going on for centuries, long before the USA was a twinkle in our founding father's eyes.

 

[Gruuvin8]

One could (and the anti-Clintonians do..... they just misplace the blame) easily argue that this "war" started LONG before 9/11. Don't give those 9/11 terrorists so much credit. This religious war between Christians and Muslims have been going on for centuries, long before the USA was a twinkle in our founding father's eyes.

And if you read what Islam is about (the quran) and read the history of islam starting with muhammed, you may learn where and why this terrorism started, as I first posted; the truth you have conveniently ignored.

 

[fossten]

One could (and the anti-Clintonians do..... they just misplace the blame) easily argue that this "war" started LONG before 9/11. Don't give those 9/11 terrorists so much credit. This religious war between Christians and Muslims have been going on for centuries, long before the USA was a twinkle in our founding father's eyes.

That is absolute :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: !

You are saying that the attack on our civilians on 9/11 was OUR FAULT!

That statement is so full of crap I can smell it on my screen.

Anyone who says 9/11 is our fault should examine their patriotism. It makes you sound like a terrorist sympathizer.

 

[MAllen82]

Comparing Rudolph to muslim terrorists is nice, but how many rudolphs are there in the world, and how many muslim terrorists are there in the world?? When was the last time you heard Priests and Preachers telling their congregations to go out and kill anyone and everyone, including people of the SAME faith???? And please don't start on the other problems with preachers and priests, such as molestation and stuff, because that's not relevant to this topic, and I fully acknowledge that's a HUGE problem. But no where near as huge these muslims killing people. The only positive thing I can say about the Muslims is that atleast they are killing themselves too. By the way, why aren't we holding Islam accountable for it's members actions?????? I mean, when a couple of the guards at Abu Ghraib abused the prisoners, everyone went into an uproar, but a muslim kills himself and a bunch of INNOCENT(I highly doubt the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were innocent) people, there are excuses left and right for them!! I mean come on, what's the deal here? You think it's Bush's fault that there are terrorists??? You think that if we never went to Iraq, they would've never bombed anyone?? Osama Bin Laden wsa busy making all of his plans during the Clinton administration(that's a FACT!!!) because no one really did anything about him. I remember hearing stories about and ex-Saudi terrorist trying to find out all the weaknesses of American Embassies around the world. That was OBL!! And this was in the mid-nineties. They have been planning this stuff for so long, and it's not because of American policy in the Middle East. It's just because America EXISTS!!!!

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

That is absolute :bsflag: :bsflag: :bsflag: !

You are saying that the attack on our civilians on 9/11 was OUR FAULT!

That statement is so full of crap I can smell it on my screen.

Anyone who says 9/11 is our fault should examine their patriotism. It makes you sound like a terrorist sympathizer.

Jeezus, pull your head out pal. WHERE did I say that 9/11 was our fault?? All I said was that the GWOT started LONG BEFORE 9/11/01. The front of that war just tip-toed on our own soil (and not for the 1st time!!) on 9/11/01. "GWOT" is just another name for the holy-war that has been raging for centuries.

QUIT putting words in other's mouths! I know it's probably a hard habit to break, considering you must be a senior understudy of the GOPs "slime and slander" tactics used against anyone who sees things differently. Put down the red kool-aid, step away from the crack pipe bud.

 

[MonsterMark]

The left's belief that appeasing the terrorists will stop the conflict will not work. Even if we pull completely out of the sand castle, that will only serve to allow them to grow unimpeded and become an even more dangerous and formitable enemy. They will still seek to spread their vision of a new world order. And yes, I know we also seek to spread ours. The big difference is we are the good guys though. The guys that have done more for our fellow man than all of the other countries in the world put together.

 

[fossten]

There you go again...denying you said it and name-calling

Jeezus, pull your head out pal. WHERE did I say that 9/11 was our fault?? All I said was that the GWOT started LONG BEFORE 9/11/01. The front of that war just tip-toed on our own soil (and not for the 1st time!!) on 9/11/01. "GWOT" is just another name for the holy-war that has been raging for centuries.

