Newsweek says erred in Koran desecration report
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 Next
Constantinople @ Tue May 17, 2005 11:04 am
xerxes xerxes:
And how many wars have been fought in Christ's name? Both Islam and Christianity have blood on their hands. And they still do.
Christianity: Love thy neighbor. Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Islam: Love thy fellow Muslim (if it's a woman, though, you can be a "little" rough.) Treat others based on whether they are a Muslim or not.
Any peaceful Muslim is going away from the original teachings of Islam. Any fanatical Muslim is the original teachings of Islam to the core- a religion forged on violence in which Muhammed used it to his advantage to gather all the desert Arabs and forge them to his will. He also got to take advantage of women on the side.
Read the Koran- it looks nice and lovely, but that's if you're an Islamic male! I'd let you borrow my copy, but I already used it for TP.
gideon @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:05 pm
xerxes xerxes:
Christianity has the same debate. The debate over whether the Bible should be taken literally or not.
How many Christian fundamentalists belong to movements that explicitly target innocent civilians because of their religion, and seek to maximize body counts?
The simple fact of the matter is that for every Eric Rudolph or Tim McVeigh, there are literally hundreds or thousands of muslim terrorists who have committed atrocities against americans and against western society. These are not lone wolves; these are huge organized efforts that exist for the sole purpose of killing nonbelievers.
Islam is a religion of violence, has always been a religion of violence, and must be eradicated from the face of the earth.
Tman1 @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:08 pm
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Kilshok Kilshok:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
gideon gideon:
Now, what would a reasonable person conclude upon reading those passages? Would he conclude that Islam is a "religion of peace" that somehow got twisted into an evil, violent ideology? Or would he conclude that from the beginning, Islam encouraged warmongering, conquest, forced conversion, and abuse of nonbelievers?
I think the actions from 622-732 solve that question. Yes, yes, friends- 110 years of violence and war marked the begining of Islam as they spread out across the Middle East and North Africa only to be thwarted at Constantinople twice and in 732 at Tours by Charles Martel. Amazing that it did not take centuries for followers of Islam to use it for war purposes, but rather from the get go the Koran showed them that Allah wanted them to go out and spread Islam- violently if necessary. Well, it was pretty much all violence after that as they clashed with non-believers.
Yeah, great religion.....
How about the Roman Inquisition? How about the Spanish Inquisition? How about Christian crusaders massacreing innocent Jews and Moslems with their own holy wars? How about the Witch Hunts? How about the Religious wars in Europe... I could go on. Yeah, great Religion.
How about Jesus Christ didn't war with other factions and Muhammed did? How about like I said, from the get go, Islam was warring and thirsting for blood whereas Christianity was a religion of peace. Like I said, any religion can get skewed to make war; Islam's was from the very start- and amazingly (or not) stilll is! How sad and pathetic and may every fanatical Muslim be forever with their lover, Satan.
$1:
Christianity was a religion of peace
Love how you contradicted yourself in complete context with my original post.. Are you basically saying NONE of those events even happened because Christianity is a religion of Peace???? Im not for or against either one, Im just balancing out the two.
Mukluk @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:10 pm
gideon gideon:
Christians understand that murdering the innocent is wrong under any circumstances.
Oh good. I was worried that civilians were actually killed during the bombing of Iraq. But, because he is a christian, I am to understand that no innocents lost their lives during Bush's crusade for lower gas prices.
Speaking to the original post, I am more inclined to believe the first article and not the retraction. Funny how society reacts so strongly to the reaction rather than the instigating act.
Why is it that a country like the US is allowed to flaunt Geneva and make up their own rules....then when someone finally takes issue with it and reacts - "oh those damned muslims are acting up again".
Thinking out loud.
m
Scape @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:12 pm
*cough* Spanish Inquisition *cough*
Gotta admit though, they did at least have a funny Monty Python skit.
gideon @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:17 pm
Mukluk Mukluk:
Oh good. I was worried that civilians were actually killed during the bombing of Iraq.
Can you prove that the US military intentionally targeted and killed civilians? If not STFU
$1:
But, because he is a christian, I am to understand that no innocents lost their lives during Bush's crusade for lower gas prices.
And you explain the huge increase in gas prices since 2003, HOW? If you can't explain it, STFU
$1:
Why is it that a country like the US is allowed to flaunt Geneva and make up their own rules
The geneva convention applies to legitimate, uniformed armed forces. Neither criminals nor terrorists are covered.
Can you prove that the US military has violated the geneva convention in their dealings with captured members of a legitimate, uniformed armed force? If not STFU
Mukluk @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:31 pm
My mistake, bro, I thought I heard you say that the killing of innocents is wrong under (in your own words) "ANY" circumstances. I didn't know that there was a disclaimer that was supposed to read "unless you didn't mean it". Then again, did they really think no innocents would die as a result of the "Shock and Awe" made for hollywood attack on Baghdad?
