|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life"
| OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82718] |
Sa, 16 Juli 2005 14:03 |
|
'There can never be an excuse for taking an innocent life'
Saturday July 16, 2005
The Guardian
Extracts from the Muslim leaders' statement at the Islamic Cultural
Centre:
"The tragedy of July 7 demands that all of us, both in public life and
in civil and religious society, confront together the problems of
Islamophobia, racism, unemployment ... and social exclusion - factors
that may be alienating some of our children and driving them to the
path of anger and desperation.
Islam prohibits anger and desperation. Anger and desperation are haram
(forbidden) and may lead to some people being targeted by people with a
sinister and violent agenda.
There is, a great deal of positive work to be done ... in order to
channel the energy and talent of our youth, into constructive avenues,
serving God and society for the common good.
There can never be any excuse for taking an innocent life.
The Qur'an clearly declares that killing an innocent person was
tantamount to killing all mankind and likewise saving a single life was
as if one had saved the life of all mankind. This is both a principle
and a command ...
Those who carried out the bombings in London should in no sense be
regarded as martyrs. It is incumbent upon all of us, to help the
authorities with information that may lead to the planners of last
week's atrocity being brought to justice."
=D6jevind
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82724 ] |
Sa, 16 Juli 2005 18:53 |
|
On 16 Jul 2005 05:03:07 -0700, "Öjevind Lång"
<ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:
>
>The Qur'an clearly declares that killing an innocent person was
>tantamount to killing all mankind and likewise saving a single life was
>as if one had saved the life of all mankind. This is both a principle
>and a command ...
>
That is certainly my interpretation of Sura 5.32.
(Note: In the Holy Qur'an, Christians and Jews are NOT Pagans, however
much in Error they may be.)
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand. -- Steven
Wright
|
|
|
| Re: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82764 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 18:07 |
|
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121515387.308824.47730 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
'There can never be an excuse for taking an innocent life'
>The Qur'an clearly declares that killing an innocent person was
>tantamount to killing all mankind and likewise saving a single life was
>as if one had saved the life of all mankind. This is both a principle
>and a command ..
Nice words, but they have an interesting qualifier-- what, exactly, is an
"innocent person".?
Since they have steadfastly refused to condemn many other murders by
self-identified Muslim terrorists, this semi-condemnation rings hollow.
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82765 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 18:17 |
|
"the softrat" <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote in message
news:43did1pal1a7ausgd4hsj7jfj9h3g745cu [at] 4ax.com...
> On 16 Jul 2005 05:03:07 -0700, "Öjevind Lång"
> <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:
> >The Qur'an clearly declares that killing an innocent person was
> >tantamount to killing all mankind and likewise saving a single life was
> >as if one had saved the life of all mankind. This is both a principle
> >and a command ...
> That is certainly my interpretation of Sura 5.32.
I'd be a bit more confident in their statement but for their reluctance to
condemn terrorist acts unless it becomes a major PR problem. And notice that
they only condemned the London attack. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist
attacks, why not a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
> (Note: In the Holy Qur'an, Christians and Jews are NOT Pagans, however
> much in Error they may be.)
Well, it is clear that in the Koran, the Prophet commands his people to
conquer, subjugate and "humiliate" them.
Surah 9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold
that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the
Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as
believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath
forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they
pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor
do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow
the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they
pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of
subjection.
While that is not as bad as being murdered for being a pagan, it's not a
fate that I would look forward to with any enthusiasm. Nor am I real
confident that Muslims can find a way to change the plain words of the
Prophet without a lot of bloodshed.
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82771 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 20:27 |
|
Ty wrote:
>Nice words, but they have an interesting qualifier-- what, exactly, is an
"innocent person".?
>Since they have steadfastly refused to condemn many other murders by
self-identified Muslim terrorists, this semi-condemnation rings hollow.
All I can do is suggest that you read through the statement again. It
clearly condemns the killing of innocent people and tells everybody
that it is against the teachings of the Koran; it also urges all
Muslims to help the authorities catch terrorist murderers. The
statement is a condemnation of all such acts. "Innocent people" would
be people who do not kill or torture Muslims, I should imagine; the
same qualification would be made by Israelis, only in their case
innocent people are those who do not attack Jews. I really fail to see
what more you can demand from the Muslim leadership in Britain, unless
you think they must all prove their loyalty by saying that they think
the invasion of Iraq was a really brilliant idea. If that is the case,
the great majority of Britons are terrorist sympathisers, since most of
them think the invasion was stupid, vicious and based on lies.
=D6. L.
|
|
|
| Re: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82781 ] |
So, 17 Juli 2005 21:51 |
|
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121624871.922506.318280 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ty wrote:
>>Nice words, but they have an interesting qualifier-- what, exactly, is an
"innocent person".?
>>Since they have steadfastly refused to condemn many other murders by
self-identified Muslim terrorists, this semi-condemnation rings hollow.
>All I can do is suggest that you read through the statement again. It
clearly condemns the killing of innocent people
Yes, we know that. The problem is that they have failed to tell us who the
"innocent people" are.
> and tells everybody
that it is against the teachings of the Koran; it also urges all
Muslims to help the authorities catch terrorist murderers. The
statement is a condemnation of all such acts.
Yes, they said that. But again, they put the rather suspicious qualifier in.
Do you think that this statement condemns all acts of Muslim terrorism?
Those in Israel, Bali and Iraq? Or is it limited to the specific attacks in
London? Gee, on its face, it condemns only the attacks in London.
Wouldn't you agree that they *should* have condemned *all* Muslim terrorist
attacks?
>"Innocent people" would
be people who do not kill or torture Muslims, I should imagine
Perhaps. And so therefore, this would neatly exclude Muslim terrorist
attacks against civilians who are assumed to be not innocent. In other
words, all Muslim terrorist attacks except this specific one. Again, this
pseudo-condemnation rings hollow. In addition, I am puzzled by your
enthusiasm for it.
>the
same qualification would be made by Israelis, only in their case
innocent people are those who do not attack Jews.
Well, I'll let the Jews speak for themselves. But it sounds to me like
you're agreeing that this "condemnation" is nothing more than a shallow PR
stunt that represents the absolute minimum that they could get away with.
"The terrorist attacks in London were wrong, but those in Bali, Israel, Iraq
and Spain are okay..." just doesn't seem like a very strong anti-terrorist
position to me.
>I really fail to see
>what more you can demand from the Muslim leadership in Britain
Now you are being willfully obtuse.
"All terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are wrong, no matter who they
are targeted against" seems like a pretty simple one to me.
Why would you not demand a statement like that?
>, unless
>you think they must all prove their loyalty by saying that they think
>the invasion of Iraq was a really brilliant idea.