QUIT putting words in other's mouths! I know it's probably a hard habit to break, considering you must be a senior understudy of the GOPs "slime and slander" tactics used against anyone who sees things differently. Put down the red kool-aid, step away from the crack pipe bud.

First of all, I object to your frequent abuse of the word "Jesus" as an obscenity to make your point. It's offensive.

Second, you said this:

"The lobbyists buy the BuSh administration, and the RNC buys the Oval Office. In the words of Church Lady, "How convieeeeeeeeeenient!"

Doesn't that remind you of someone? Maybe........... oh.......... I don't know........... SATAN!!!????"

Which agrees with the terrorists who routinely call America and Bush "The Great Satan."

You also said,

"I wonder how many more of these guys were spawned by the BuSh administration? We've already seen some early results last week in London.

Posted on Mon, Jul. 18, 2005

Lyons

Rudolph

Victims to confront bomber in court

By Jay Reeves

Associated Press

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Emily Lyons, critically injured in a 1998 blast outside a Birmingham abortion clinic, has a message for confessed bomber Eric Rudolph: His crimes only made her stronger..."

Which implies that Bush is responsible for terrorism. The key phrase is "how many more of these guys..."

But the piece de resistance is:

"Look in the mirror before you go off calling anyone short sighted and ignorant.

9/11 was "un-provoked"?? Now THAT is the most naive, shortsighted, ignorant statement you've made yet. The US has been acting like the proverbial bull in the china shop in the middle east (and elsewhere) for several administrations. You can't go around sticking a prod into a hornets nest and not expect to get some retaliation. You RWWs dream of "destroying the terrorists", and can't comprehend the fact that there is no way in hell that could EVER be accomplished. Ridding this planet of cockroaches would be easier.

WHEN these "so-called nukes" came into this country is totally irrelevant. Hypothetically speaking as if they do in fact exist, BuSh had the oppertunity to make a difference and focus our resources towards finding and eliminating them, but instead he's distracted our energy and blood-resources towards an empty well. For you RWWs to continue to advocate those actions and the "so-called leader" who has taken us down that wrong path only makes you look ignorant, simple minded and a traitor."

Never mind the poisonous personal slurs directed at me. You blatantly blamed The United States of America in that post.

Furthermore, it is an atrocious insult to the 3,000+ victims of 9/11 and their families to equate that deplorable attack with "tip-toeing." That's appalling. I guess it agrees with John Kerry, though, who called terrorism a "nuisance."

So there you have it. You asked me where you said that it was our fault.

I'm sure you will try to spin your own words or distract from them somehow, but you cannot deny that you posted them.

*owned* :bow:

Oh, Bryan, please check my post for name-calling. I will not do it. But I think you can see who's stooping to those lowbrow tactics. All I have done is present facts. It's funny, I actually think it's sort of a compliment to call me a senior understudy, although I'm sure the intent was pejorative (see dictionary).

BTW, I think the list is as follows:

- senior understudy of the GOPs "slime and slander" tactics
- implied crack pipe smoker
- Red Kool-Aid drinker (I actually like red Kool-Aid, no harm done there)
- naive
- shortsighted
- ignorant (twice)
- simple minded
- traitor

Quite impressive, no?

And I got called a hater. :bowrofl:

 

[Kbob]

All I said was that the GWOT started LONG BEFORE 9/11/01. The front of that war just tip-toed on our own soil (and not for the 1st time!!) on 9/11/01. "GWOT" is just another name for the holy-war that has been raging for centuries.

I'm not going to slam you too hard for this, BUT. It's true that terrorism has been a fact of life for the world for a few decades at least. But the attack on 9-11 took that war to a whole new level just by the enormity and audacity of it. If we (the U.S.) don't continue to ratchet it up like the terrorists do, we will lose plain and simple.

 

[fossten]

I'm not going to slam you too hard for this, BUT. It's true that terrorism has been a fact of life for the world for a few decades at least. But the attack on 9-11 took that war to a whole new level just by the enormity and audacity of it. If we (the U.S.) don't continue to ratchet it up like the terrorists do, we will lose plain and simple.