Gas price increases are a result of numerous things, not the least of which is Bush's crusade to control that very thing that he has not been able to. Failure to accomplish his goal does not change what his goal was.
Soooooooooo...why don't you house the guantanamo prisoners in the US? Because they weren't wearing uniforms? Their detention is not only in contravention of international treaties, it is also against the law in the US.
Now go to confession for resorting to cussing in what is supposed to be open debate.
m
DrCaleb @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:37 pm
gideon gideon:
Can you prove that the US military intentionally targeted and killed civilians? If not STFU
The US Military used Napalm, which is banned by international convention because it does not discriminate between military and civillain targets.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News ... le10.shtml
gideon gideon:
And you explain the huge increase in gas prices since 2003, HOW? If you can't explain it, STFU
Political unrest is thought to be the main cause. Increasing demand from China is another. It's certainally not because inventories of refined gasoline are low.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:rcY ... Prices.doc
gideon gideon:
The geneva convention applies to legitimate, uniformed armed forces. Neither criminals nor terrorists are covered.
Can you prove that the US military has violated the geneva convention in their dealings with captured members of a legitimate, uniformed armed force? If not STFU
Can you prove that the US military has violated the geneva convention in their dealings with captured members of a legitimate, uniformed armed force? If not STFU
The Taliban wore distinctive uniforms. Black turbans, black vests. They were operating as the legal defense force in their own country, as an arm of government recognised as the legal government of Afghanistan as recognised by the United States. According to the geneva conventions, they are entitled to protection under the Geneva conventions (protocol 1, of the 1949 Conventions).
http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/93.htm
But, somehow they are denied their rights by being shipped off to internment camps in Cuba. Which is why the US supreme court is demanding that many be given those rights, and many have been released.
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR511102004
Now, since you're 0-2 - STFU!
Tman1 @ Tue May 17, 2005 12:43 pm
Mukluk Mukluk:
My mistake, bro, I thought I heard you say that the killing of innocents is wrong under (in your own words) "ANY" circumstances. I didn't know that there was a disclaimer that was supposed to read "unless you didn't mean it". Then again, did they really think no innocents would die as a result of the "Shock and Awe" made for hollywood attack on Baghdad?
Gas price increases are a result of numerous things, not the least of which is Bush's crusade to control that very thing that he has not been able to. Failure to accomplish his goal does not change what his goal was.
Soooooooooo...why don't you house the guantanamo prisoners in the US? Because they weren't wearing uniforms? Their detention is not only in contravention of international treaties, it is also against the law in the US.
Now go to confession for resorting to cussing in what is supposed to be open debate.
m
Gas price increases are a result of numerous things, not the least of which is Bush's crusade to control that very thing that he has not been able to. Failure to accomplish his goal does not change what his goal was.
Soooooooooo...why don't you house the guantanamo prisoners in the US? Because they weren't wearing uniforms? Their detention is not only in contravention of international treaties, it is also against the law in the US.
Now go to confession for resorting to cussing in what is supposed to be open debate.
m
Thats a dodge and irrelevant rebuttle if I ever saw one. With asinine retorts like that it remains a wonder that open debates are actually debated. As for the cussing part, no need. Unintelligible trash like gideon only feel the need because he knows hes wrong.
gideon @ Tue May 17, 2005 1:14 pm
Mukluk Mukluk:
My mistake, bro, I thought I heard you say that the killing of innocents is wrong under (in your own words) "ANY" circumstances. I didn't know that there was a disclaimer that was supposed to read "unless you didn't mean it".
Back here in the real world, innocent people are killed all the time. Car crashes, accidents at work, and medical malpractice senselessly claim thousands upon thousands of lives every year. This is why I specifically used the term "murder," which is the intentional act of killing another human being.
$1:
Then again, did they really think no innocents would die as a result of the "Shock and Awe" made for hollywood attack on Baghdad?
No innocents would have died if Iraq's rulers had peacefully surrendered. Instead, they forced us to use the military to accomplish our objectives, and there was some degree of collateral damage as a result.
$1:
Gas price increases are a result of numerous things, not the least of which is Bush's crusade to control that very thing that he has not been able to. Failure to accomplish his goal does not change what his goal was.
For your information, we WILL control the world's supply of petroleum. There is no question about this; America will persevere and she will emerge successful.
$1:
Soooooooooo...why don't you house the guantanamo prisoners in the US? Because they weren't wearing uniforms? Their detention is not only in contravention of international treaties, it is also against the law in the US.
I defy you to name the international treaty that is being violated by holding them at gitmo.
Like it or not, terrorists are not subject to protection under the geneva convention. And they definitely have no place on US soil unless it's six feet underground.
Arctic_Menace @ Tue May 17, 2005 1:21 pm
gideon gideon:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
We see the Iraqi rebels as terrorists, but really, they are just poor people struggling to protect their land which has been invaded.