Strawman -- and a particularly poor one even by your standards. Why do you
even bother doing this?
Muslim leaders should "prove" that they really believe terrorism is wrong by
simply condemning all terrorist acts in the name of Islam. In the simplest
and strongest language possible. The fact, though, is that they have refused
any number of opportunities to do so.
This statement -- that you are apparently so enchanted with -- is nothing
more than a slight condemnation of a specific terrorist act. Only an idiot
(or a delusional lunatic) can read this as a broad condemnation of
terrorism. It's a PR stunt IMHO. If they were really opposed to Muslim
terrorism, they'd condemn all acts of Muslim terrorism. The fact that they
crafted such a carefully worded condemnation that only applies to the London
attacks shows how disengenuous they and their admirers are.
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82796 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 01:07 |
|
"Ty" <tybeardspam [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7wvCe.30$9D1.26 [at] newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> "the softrat" <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:43did1pal1a7ausgd4hsj7jfj9h3g745cu [at] 4ax.com...
>> On 16 Jul 2005 05:03:07 -0700, "Öjevind Lång"
>> <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:
>
>> >The Qur'an clearly declares that killing an innocent person was
>> >tantamount to killing all mankind and likewise saving a single life was
>> >as if one had saved the life of all mankind. This is both a principle
>> >and a command ...
>
>> That is certainly my interpretation of Sura 5.32.
>
> I'd be a bit more confident in their statement but for their reluctance to
> condemn terrorist acts unless it becomes a major PR problem. And notice
> that
> they only condemned the London attack. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist
> attacks, why not a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
Notice that the condemnations are coming in weeks after the fact and only in
English?
>
>> (Note: In the Holy Qur'an, Christians and Jews are NOT Pagans, however
>> much in Error they may be.)
>
> Well, it is clear that in the Koran, the Prophet commands his people to
> conquer, subjugate and "humiliate" them.
>
> Surah 9:29
>
> YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold
> that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor
> acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the
> Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
> themselves
> subdued.
>
> PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as
> believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah
> hath
> forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until
> they
> pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
>
> SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day,
> nor
> do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow
> the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until
> they
> pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of
> subjection.
>
>
> While that is not as bad as being murdered for being a pagan, it's not a
> fate that I would look forward to with any enthusiasm. Nor am I real
> confident that Muslims can find a way to change the plain words of the
> Prophet without a lot of bloodshed.
>
> --Ty
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82797 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 01:08 |
|
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121624871.922506.318280 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ty wrote:
>Nice words, but they have an interesting qualifier-- what, exactly, is an
"innocent person".?
>Since they have steadfastly refused to condemn many other murders by
self-identified Muslim terrorists, this semi-condemnation rings hollow.
All I can do is suggest that you read through the statement again. It
clearly condemns the killing of innocent people and tells everybody
that it is against the teachings of the Koran;
Ty made a great point: who is considered to be "innocent"? That is how the
idiots get around the whole thing, by claiming non-muslims cannot by their
very definition be "innocent"
it also urges all
Muslims to help the authorities catch terrorist murderers. The
statement is a condemnation of all such acts. "Innocent people" would
be people who do not kill or torture Muslims, I should imagine; the
same qualification would be made by Israelis, only in their case
innocent people are those who do not attack Jews. I really fail to see
what more you can demand from the Muslim leadership in Britain, unless
you think they must all prove their loyalty by saying that they think
the invasion of Iraq was a really brilliant idea. If that is the case,
the great majority of Britons are terrorist sympathisers, since most of
them think the invasion was stupid, vicious and based on lies.
Ö. L.
|
|
|
| Re: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82799 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 01:24 |
|
|
OK, <plonk>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82800 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 01:25 |
|
"Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in
news:qwBCe.531999$581.67904 [at] fe05.news.easynews.com:
>
> Notice that the condemnations are coming in weeks after the fact
> and only in English?
Has it escaped your notice that none of the bombers were Arabic?
Three were British born with Pakistani origins, so Urdu may have been
spoken at home but their first language was definitely English. The
other was Jamaican born and bred here, and in both places the first
language is English. Most of the Muslims in Britain also have roots
in the subcontinent, where a variety of languages is spoken, but even
there the unifying language is English.
Given all this, there is scarcely any reason for any condemnation to
be made in languages other than English. Islamic scholars may learn
Arabic for better reading of the Quran, but the condemnation is aimed
at youngsters who might otherwise join extremist groups, and they
probably have English as a first and perhaps only language.
Tell me, Baron, if you'd ignore condemnations of murder in the name
of Christianity if they were made in English? Would you only take
notice if they were made in Latin?
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82801 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 01:44 |
|
"Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in
news:JxBCe.428438$JR4.47388 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com:
>
> All I can do is suggest that you read through the statement again.
> It clearly condemns the killing of innocent people and tells
> everybody that it is against the teachings of the Koran;
>
> Ty made a great point: who is considered to be "innocent"? That is
> how the idiots get around the whole thing, by claiming non-muslims
> cannot by their very definition be "innocent"
One of the radical clerics clarified the situation by stating that it
is no great crime to fight against infidels, even the British, if
they are committing crimes against Islam. But there is no reason to
fight here when there is a convenient battlefield (Iraq and
Afghanistan). And even if there wasn't, there is an unwritten rule,
probably related to ancient host-guest tribal traditions, that one
shouldn't make war when one is in the host country.
Btw, Baron, why are you getting so het up about an incident that took
place in the UK? Shouldn't we British, and more particularly we
Londoners, have more of a say in how we should react? Ty seems to
think that our opinions only matter when they chime with his own, but
we sincerely believe in dealing with internal affairs ourselves.
Unless, of course, you want to impose your views on an ally's
domestic affairs.
Today I saw a line of people waiting for a bus, among them a man and
woman in traditional Muslim garb. As people joined the queue, they
didn't react to their presence, didn't even give them a second
glance, but carried on as if nothing untoward had happened in the
last couple of weeks. Wonderful to witness, unlike some of the (non-
British) reactions here.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82808 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 03:30 |
|
"Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969745CDF70yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
> "Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in
> news:qwBCe.531999$581.67904 [at] fe05.news.easynews.com:
>>
>> Notice that the condemnations are coming in weeks after the fact
>> and only in English?
>
> Has it escaped your notice that none of the bombers were Arabic?
> Three were British born with Pakistani origins, so Urdu may have been
> spoken at home but their first language was definitely English. The
> other was Jamaican born and bred here, and in both places the first
> language is English. Most of the Muslims in Britain also have roots
> in the subcontinent, where a variety of languages is spoken, but even
> there the unifying language is English.
mosque services there are not run in English.