I don't mean this personally, Kbob, b/c I think you're a good guy. But we need to stop pussyfooting around with what we mean here. We need to speak directly and bluntly. "Ratcheting up" this war a notch or two isn't going to cut it.

We need to defeat the terrorists. We need to squash the terrorists. We need to destroy terrorism, obliterate it, annihilate it, conquer it, eliminate it. And by IT I mean THEM. We need to kill the terrorists. Period. Our wives and children depend on us to protect them and we depend on our government to protect us. We can't have confidence in our government's protection if they just "want to contain" terrorism as some sort of "nuisance*."

This is going to be a long war. But if we have patience, AND we kill terrorists, eventually the sources of cash for these psycho radical killers will start to dry up and we will win. I don't think the libs have the stomach for that kind of perseverance. I know they probably cringe at such strong talk. Probably start singing the song, "Why can't we be friends, why can't we..."

*See John Kerry.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

BTW, I think the list is as follows:

- senior understudy of the GOPs "slime and slander" tactics
- implied crack pipe smoker
- Red Kool-Aid drinker (I actually like red Kool-Aid, no harm done there)
- naive
- shortsighted
- ignorant (twice)
- simple minded
- traitor

Quite impressive, no?

And I got called a hater. :bowrofl:

You forgot about having your head up where the sun doesn't shine. :N

Listen, I make no claim to being the best communicator, but your lack of understanding my statements, I believe, is because you've taken them somewhat out of 2 different contexts and are trying to compare them.

Gruuvin8 asserted that Islamic terrorists started the GWOT on 9/11/01. I disagreed with him by arguing that the "GWOT" is essentially the latest incarnation of a "holy war" (basically a war between two opposed views of religion and how people should live on this planet) that has been going on for centuries. Therefore, the 9/11 terrorist did not start this war. From that you've conjectured that I said that 9/11 was our fault, implying that I said that WE started this war (at least that's how I read your statement). And to THAT, I take issue, because that is NOT my intended message.

For the most part, the US had stayed out of this holy war being waged for the most part in the middle east and the Gaza strip. Over the past several administrations, we've tried to play referee between the opposing teams in that war (which is a noble cause, can't argue that, yet sometimes we should just mind our own buisness and let them duke it out.... whatever, I'm not going to rehash that now). And in the last couple decades, "playing referee" has turned into "taking sides" in this war, to the point of providing help to some of the players. Well, when we do that, like it or not, we've engaged in that battle, and sooner or later some of the players on the losing team not getting our help is going to retaliate. Thus 9/11, thus NOT "un-provoked". When we go around poking our nose into other country's wars where it is not welcome, we should expect a black eye every now and then. Our cause may very well be noble, but even the refs at a boxing match end up with occasional bruises.

You can try to spin my words into some twisted meaning by taking them out of context. You can attack my "patriotism" by "slime and slander" tactics, BFD. Those are MY opinions, and my statements and I'm standing by them.
:F

 

[Kbob]

I don't mean this personally, Kbob, b/c I think you're a good guy. But we need to stop pussyfooting around with what we mean here. We need to speak directly and bluntly. "Ratcheting up" this war a notch or two isn't going to cut it.

None taken. But, we are nowhere near being at full mobilization to defeat terrorism. We have taken it up a few "notches", but again, we aren't anywhere near being completely geared as a country to defeat this enemy. Bush is trying to win this with enough force to do the job. It may need to go up some more. Fortunately for us, I believe the U.S. is capable of defeating any foe. It's just a matter of the cost (lives and money) involved. And you communicate how you want to. I'll do the same thanks.

 

[fossten]

None taken. But, we are nowhere near being at full mobilization to defeat terrorism. We have taken it up a few "notches", but again, we aren't anywhere near being completely geared as a country to defeat this enemy. Bush is trying to win this with enough force to do the job. It may need to go up some more. Fortunately for us, I believe the U.S. is capable of defeating any foe. It's just a matter of the cost (lives and money) involved. And you communicate how you want to. I'll do the same thanks.