No, they're terrorists and cowards. And most of them aren't even Iraqis.
If they really believed they were defending their homeland, they'd grow a pair of balls, dress up in uniform, and fight the American troops head-on. Instead, they abduct defenseless truck drivers, engineers, and civilian contractors, torture them for days, then cut their heads off.
This form of terrorism is a typical Muslim response to a perceived threat, and is wholly consistent with the teachings of the koran.
All part of Jihad, which is a holy struggle to protect Muslim interests.
I don't agree with it, but it is part of their religion as interpreted by the extremists. I don't see you going out and suicide bombong people. Even though its wrong, it takes balls to do it. Or should I call you a coward for it????
Constantinople @ Tue May 17, 2005 1:23 pm
Kilshok Kilshok:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
Kilshok Kilshok:
TheUSofA1776 TheUSofA1776:
gideon gideon:
Now, what would a reasonable person conclude upon reading those passages? Would he conclude that Islam is a "religion of peace" that somehow got twisted into an evil, violent ideology? Or would he conclude that from the beginning, Islam encouraged warmongering, conquest, forced conversion, and abuse of nonbelievers?
I think the actions from 622-732 solve that question. Yes, yes, friends- 110 years of violence and war marked the begining of Islam as they spread out across the Middle East and North Africa only to be thwarted at Constantinople twice and in 732 at Tours by Charles Martel. Amazing that it did not take centuries for followers of Islam to use it for war purposes, but rather from the get go the Koran showed them that Allah wanted them to go out and spread Islam- violently if necessary. Well, it was pretty much all violence after that as they clashed with non-believers.
Yeah, great religion.....
How about the Roman Inquisition? How about the Spanish Inquisition? How about Christian crusaders massacreing innocent Jews and Moslems with their own holy wars? How about the Witch Hunts? How about the Religious wars in Europe... I could go on. Yeah, great Religion.
How about Jesus Christ didn't war with other factions and Muhammed did? How about like I said, from the get go, Islam was warring and thirsting for blood whereas Christianity was a religion of peace. Like I said, any religion can get skewed to make war; Islam's was from the very start- and amazingly (or not) stilll is! How sad and pathetic and may every fanatical Muslim be forever with their lover, Satan.
$1:
Christianity was a religion of peace
Love how you contradicted yourself in complete context with my original post.. Are you basically saying NONE of those events even happened because Christianity is a religion of Peace???? Im not for or against either one, Im just balancing out the two.
No, I am definitely not denying that they happened. I am saying original Christianity at its core from what Jesus created- IS PEACEFUL. Islam, on the other bloody hand, at its core from what Muhammed created- IS VIOLENT.
Both can be skewed to be violent and/or peaceful, but from their core beginings, they are polar opposites.
Constantinople @ Tue May 17, 2005 1:25 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
gideon gideon:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
We see the Iraqi rebels as terrorists, but really, they are just poor people struggling to protect their land which has been invaded.
No, they're terrorists and cowards. And most of them aren't even Iraqis.
If they really believed they were defending their homeland, they'd grow a pair of balls, dress up in uniform, and fight the American troops head-on. Instead, they abduct defenseless truck drivers, engineers, and civilian contractors, torture them for days, then cut their heads off.
This form of terrorism is a typical Muslim response to a perceived threat, and is wholly consistent with the teachings of the koran.
All part of Jihad, which is a holy struggle to protect Muslim interests.
I don't agree with it, but it is part of their religion as interpreted by the extremists. I don't see you going out and suicide bombong people. Even though its wrong, it takes balls to do it. Or should I call you a coward for it????
I wish they all had "balls" so all the fanatics would kill themselves already. Let's get this show over with- they all want to go to Paradise, right? Well, well- let's hurry them on their way.
Constantinople @ Tue May 17, 2005 1:27 pm
Scape Scape:
*cough* Spanish Inquisition *cough*
No doubt. I wouldn't mind seeing Spain start the Reconquista up again tomorrow and continue it on through North Africa and the Middle East- but they lost their momentum when their interests were peaked by the New World. Ah, curse you Colombo! Oh, to only go back in time and have Spain finish the job....
gideon @ Tue May 17, 2005 1:39 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
gideon gideon:
Can you prove that the US military intentionally targeted and killed civilians? If not STFU
The US Military used Napalm, which is banned by international convention because it does not discriminate between military and civillain targets.
You still did not prove that the military intentionally targeted and killed civilians.
Also, it wasn't napalm. It was a different substance altogether.
Also, napalm was not banned by any legitimate authority. The US did not sign that treaty.
$1:
But, somehow they are denied their rights by being shipped off to internment camps in Cuba. Which is why the US supreme court is demanding that many be given those rights, and many have been released.
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR511102004
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR511102004
Where in that article does it say that legitimate, uniformed afghan troops are being held at gitmo?
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 26 Next