>
> Given all this, there is scarcely any reason for any condemnation to
> be made in languages other than English. Islamic scholars may learn
> Arabic for better reading of the Quran, but the condemnation is aimed
> at youngsters who might otherwise join extremist groups, and they
> probably have English as a first and perhaps only language.
>
> Tell me, Baron, if you'd ignore condemnations of murder in the name
> of Christianity if they were made in English? Would you only take
> notice if they were made in Latin?
>
>
If that were the language most able to get it through someones thick head
that they are idiots, yes. And I notice you ignore the fact that it took
weeks for these "condemnations" to come out. Such as a PR move is not really
credible, even for you.
> --
> Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82812 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 04:06 |
|
"Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in
news:CCDCe.534524$581.249790 [at] fe05.news.easynews.com:
> "Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns969745CDF70yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
>> "Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in
>> news:qwBCe.531999$581.67904 [at] fe05.news.easynews.com:
>>>
>>> Notice that the condemnations are coming in weeks after the fact
>>> and only in English?
>>
>> Has it escaped your notice that none of the bombers were Arabic?
>> Three were British born with Pakistani origins, so Urdu may have
>> been spoken at home but their first language was definitely
>> English. The other was Jamaican born and bred here, and in both
>> places the first language is English. Most of the Muslims in
>> Britain also have roots in the subcontinent, where a variety of
>> languages is spoken, but even there the unifying language is
>> English.
>
> mosque services there are not run in English.
Do most Roman Catholics understand Latin? Do their priests
communicate with them in Latin? Or do they use a language they can
understand?
>> Given all this, there is scarcely any reason for any condemnation
>> to be made in languages other than English. Islamic scholars may
>> learn Arabic for better reading of the Quran, but the
>> condemnation is aimed at youngsters who might otherwise join
>> extremist groups, and they probably have English as a first and
>> perhaps only language.
>>
>> Tell me, Baron, if you'd ignore condemnations of murder in the
>> name of Christianity if they were made in English? Would you
>> only take notice if they were made in Latin?
>
> If that were the language most able to get it through someones
> thick head that they are idiots, yes. And I notice you ignore the
> fact that it took weeks for these "condemnations" to come out.
> Such as a PR move is not really credible, even for you.
Weeks? It's been just over a week since the bombings, and they
indicated that they were going to issue a statement not long after.
That they took several days to finalise that statement is
understandable, even commendable. Unlike Anglicans and Catholics,
AFAIK there is no unified leadership for Muslims in the UK. For a
statement to stick, it must have near universal support. The mission
would have been to have a statement that would condemn as strongly as
possible, but which would credibly bind all British Muslims to it.
Any brash remark that goes beyond the reach of what most Muslims
could bear would lose force, and any short term PR good it may have
gained would be lost in the longer term as the community loses
confidence in what leadership does currently exist. Now this may not
be a big deal for you and Ty, since you think that they're scum, but
they're UK citizens, and their feelings and actions matter to *us*.
As I said, this incident happened to *Britain*, and thus *we* get to
decide if the response satisfies *us*. Not you. Not Ty. So keep
your nose out.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82813 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 04:49 |
|
"Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96971FAF0D27Eyos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
> "Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in
> news:CCDCe.534524$581.249790 [at] fe05.news.easynews.com:
>> "Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns969745CDF70yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
>>> "Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in
>>> news:qwBCe.531999$581.67904 [at] fe05.news.easynews.com:
>>>>
>>>> Notice that the condemnations are coming in weeks after the fact
>>>> and only in English?
>>>
>>> Has it escaped your notice that none of the bombers were Arabic?
>>> Three were British born with Pakistani origins, so Urdu may have
>>> been spoken at home but their first language was definitely
>>> English. The other was Jamaican born and bred here, and in both
>>> places the first language is English. Most of the Muslims in
>>> Britain also have roots in the subcontinent, where a variety of
>>> languages is spoken, but even there the unifying language is
>>> English.
>>
>> mosque services there are not run in English.
>
> Do most Roman Catholics understand Latin? Do their priests
> communicate with them in Latin? Or do they use a language they can
> understand?
Doesn't matter.....most Catholic masses are not conducted in latin. Friday
mosque services at the places and with the people in question are ALL
conducted in languages other than English
>
>
>>> Given all this, there is scarcely any reason for any condemnation
>>> to be made in languages other than English. Islamic scholars may
>>> learn Arabic for better reading of the Quran, but the
>>> condemnation is aimed at youngsters who might otherwise join
>>> extremist groups, and they probably have English as a first and
>>> perhaps only language.
>>>
>>> Tell me, Baron, if you'd ignore condemnations of murder in the
>>> name of Christianity if they were made in English? Would you
>>> only take notice if they were made in Latin?
>>
>> If that were the language most able to get it through someones
>> thick head that they are idiots, yes. And I notice you ignore the
>> fact that it took weeks for these "condemnations" to come out.
>> Such as a PR move is not really credible, even for you.
>
> Weeks? It's been just over a week since the bombings, and they
> indicated that they were going to issue a statement not long after.
> That they took several days to finalise that statement is
> understandable, even commendable. Unlike Anglicans and Catholics,
> AFAIK there is no unified leadership for Muslims in the UK. For a
> statement to stick, it must have near universal support.
In other words, instead of speaking from the heart, construct something that
best acts as public relations.
he mission
> would have been to have a statement that would condemn as strongly as
> possible, but which would credibly bind all British Muslims to it.
> Any brash remark that goes beyond the reach of what most Muslims
> could bear would lose force,
Meaning they cannot make a full-fledged condemnation because they might
irritate idiots.
and any short term PR good it may have
> gained would be lost in the longer term as the community loses
> confidence in what leadership does currently exist. Now this may not
> be a big deal for you and Ty, since you think that they're scum, but
> they're UK citizens, and their feelings and actions matter to *us*
>
> As I said, this incident happened to *Britain*, and thus *we* get to
> decide if the response satisfies *us*. Not you. Not Ty. So keep
> your nose out.
>
and it is that type of narrow thinking that asusures such idiocy will not be
eradicated, as this is a world issue, not just a British issue.
> --
> Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #82820 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 11:23 |
|
Bajori wrote:
>> As I said, this incident happened to *Britain*, and thus *we* get to
>> decide if the response satisfies *us*. Not you. Not Ty. So keep
>> your nose out.
>and it is that type of narrow thinking that asusures such idiocy will not =
be
eradicated, as this is a world issue, not just a British issue.
What you *really* mean is, of course, that the outrage in London is an
American issue, to be evaluated by you Americans, and that the rest of
us (including the people of London) should then meekly accept the
gospel according to Washington. I'm amazed by the brash arrogance of
this, and the inability, or refusal, to see how you are offending the
British.