I TOTALLY agree.

:headbang: :I

 

[fossten]

You forgot about having your head up where the sun doesn't shine. :N

Listen, I make no claim to being the best communicator, but your lack of understanding my statements, I believe, is because you've taken them somewhat out of 2 different contexts and are trying to compare them.

Gruuvin8 asserted that Islamic terrorists started the GWOT on 9/11/01. I disagreed with him by arguing that the "GWOT" is essentially the latest incarnation of a "holy war" (basically a war between two opposed views of religion and how people should live on this planet) that has been going on for centuries. Therefore, the 9/11 terrorist did not start this war. From that you've conjectured that I said that 9/11 was our fault, implying that I said that WE started this war (at least that's how I read your statement). And to THAT, I take issue, because that is NOT my intended message.

For the most part, the US had stayed out of this holy war being waged for the most part in the middle east and the Gaza strip. Over the past several administrations, we've tried to play referee between the opposing teams in that war (which is a noble cause, can't argue that, yet sometimes we should just mind our own buisness and let them duke it out.... whatever, I'm not going to rehash that now). And in the last couple decades, "playing referee" has turned into "taking sides" in this war, to the point of providing help to some of the players. Well, when we do that, like it or not, we've engaged in that battle, and sooner or later some of the players on the losing team not getting our help is going to retaliate. Thus 9/11, thus NOT "un-provoked". When we go around poking our nose into other country's wars where it is not welcome, we should expect a black eye every now and then. Our cause may very well be noble, but even the refs at a boxing match end up with occasional bruises.

You can try to spin my words into some twisted meaning by taking them out of context. You can attack my "patriotism" by "slime and slander" tactics, BFD. Those are MY opinions, and my statements and I'm standing by them.
:F

Here's where you totally miss the point. Muslim clerics and imams that control the actions of their students want total domination of the world. That's the way Islam works. They get control of a country and lock it down. Heck, even Red China has an Islamic province in their borders, and they're scared to death of them!

The truth is this: We didn't butt in to the muslims' "holy war" (translation: religious cleansing: extermination) and piss them off. We are just in the way, and it's our turn to get attacked. If you don't believe that the Islam extremists' goal is world domination, read the article below, published by your no doubt beloved Washington Post:


[font=helvetica,arial][size=-1]washingtonpost.com[/size][/font]

[size=+2]Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says[/size]

[size=-1]By Gideon Long
Reuters
Friday, July 22, 2005; 10:57 AM
[/size]



LONDON (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

"What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there ... we will see the same effect we saw on July 7," Bakri said.

"If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again," he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.

Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.

He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as "pro-life" and justified.

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as "a sincere man who fights against evil forces."

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.


I left out part of the article to conserve space - here's the whole thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072200709_pf.html

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Here's where you totally miss the point. Muslim clerics and imams that control the actions of their students want total domination of the world.

And here is where YOU miss the point. One could make the same argument about the US goal of "spreading democracy" across the globe as being "total domination of the world". Yeah I know there is a difference between true democracy & freedom and oppressive governments, and only a moron would want to live under the latter. But every excuse you guys come up with to "stay on the attack" in the GWOT can and is used against us. All we are doing is escellating the war, it's going to get worse before it gets better. There has got to be a better way.

 

[fossten]

And here is where YOU miss the point. One could make the same argument about the US goal of "spreading democracy" across the globe as being "total domination of the world". Yeah I know there is a difference between true democracy & freedom and oppressive governments, and only a moron would want to live under the latter. But every excuse you guys come up with to "stay on the attack" in the GWOT can and is used against us. All we are doing is escellating the war, it's going to get worse before it gets better. There has got to be a better way.

Except that there is no better way.

I'm not missing your point. Instead, I'm discrediting it.