Incidentally, many people who (unlike you and Ty) know something
about British Islam have pointed out that the real problem with the
traditional, moderate Imams of Britain is that they preach in Urdu and
other languages from the old country. That satisfies the older
generation, but not young Muslims born and raised in Britain. Their
native language is English, and the only ones who have spoken it to
them are extremists. In other words, the need to train British-born
Imams who can preach in English is even more pressing than many in the
Muslim community have been saying for years. And of course, the same is
true of French speakers in France, of Dutch speakers in Holland and so
on.
=D6jevind
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #85659 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 14:46 |
|
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121678770.831682.152350 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bajori wrote:
>> As I said, this incident happened to *Britain*, and thus *we* get to
>> decide if the response satisfies *us*. Not you. Not Ty. So keep
>> your nose out.
>and it is that type of narrow thinking that asusures such idiocy will not
>be
eradicated, as this is a world issue, not just a British issue.
>>What you *really* mean is, of course, that the outrage in London is an
>>American issue, to be evaluated by you Americans, and that the rest of
>>us (including the people of London) should then meekly accept the
>>gospel according to Washington.
No. What I said AND meant was that this was a world issue, and considering
it to be otherwise is how the naive are duped.
>>I'm amazed by the brash arrogance of
>>this, and the inability, or refusal, to see how you are offending the
>>British.
I think it is funny you talk about offending people when you and others have
tried to put forth the idea that the U.S. somehow deserved 9-11. That is
absolute sheer cheek.
>>Incidentally, many people who (unlike you and Ty) know something
>>about British Islam have pointed out that the real problem with the
>>traditional, moderate Imams of Britain is that they preach in Urdu and
>>other languages from the old country.
There is nothing wrong with preaching in those languages. They should be
allowed to preach in whatever languages they wish. However, if they do so,
they should have the guts to put out proclamations condeming the London
attacks in those same languages, which they WILL NOT DO. Why is that, you
suppose?
>>That satisfies the older
>>generation, but not young Muslims born and raised in Britain. Their
>>native language is English, and the only ones who have spoken it to
>>them are extremists.
So, you are telling them that they should worship in the way tht YOU see
fit. Have you ever stopped to consider that it is none of anyone's business
which language with which religious services are held? You are such a
hypocrite when you speak of offending people. I don't care what languages in
which mosque services are held. However, when you leave the mosque to enter
the world of PR, as these imans have done, unless they issue their little
proclamations in the languages in which they preach, they mean NOTHING.
>>In other words, the need to train British-born
>>Imams who can preach in English is even more pressing than many in the
>Muslim community have been saying for years. And of course, the same is
>>true of French speakers in France, of Dutch speakers in Holland and so
>>on.
I will let the idiocy of that statement stand on it's own, with no further
comment but this: and you call others arrogant while you propose rewriting
religious doctrine to suit your sensibilities?
Öjevind
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #85663 ] |
Mo, 18 Juli 2005 18:12 |
|
Bajori wrote:
"=D6jevind L=E5ng" <ojevind.l... [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121678770.831682.152350 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> As I said, this incident happened to *Britain*, and thus *we* get to
>>>> decide if the response satisfies *us*. Not you. Not Ty. So keep
your nose out.
>>>and it is that type of narrow thinking that asusures such idiocy will not
be
eradicated, as this is a world issue, not just a British issue
>>What you *really* mean is, of course, that the outrage in London is an
>>American issue, to be evaluated by you Americans, and that the rest of
>>us (including the people of London) should then meekly accept the
>>gospel according to Washington.
>No. What I said AND meant was that this was a world issue, and considering
it to be otherwise is how the naive are duped.
You and Ty behave as if your interpretation (shared, apparently, by
other American right-wing fanatics)of the way British Muslim condemn
the murders has greater validity than that of Britons.
>>I'm amazed by the brash arrogance of
>>this, and the inability, or refusal, to see how you are offending the
>>British.
>I think it is funny you talk about offending people when you and others ha=
ve
tried to put forth the idea that the U.S. somehow deserved 9-11. That
is
absolute sheer cheek.
I have never, in any way, said or implied such a thing. To claim that I
have done so is a lie, and a defamatory lie at that.
>>Incidentally, many people who (unlike you and Ty) know something
>>about British Islam have pointed out that the real problem with the
>>traditional, moderate Imams of Britain is that they preach in Urdu and
>>other languages from the old country.
>There is nothing wrong with preaching in those languages. They should be
allowed to preach in whatever languages they wish. However, if they do
so,
they should have the guts to put out proclamations condeming the London
attacks in those same languages, which they WILL NOT DO. Why is that,
you
suppose?
You keep missing the point. The point is that a condemnation of
terrorism made in English has a greater chance of reaching young
British Muslims than a condemnation made in Urdu, Bengali or Arabic.
Despite your claim, condemnations have been made in those languages;
it's just that young British Muslims don't listen to things said in
them. Generally, Imams comment on politics and ethics in the mosque, in
sermons. Exactly how hard can it be to grasp this?
>>That satisfies the older
>>generation, but not young Muslims born and raised in Britain. Their
>>native language is English, and the only ones who have spoken it to
>>them are extremists.
>So, you are telling them that they should worship in the way tht YOU see
fit. Have you ever stopped to consider that it is none of anyone's
business
which language with which religious services are held? You are such a
hypocrite when you speak of offending people. I don't care what
languages in
which mosque services are held. However, when you leave the mosque to
enter
the world of PR, as these imans have done, unless they issue their
little
proclamations in the languages in which they preach, they mean NOTHING.
You carefully snipped the passage where I said that "many people who
(unlike you and Ty) know something about British Islam have pointed out
that the real problem with the traditional, moderate Imams of Britain
is that they preach in Urdu and other languages from the old country."
That IS the general opinion among those in the best situation to know.
It's been said, over and over, by people from Professor Tariq Ramadan
to Lord Ahmed.
>>In other words, the need to train British-born
>>Imams who can preach in English is even more pressing than many in the
>Muslim community have been saying for years. And of course, the same is
>>true of French speakers in France, of Dutch speakers in Holland and so
>>on.
>I will let the idiocy of that statement stand on it's own, with no further
comment but this: and you call others arrogant while you propose
rewriting
religious doctrine to suit your sensibilities?
See above. Learn to read. And how does a change of preaching language
suddenly become "rewriting reigious doctrine"?
Your new posting moniker will join the older ones in my killfile.
=D6jevind L=E5ng
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #88031 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 00:40 |
|
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bajori wrote:
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.l... [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121678770.831682.152350 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> As I said, this incident happened to *Britain*, and thus *we* get to
>>>> decide if the response satisfies *us*. Not you. Not Ty. So keep
your nose out.
>>>and it is that type of narrow thinking that asusures such idiocy will not
be
eradicated, as this is a world issue, not just a British issue
>>What you *really* mean is, of course, that the outrage in London is an
>>American issue, to be evaluated by you Americans, and that the rest of
>>us (including the people of London) should then meekly accept the
>>gospel according to Washington.
>No. What I said AND meant was that this was a world issue, and considering
it to be otherwise is how the naive are duped.
>You and Ty behave as if your interpretation (shared, apparently, by
>other American right-wing fanatics)of the way British Muslim condemn
>the murders has greater validity than that of Britons.
You have acknowledged that most mosque services in Britain are done in
languages other than English. If this is the case, what would the harm be in
putting out condemnations in those same languages? Because the is not
beneficial PR, and you know it. I find it interesting that youa re so ready
to accept such insincere condeemntations at face value from many imans who
are preaching jihad in whatever language at mosque services, but when it is
time for PR, it is all in English, just for the benefit of naive dupes such
as yourself. And by the way, many Britons have actually been saying the same
thing: why aren't the condemnations in the same languages as the mosque
services of those same imans?
>>I'm amazed by the brash arrogance of
>>this, and the inability, or refusal, to see how you are offending the
>>British.
>I think it is funny you talk about offending people when you and others
have
tried to put forth the idea that the U.S. somehow deserved 9-11. That
is
absolute sheer cheek.
>I have never, in any way, said or implied such a thing. To claim that I
>have done so is a lie, and a defamatory lie at that.
>>Incidentally, many people who (unlike you and Ty) know something
>>about British Islam have pointed out that the real problem with the
>>traditional, moderate Imams of Britain is that they preach in Urdu and
>>other languages from the old country.
>There is nothing wrong with preaching in those languages. They should be
allowed to preach in whatever languages they wish. However, if they do
so,
they should have the guts to put out proclamations condeming the London
>attacks in those same languages, which they WILL NOT DO. Why is that,
>you
>suppose?
>You keep missing the point. The point is that a condemnation of
>terrorism made in English has a greater chance of reaching young
>British Muslims than a condemnation made in Urdu, Bengali or Arabic.
If that were the case, don't you think these guys would use English when
preaching in the mosques?
>Despite your claim, condemnations have been made in those languages;
>it's just that young British Muslims don't listen to things said in
>them.
Wrong and wrong.
>Generally, Imams comment on politics and ethics in the mosque, in
>sermons. Exactly how hard can it be to grasp this?
For you,m very difficult, as you don't seem to understand that it is PR and
nothing more, when they won't put out condemnations in the the same
languages with which they use to preach at mosque.
>>That satisfies the older
>>generation, but not young Muslims born and raised in Britain. Their
>>native language is English, and the only ones who have spoken it to
>>them are extremists.
>So, you are telling them that they should worship in the way tht YOU see
fit. Have you ever stopped to consider that it is none of anyone's
business
which language with which religious services are held? You are such a
hypocrite when you speak of offending people. I don't care what
languages in
which mosque services are held. However, when you leave the mosque to
enter
the world of PR, as these imans have done, unless they issue their
little
proclamations in the languages in which they preach, they mean NOTHING.
>You carefully snipped the passage where I said that "many people who
>(unlike you and Ty) know something about British Islam have pointed out
>that the real problem with the traditional, moderate Imams of Britain
>is that they preach in Urdu and other languages from the old country."
>That IS the general opinion among those in the best situation to know.
>It's been said, over and over, by people from Professor Tariq Ramadan
>to Lord Ahmed.
That is a whole different issue and has nothing to do with how they issue
proclamations. If they are going to preach only in certain languages, they
should have the guts to issue condemnations in those same languages, which
they refuse to do.
>>In other words, the need to train British-born
>>Imams who can preach in English is even more pressing than many in the
>Muslim community have been saying for years. And of course, the same is
>>true of French speakers in France, of Dutch speakers in Holland and so
>>on.
>I will let the idiocy of that statement stand on it's own, with no further
comment but this: and you call others arrogant while you propose
rewriting
religious doctrine to suit your sensibilities?
See above. Learn to read. And how does a change of preaching language
suddenly become "rewriting reigious doctrine"?
Your new posting moniker will join the older ones in my killfile.
Öjevind Lång
It's a shame that you are so naive that you can't figure out when you are
being manipulated by PR
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #88038 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 01:34 |
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:40:10 +0000, Bajori wrote:
> It's a shame that you are so naive that you can't figure out when you are
> being manipulated by PR
How about the whole lot of you take this offtopic bullshit somewhere else.
This is a Tolkien NG, in case you'd forgotten.
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #88041 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 01:53 |
|
Bajori <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote:
> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> You keep missing the point. The point is that a condemnation of
>> terrorism made in English has a greater chance of reaching young
>> British Muslims than a condemnation made in Urdu, Bengali or Arabic.
>
> If that were the case, don't you think these guys would use English
> when preaching in the mosques?
Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, and I know very little
about it, but I did read somewhere that the _real_ radical Islam is
among young Muslims who ignore the imams that preach in the language of
the "old country", and instead read the Koran in their own study groups
and come up with their own versions of Islam. Apparantly it is _some_ of
the groups like this that can be manipulated and brainwashed into being
foot soldiers for 'organisations' like al-Qaeda that use Islam for
political means.
In this scenario, the local imams preaching in the language of the "old
country" are either moderate or irrelevant (which is not to say that
people will not listen to them again in the future).
And I finally looked up the distinction people draw between Islam (the
religion) and Islamism (the political movement). It seems that, for some
people, Islam is still like Christianity was when the concept of
Christiandom meant anything.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #88055 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 09:45 |
|
Wes ðu Bajori hal!
> >You keep missing the point. The point is that a condemnation of
> >terrorism made in English has a greater chance of reaching young
> >British Muslims than a condemnation made in Urdu, Bengali or Arabic.
>
> If that were the case, don't you think these guys would use English when
> preaching in the mosques?
Actually, they do. Although "traditional" preachers - who preach things
like subservience of women but not violence - use Urdu, Bengali and
Arabic, the really radical preachers usually preach their sermons in
English. This seems counterintuitive, but there is a good reason for
it. Radical imams, unlike the traditional preachers, have a diverse
audience (Arab, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian...), and English is
usually the only language they have in common. Also, many of the sort
of youngsters these groups address are more comfortable in English than
in their parents' languages, and some even lack the advanced vocabulary
needed to discuss global geopolitics. I do not know how this compares
with the situation in the US, but this is how it is in the UK.