As far as spreading democracy around the world, I doubt you have ever lived in an oppressive, malevolent society, wondering what it's like to be free, wishing you could somehow escape to America. The argument that spreading democracy is somehow domination of the world is ridiculous from a dictatorial standpoint. To give a nation like the people of Iraq a real shot at being a legitimate, world player with a free society is benign at worst and landmark historic at best. Again I am forced to use examples. Japan and Germany. We defeat them, wipe out their armies, then give them back their country. Afghanistan. Iraq. Free elections in both countries. We will give them back their countries also. Of course we're not altruistic. But nobody else in the world has the guts to do something like Bush did. Not even the Russians.

Now, about these terrorists you seem so afraid of:

These aren't simply people who have an agenda and want to get our attention so we will meet them at the bargaining table. They are hell-bent on destroying us, our way of life, because they hate us. Why? Because they have been taught to, that's why. (Just like Klansmen who were taught to be racist hated blacks. What did the blacks do to them? Nothing. The only difference is religious instead of racist.) They aren't born with it. These terrorists have been told that anyone who doesn't believe in Islam (an unbeliever) is to be killed. If they die in the attempt, they will get 72 virgins in heaven as their reward. These people won't listen to us any more than you would listen to someone you hated and wanted to kill. They have been programmed to kill.

I'm sick and tired of hearing you sympathize with these killers as though we are to blame and if we would just stay out of their way they would leave us alone. In the end, they attacked us, our innocent non military civilians. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens. Since these thugs don't fight on a military front, we have to root them out like parasites, one by one. I'm actually surprised. I figured anyone who loves their country would be enraged by these attacks, not saying, "See, we brought this on ourselves."

You just keep believing there's a better way. You'll see. They will not ever go away until they are defeated. Reasoning with these fanatics WILL NOT WORK.

 

[fossten]

Here's more evidence that refutes your opinion that WE started this: (highlights mine)





Atta's father praises London bombs





Wednesday, July 20, 2005; Posted: 8:57 a.m. EDT (12:57 GMT)
CAIRO, Egypt (CNN) -- The father of one of the hijackers who commandeered the first plane that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, praised the recent terror attacks in London and said many more would follow.

Speaking to CNN producer Ayman Mohyeldin Tuesday in his apartment in the upper-middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, Mohamed el-Amir said he would like to see more attacks like the July 7 bombings of three London subway trains and a bus that killed 52 people, plus the four bombers.

Displayed prominently in the apartment were pictures of el-Amir's son, Mohamed Atta, the man who is believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center as part of the attacks on the United States.

El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.

He declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking."

The man, who gave his age as "at least 70," said he had no sorrow for what happened in London, and said there was a double standard in the way the world viewed the victims in London and victims in the Islamic world.

Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims.

He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.

When asked if he would allow a CNN crew to videotape another interview with him, el-Amir said he would give his permission -- for a price of $5,000.

That money, he said, would not be kept for himself, but would be donated to someone to carry out another terror attack.

El-Amir said that $5,000 was about how much it would cost to finance another attack in London.

CNN's crew refused to pay for the interview and left after el-Amir's request.

It is CNN policy not to pay people for interviews.

A lawyer by trade, el-Amir had a sign on his apartment door saying he was a consultant.

The security guard for the apartment building said el-Amir had been under surveillance by Egyptian agents for several months after the September 11 attacks, but no one had been watching him recently.

(How convenient for CNN to have that policy. God forbid they should do something noble like refuse on principle.)


So a terrorist sympathizer (if not leader) says this is the beginning. Why didn't he say that we started this, or that this war has been going on?

 

[Gruuvin8]

Johnny... two things you said that i want to address.

First of all, concluding GWB's spread of democracy as being world domination and then comparing it to the spread of Islam, because it is intent on world domination is unfair and incorrect. GWB is trying to spread the opposite of world domination. It is world domination that GWB understands will be the last great mistake of mankind. This is why GWB is trying to spread FREEDOM through democracy across the world. If the whole world is democratized, then there can be no world domination, only individual freedom. If GWB was intent on world domination, he would not oppose the UN but would run for a UN seat as Bill Clinton may do.... but that is another story.