And it's not just mosques - the literature issued by the most radical
groups also is almost always in English. Al-Muhajiroun's pamphlets were
in English, not Arabic. Their homepage no longer is online, but if you
look at the last archived version, you'll see that it did not even have
a version in Arabic, Bengali or Urdu - only English:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040820033406/http://www.muhajir oun.com/
Similarly, the placeholder on Hizb ut-Tahrir's website is also in
English only - not a word of Arabic:
http://www.hizb.org.uk/
Since the extremists use English to address their targets, doesn't it
make sense for the moderates to use the same language? Remember that
the MCB was not trying to reach out to the world's muslims - just the
UK's.
--
Arvind
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90578 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 17:27 |
|
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip of apologetics>
1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did they not issue a
blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then please reconcile
the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them, conquer
them, etc.
Why can't I get you apologists to answer a couple of simple questions?
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90583 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 20:09 |
|
Ty wrote:
> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
> news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip of apologetics>
>
> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did they not issue a
> blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
Because (a) you can't get "Islam" to speak with a unified voice any more
than you can get "Christianity" to; and (b) your definition of terrorism
doesn't necessarily match with others - you want Muslims to be pacifists
when their lands are invaded, whereas they see themselves as fighting for
their homes. I don't condone bombing civilians but bombing Israeli,
American or even Canadian troops is _not_ terrorism, though the US still
plans to try people for exactly that.
> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then please reconcile
> the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them, conquer
> them, etc.
I consider Christianity to properly be tolerant too, but I can't reconcile
Christianity with various Pope's (and other religious leaders) exhortations
to slaughter Muslims & Jews. I don't know the Qu'ran well enough to be
able to reconcile these things, but I suspect many scholars would tell you
those were exhortations to a people _currently_ at war.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90584 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 21:28 |
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:27:30 +0000, Ty wrote:
> Why can't I get you apologists to answer a couple of simple questions?
Because nobody around here gives a fuck about fanatical raghead
motherfucking terrorists. Take your political bullshit somewhere else,
this is a goddam Tolkien newsgroup, dipshit.
This also goes for you other ignorant morons carrying this idiotic thread
on and on and on. Shut the fuck up and move it somewhere else.
--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90585 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 21:36 |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:gcp7r2-tmd.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
> Ty wrote:
>> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
>> news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did they not issue a
>> blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>
> Because (a) you can't get "Islam" to speak with a unified voice any more
> than you can get "Christianity" to;
Your answer fails to convince. The issue is whether Islam *really* condemns
terrorist attacks. Or, if you prefer, whether a majority of Muslims actually
believe that terrorist attacks violate the tenets of their faith. And, we
are talking about the specific Muslim leaders who issued the anemic
pseudo-condemnation of the first round of attacks. Therefore, it is
perfectly reasonable to ask why they so carefully limited their condemnation
to a specific terrorist attack rather than taking the opportunity to condemn
all Muslim terrorist attacks.
It is equally reasonable to conclude from such carefully worded
pseudo-condemnations that a majority of Muslim leaders do *not* believe that
terrorist attacks violate the rules of their faith.
The fact that they (and their apologists) have been unable to reconcile this
point is a strong indication of their true beliefs.
> ...and (b) your definition of terrorism
> doesn't necessarily match with others - you want Muslims to be pacifists
> when their lands are invaded
You terrorist apologists need to stop misrepresenting my statement. It isn't
very complicated, you know. I want Muslim leaders to condemn *all* attacks
that target civilians.
Their unwillingness to do so is a strong indication of their true feelings
on the matter. It also seriously weakens your pathetic attempts to defend
them.
> whereas they see themselves as fighting for
> their homes. I don't condone bombing civilians but bombing Israeli,
> American or even Canadian troops is _not_ terrorism, though the US still
> plans to try people for exactly that.
So, do you condemn a Muslim terrorist attack that targets Israeli civilians?
>> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then please reconcile
>> the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them, conquer
>> them, etc.
> I consider Christianity to properly be tolerant too, but I can't reconcile
> Christianity with various Pope's (and other religious leaders)
> exhortations
> to slaughter Muslims & Jews.
This discussion does not concern Christianity. However, I challenge you to
find any exhortations from Christ that compare with Muhammed's commands to
slaughter the infidels, humiliate them, etc. You apologists constantly
assume that Islam and Christianity have very similar theological tenets.
Your ignorance on this point is stunning, because nothing is further from
the truth. The two faiths are profoundly different, so analogizing them is
ridiculous.
> I don't know the Qu'ran well enough to be
> able to reconcile these things
Which is of course, the great irony. It is obvious that you don't know
anything about the Koran because if you did, you would not try to make (or
imply) the absurd argument that Islam is peaceful and tolerant. Yet, you
indulgent lefties confidently leap to the defense of a faith that you know
nothing about and that is characterized by misogyny, homophobia and
religious intolerance. Can there be any more damning evidence of how absurd
you folk have become?
Certainly, Islamic theology cannot be considered "peaceful", in any
meaningful sense of the word. The Koran and Hadiths are filled with
commandments from the Prophet to slaughter, conquer, "humiliate" and enslave
infidels. It contains a very sophisticated legal system concerned with the
division of spoils, which captives are to be killed, which captives are to
be enlaved, when it is okay to negotiate with infidels during wartime, etc.
Curious inclusions for a religion of "peace" wouldn't you say? I think that
the most eloquent example of Muhammed's theology are his dying words that
commanded Muslims to "drive the Jews out of the Arabian peninsula". Rather
different from Christ's plea for mercy for his tormenters, wouldn't you say?
Nor am I encouraged by the fact that self-identified Muslim terrorists are
currently responsible for about 95% of the deaths each year from
international terrorist acts. *These* folks certainly believe that they are
in a religious war. I wonder why you lefties won't simply take them at their
word?
There's also the little problem that the Koran explicitely envisions an
Islamic government on Earth. There is no separation of church and state
(something lefties constantly wail about in other contexts) -- Muhammed was
both secular ruler and God's Prophet. There is no analogue to Christ's
commandment to "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's".
Now, for what it is worth, Islam *was* pretty tolerant by 7th century
standards. But this is not the 7th century. And the core problem for Muslims
is that the words of the Prophet are considered perfect and unchangeable for
all time. So his clear and plain commandments to slaughter the infidels must
be obeyed. This poses a formidable problem for so-called "moderate Muslims"
who want to reform their religion. They are called "apostates" by their
co-religionists and will likely share the same fate as Salman Rushdie. And
they are not helped at all by indulgent, ignorant western lefties who try to
coddle Muslim extremists or justify their despicable conduct.
Indeed, Muslims face a far different challenge than Christians. Christians
must do what Christ said ("love your enemies", "turn the other cheek",
etc.). Muslims must disobey the plain commandments of the Prophet
("slaughter the infidels, humiliate them, etc.).
And misguided notions of political correctness and tolerance will only
strengthen the so-called extremists and make the job of moderate Muslims far
harder.
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90586 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 22:25 |
|
Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in
news:gcp7r2-tmd.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca:
> Ty wrote:
>> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
>> news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> <snip of apologetics>
>>
>> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did they not
>> issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>
> Because (a) you can't get "Islam" to speak with a unified voice
> any more than you can get "Christianity" to; and (b) your
> definition of terrorism doesn't necessarily match with others -
> you want Muslims to be pacifists when their lands are invaded,
> whereas they see themselves as fighting for their homes. I don't
> condone bombing civilians but bombing Israeli, American or even
> Canadian troops is _not_ terrorism, though the US still plans to
> try people for exactly that.
More importantly, what business is it of Ty's what we do here? The
risk to the UK should reduce at the end of this year, when we begin
our pullout from Iraq. After that, we'll have no ongoing concerns in
Arab countries, and there'll be little incentive to attack us. Once
that cause is removed, we can work longer term on the integration of
Muslims.
--
Cheers, ymt.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90589 ] |
Fr, 22 Juli 2005 23:18 |
|
"Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns969BD9E067576yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
> More importantly, what business is it of Ty's what we do here? The
> risk to the UK should reduce at the end of this year, when we begin
> our pullout from Iraq.
Neville Chamberlain would be proud of you.
But since you're one of the resident apologists, perhaps *you* can answer
the simple questions:
1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British Muslim
leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them,
conquer them, etc.?
Surely you can answer these questions.
> After that, we'll have no ongoing concerns in
> Arab countries, and there'll be little incentive to attack us.
Uh, except for the fact that they hate you and believe that they are engaged
in a religious war against infidels -- you, for instance. And sadly for you,
no amount of craven appeasement will slake their thirst for your blood.
Indeed, appeasement is the absolutely *worst* response because it leads them
to conclude that you are weak and they become emboldened.
But hey -- it's your business if you want your nation's foreign policy to be
determined by terrorists.
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90590 ] |
Sa, 23 Juli 2005 00:01 |
|
"Ty" <tybeardSPAM [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rVbEe.1940$9D1.510 [at] newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:gcp7r2-tmd.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
>> Ty wrote:
>
>>> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did they not issue a
>>> blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>>
>> Because (a) you can't get "Islam" to speak with a unified voice any more
>> than you can get "Christianity" to;
>
> Your answer fails to convince. The issue is whether Islam *really*
> condemns terrorist attacks. Or, if you prefer, whether a majority of
> Muslims actually believe that terrorist attacks violate the tenets of
> their faith. And, we are talking about the specific Muslim leaders who
> issued the anemic pseudo-condemnation of the first round of attacks.
> Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why they so carefully limited
> their condemnation to a specific terrorist attack rather than taking the
> opportunity to condemn all Muslim terrorist attacks.
I wonder how people are taking the fact that several of the so-called
"moderate" imans, who put their names to the pseudo-condemnation, have been
caught praising the suicide bombers as martyrs.
>
> It is equally reasonable to conclude from such carefully worded
> pseudo-condemnations that a majority of Muslim leaders do *not* believe
> that terrorist attacks violate the rules of their faith.
>
> The fact that they (and their apologists) have been unable to reconcile
> this point is a strong indication of their true beliefs.
>
>> ...and (b) your definition of terrorism
>> doesn't necessarily match with others - you want Muslims to be pacifists
>> when their lands are invaded
>
> You terrorist apologists need to stop misrepresenting my statement. It
> isn't very complicated, you know. I want Muslim leaders to condemn *all*
> attacks that target civilians.
>
> Their unwillingness to do so is a strong indication of their true feelings
> on the matter. It also seriously weakens your pathetic attempts to defend
> them.
>
>> whereas they see themselves as fighting for
>> their homes. I don't condone bombing civilians but bombing Israeli,
>> American or even Canadian troops is _not_ terrorism, though the US still
>> plans to try people for exactly that.
>
> So, do you condemn a Muslim terrorist attack that targets Israeli
> civilians?
>
>>> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then please
>>> reconcile
>>> the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them,
>>> conquer
>>> them, etc.
>
>> I consider Christianity to properly be tolerant too, but I can't
>> reconcile
>> Christianity with various Pope's (and other religious leaders)
>> exhortations
>> to slaughter Muslims & Jews.
>
> This discussion does not concern Christianity. However, I challenge you to
> find any exhortations from Christ that compare with Muhammed's commands to
> slaughter the infidels, humiliate them, etc. You apologists constantly
> assume that Islam and Christianity have very similar theological tenets.
> Your ignorance on this point is stunning, because nothing is further from
> the truth. The two faiths are profoundly different, so analogizing them is
> ridiculous.
>
>> I don't know the Qu'ran well enough to be
>> able to reconcile these things
>
> Which is of course, the great irony. It is obvious that you don't know
> anything about the Koran because if you did, you would not try to make (or
> imply) the absurd argument that Islam is peaceful and tolerant. Yet, you
> indulgent lefties confidently leap to the defense of a faith that you know
> nothing about and that is characterized by misogyny, homophobia and
> religious intolerance. Can there be any more damning evidence of how
> absurd you folk have become?
>
> Certainly, Islamic theology cannot be considered "peaceful", in any
> meaningful sense of the word. The Koran and Hadiths are filled with
> commandments from the Prophet to slaughter, conquer, "humiliate" and
> enslave infidels. It contains a very sophisticated legal system concerned
> with the division of spoils, which captives are to be killed, which
> captives are to be enlaved, when it is okay to negotiate with infidels
> during wartime, etc. Curious inclusions for a religion of "peace" wouldn't
> you say? I think that the most eloquent example of Muhammed's theology are
> his dying words that commanded Muslims to "drive the Jews out of the
> Arabian peninsula". Rather different from Christ's plea for mercy for his
> tormenters, wouldn't you say?
>
> Nor am I encouraged by the fact that self-identified Muslim terrorists are
> currently responsible for about 95% of the deaths each year from
> international terrorist acts. *These* folks certainly believe that they
> are in a religious war. I wonder why you lefties won't simply take them at
> their word?
>
> There's also the little problem that the Koran explicitely envisions an
> Islamic government on Earth. There is no separation of church and state
> (something lefties constantly wail about in other contexts) -- Muhammed
> was both secular ruler and God's Prophet. There is no analogue to Christ's
> commandment to "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's".