Second is the point you claimed that this is a holy war that has been going on for years and that islamic terrorism is just an answer to basically the crusades...

I do not agree with the roman catholic churches crusades. The crusades was an evil committed by the roman catholic church with a goal of world domination just as Islamic terrorism is wrong today. There are many years of history of religious wars, but it did not start with the crusades. There is actually 6,000 years of history documenting a war between God's people (jews) and those who want to conquer and eliminate God's people. Sometimes, when God's people were being "good", God would allow them to to conquer the enemies that wished to exterminate them... and when God's people were "bad" God would allow them to become conquered. Then came along God's Son, who basically made a covenant with God's people AND those against God's people (gentiles). This covenant was for freedom and acceptance for EVERYONE by means of peace, without any debt to pay for this freedom. Then 600 years later, along came Muhammed, who said "I am the real messiah, here is your new religion, you must kill all who oppose this new religion, especially the Jews and Christians." And Muhammed went to work doing just that, and it is still going on today.

Now you may or may not believe in this "God" as being the one true God. If you don't you should still see that Islamic terrorism through this new religion of Muhammed is wrong to exterminate all other religions. If you do understand that this "God" is the real deal then you would realize even further that the "god" if Islam, Allah, IS Satan who is determined to destroy all of God's people. Either way you choose to believe, you should realize that Islam is bad, Islamic terrorism is unjust, and must be eliminated. BTW, America was born by secession from a religion that was bent on world domination, the Church of England, which seceded from another similar religion bent on world domination, the Roman Catholic Church. We are lucky today that neither The Church of England, The Roman Catholic Church, nor Islam has succeeded in dominating the world. IMPORTANT: The difference between the Roman and English churches and Islam, is that the first two religions, although gone astray, were/are based in Christianity, which is actually against murder and world domination, Islam on the other hand, is a counterfeit deity of Judaism and Christianity with the sole purpose destroying Christianity and Judaism.

If you do not see that Islam is not a "good religion" then it is possible that you yourself are being decieved. And since you are an intelligent man, and being decieved, you should wonder why such an intelligent man like yourrself can be decieved! you may realize that you are not being decieved because you are stupid (which you are not) but that you are being decieved because of the presence of one that is greater than you or any man that is not of God's people; you are being decieved by Satan himself.... which is how Islam is spreading. Islam, by the very words of its Quran, means to exterminate all Christians and jews. If you saw God today (seeing is believing) and He told you that there are no other Gods but only Him, you would understand what I'm talking about. Seeing the bigger picture can completely change the way one sees the smaller picture.

I'm not here trying to preach at you, I am simply trying to make the point that, it is very easy to say there is no such thing as the beautiful world outside when someone has never seen it but has existed in a black room with no doors or windows their whole life. If one never sees the world outside, they would probably not believe in it, and would probably agree that living in a black box is a good thing (better than bein dead right?). But if you do see the world outside, then your whole bases for reality changes and suddenly the black box goes from being a great existence to a prison. Seeing the bigger picture changes the perceived reality of any of the parts.

Islam is an attempt by satan to poison creation and have the last laugh in the end when there are no jews and christians left. A statement that radical can not just be made up. It IS reality.

 

[barry2952]

You make a very powerful argument. I don't agree with you but you make a strong case.

What about American Muslims that truly love this country? What about the American soldiers that are Muslims? What about the Muslim Iraqi soldiers that continue to die in the fight against terrorism? Would you exterminate them too? Are you advocating ethnic cleansing?

I don't see where all Muslims are bad, as you state. I often work in the Arabic community as the Detroit area has the largest concentration of Arabs in the United States. The fact that I'm Jewish has never entered the picture in a business relationship. The bottom line is "Can you do the job for the specified price in the specified amount of time?" In 28 years in business I've never been asked what my religion is. Do you think my customers would kill me, given the chance? I don't think so.

Why does your religious viewpoint often enter your political posts? I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just unusual.

 

[fossten]

You make a very powerful argument. I don't agree with you but you make a strong case.

What about American Muslims that truly love this country? What about the American soldiers that are Muslims? What about the Muslim Iraqi soldiers that continue to die in the fight against terrorism? Would you exterminate them too? Are you advocating ethnic cleansing?

I don't see where all Muslims are bad, as you state. I often work in the Arabic community as the Detroit area has the largest concentration of Arabs in the United States. The fact that I'm Jewish has never entered the picture in a business relationship. The bottom line is "Can you do the job for the specified price in the specified amount of time?" In 28 years in business I've never been asked what my religion is. Do you think my customers would kill me, given the chance? I don't think so.

Why does your religious viewpoint often enter your political posts? I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just unusual.

He didn't say all Muslims are bad. He said Islam and Islamic terrorism is bad. There's a distinct difference. You didn't "hear" what he said, you only heard what you wanted to hear.

 

[barry2952]

Please explain the difference.

 

[Gruuvin8]

What about American Muslims that truly love this country? .... Why does your religious viewpoint often enter your political posts? I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just unusual.

Muslims are people not the religion. religion is a way. people follow the way of their choosing in different degrees. Over time people either adhere more strictly to their way or decide to reject their way and choose another... but they always evolve to follow their way more and more. Generally people have the want to do good, but a tendency to default to what's bad. It takes an effort for the good in people to rise above their natural inclination to be selfish. and good intentioned people can fall for any flaw. I'm not saying that all muslims are evil, I am saying that the religion of islam, while iced with pretty things is evil in its core. It is not meant to appear evil but good, and I'm willing to bet that even muhammed believed it was "good" when he started it This is why it is so seductive as a religion; this is necessary in order for it to fool people. An effective cult NEVER is what it appears to be at first glance. The people are people, some good some bad, the religion is a problem when people get in too deep.

And, religion is the basis for this Jihad, this political problem, this thread, peoples moral foundation... which is the basis for all intentions... it should not be unusual that religion dictates viewpoint. I used to be atheist, and even that is a form of religion (it also takes faith to believe there is no god or moral law giver because it can not be empirically proven). even atheism dictates ones morals. But if there is a real God as described in the Bible, He and His Truth is the basis for everything. If that is so, it can not possibly be removed from the equation.

Ya cant talk politics without discerning what is right and what is wrong for people. Ya can't decide what is right and what is wrong without a foundation of what is moral. you cant create a foundation of morals without deciding if God is superior or if man is superior. If nature is superior (or man -- a purely humanistic viewpoint) then nature dictates only survival of the fittest with no accountability for domination. this makes killing ok... no accountability.

and... when i was an atheist, i never would have agreed with the way i now think.... i just could/would not see things this way.

anyways... like i said... im not trying to get all religious on ya'lls, and I'm not trying to hijack the political forums with religion. It's just that morals based on religion based on belief in what is God is an integral and inescapable part that serves as a foundation for the two differing views that polarize any issue.

Ahhh... it's so buch easier to debate science; at least that is based on the empirical.

 

[Gruuvin8]

He didn't say all Muslims are bad. He said Islam and Islamic terrorism is bad. There's a distinct difference. You didn't "hear" what he said, you only heard what you wanted to hear.

easy there, fossten, we all have a tendency to hear only what we want to hear. we're all the same kind of creature.... were no better than barry or anybody else.

were all screwups.....
some screwups just happen to do much worse things than others, like terrorism..... but we are all created equal, we've all been wrong.... we've all been there.

 

[fossten]

The only thing I can add to what my distinguished comrade said is that Islam, as taught by Mohammed, says that any unbeliever of Islam is an infidel, and therefore must be either converted or destroyed (killed, slaughtered). That doesn't leave much wiggle room. So any Muslim who follows those teachings and participates in terrorism is "bad".

Not all Muslims believe in their hearts that they should kill people who don't believe. This is due to their inherent sense of right and wrong; their conscience. Interestingly, this is despite what Islam teaches. These Muslims would be considered "not bad" by normal people, but probably would also be considered "bad" Muslims by the fanatical imams and clerics who preach terrorism.

Barry, I hope this helps. Probably not.