>
> Now, for what it is worth, Islam *was* pretty tolerant by 7th century
> standards. But this is not the 7th century. And the core problem for
> Muslims is that the words of the Prophet are considered perfect and
> unchangeable for all time. So his clear and plain commandments to
> slaughter the infidels must be obeyed. This poses a formidable problem for
> so-called "moderate Muslims" who want to reform their religion. They are
> called "apostates" by their co-religionists and will likely share the same
> fate as Salman Rushdie. And they are not helped at all by indulgent,
> ignorant western lefties who try to coddle Muslim extremists or justify
> their despicable conduct.
>
> Indeed, Muslims face a far different challenge than Christians. Christians
> must do what Christ said ("love your enemies", "turn the other cheek",
> etc.). Muslims must disobey the plain commandments of the Prophet
> ("slaughter the infidels, humiliate them, etc.).
>
> And misguided notions of political correctness and tolerance will only
> strengthen the so-called extremists and make the job of moderate Muslims
> far harder.
>
> --Ty
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90601 ] |
Sa, 23 Juli 2005 04:14 |
|
"Bajori" <baronjosefr [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:M0eEe.500482$ub.28007 [at] fe07.news.easynews.com...
> "Ty" <tybeardSPAM [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > Your answer fails to convince. The issue is whether Islam *really*
> > condemns terrorist attacks. Or, if you prefer, whether a majority of
> > Muslims actually believe that terrorist attacks violate the tenets of
> > their faith. And, we are talking about the specific Muslim leaders who
> > issued the anemic pseudo-condemnation of the first round of attacks.
> > Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why they so carefully
limited
> > their condemnation to a specific terrorist attack rather than taking the
> > opportunity to condemn all Muslim terrorist attacks.
> I wonder how people are taking the fact that several of the so-called
> "moderate" imans, who put their names to the pseudo-condemnation, have
been
> caught praising the suicide bombers as martyrs.
Well, the various lefty apologists are probably ignoring such inconvenient
details. Stil
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90625 ] |
So, 24 Juli 2005 14:45 |
|
Ty wrote:
> "Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns969BD9E067576yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
>
> > More importantly, what business is it of Ty's what we do here? The
> > risk to the UK should reduce at the end of this year, when we begin
> > our pullout from Iraq.
>
> Neville Chamberlain would be proud of you.
>
Here's a head up for you Ty. You might be mortally afraid of these
extremists, so afraid, in fact that you think it sane to compare the
threat posed by Islamic extremism to the scourge of pre-war Nazism. But
you fail to realise that WE don't share your fear, and aren't moved by
your descriptions of your own cowardice.
> But since you're one of the resident apologists, perhaps *you* can answer
> the simple questions:
>
> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British Muslim
> leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>
Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
yours, on the other hand, was equivocal at best, and seriously
undermined by your previous statements in support of torture. Why
should we question their sincerity, but not yours?
> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
> reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them,
> conquer them, etc.?
>
It's a double edged sword Ty. Your own statements rank with theirs for
extremist rhetoric. If we DO decide that we will no longer tolerate
extremism YOUR extremism will be targetted as well.
> Surely you can answer these questions.
>
> > After that, we'll have no ongoing concerns in
> > Arab countries, and there'll be little incentive to attack us.
>
> Uh, except for the fact that they hate you and believe that they are engaged
> in a religious war against infidels -- you, for instance. And sadly for you,
> no amount of craven appeasement will slake their thirst for your blood.
> Indeed, appeasement is the absolutely *worst* response because it leads them
> to conclude that you are weak and they become emboldened.
>
It must really get your goat then, that your hero and Prophet Donald
Rumsfeld has been doing that exact same thing in Iraq - having
concluded that the fight against the insurgents in Iraq cannot be won,
he is seeking a diplomatic solution. Boy, that must sting.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90627 ] |
So, 24 Juli 2005 16:02 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Ty wrote:
> > "Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns969BD9E067576yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
> >
> > > More importantly, what business is it of Ty's what we do here? The
> > > risk to the UK should reduce at the end of this year, when we begin
> > > our pullout from Iraq.
> > Neville Chamberlain would be proud of you.
> Here's a head up for you Ty. You might be mortally afraid of these
> extremists, so afraid, in fact that you think it sane to compare the
> threat posed by Islamic extremism to the scourge of pre-war Nazism. But
> you fail to realise that WE don't share your fear, and aren't moved by
> your descriptions of your own cowardice.
Heh -- being called a coward by someone who favors appeasing savages.
> > 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British
Muslim
> > leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
> Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
Why can't you idiots just answer the question? Is it because you simply
don't want to admit that the Muslim leaders did *not* condemn all Muslim
terrorism? Or is it somehow not terrorism when the civilians are Israelis,
Australians or Americans?
<snip of lies>
> > 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
> > reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate
them,
> > conquer them, etc.?
> It's a double edged sword Ty. Your own statements rank with theirs for
> extremist rhetoric.
Non-answer noted. Why can't you pathetic terrorist apologists simply answer
the question?
And I challenge you to produce any evidence that I have called for the
annihilation of Muslim civilians or made statements comparable to those of
Muhammed. If you cannot -- and you can't, because I haven't done so -- then
you will (again) be exposed as a pathetic liar. You liberals must hate the
way the internet has made it so easy to uncover your lies. You should limit
yourself to hysterical overreaction and stop the lying. It's just too easy
to catch you.
And since literacy isn't your strong suit, I'll repeat the questions that
you have unartfully evade:
1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British Muslim
leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them,
conquer them, etc.?
Go ahead, terrorist apologist, answer the questions.
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90645 ] |
So, 24 Juli 2005 23:24 |
|
"Ty" <tybeardspam [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BbNEe.21$aT1.8 [at] newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> "Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Ty wrote:
>> > "Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns969BD9E067576yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
>> >
>> > > More importantly, what business is it of Ty's what we do here? The
>> > > risk to the UK should reduce at the end of this year, when we begin
>> > > our pullout from Iraq.
>
>> > Neville Chamberlain would be proud of you.
>
>> Here's a head up for you Ty. You might be mortally afraid of these
>> extremists, so afraid, in fact that you think it sane to compare the
>> threat posed by Islamic extremism to the scourge of pre-war Nazism. But
>> you fail to realise that WE don't share your fear, and aren't moved by
>> your descriptions of your own cowardice.
>
> Heh -- being called a coward by someone who favors appeasing savages.
>
>> > 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British
> Muslim
>> > leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>
>> Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
>
> Why can't you idiots just answer the question? Is it because you simply
> don't want to admit that the Muslim leaders did *not* condemn all Muslim
> terrorism? Or is it somehow not terrorism when the civilians are Israelis,
> Australians or Americans?
>
> <snip of lies>
>
>> > 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
>> > reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate
> them,
>> > conquer them, etc.?
>
>> It's a double edged sword Ty. Your own statements rank with theirs for
>> extremist rhetoric.
>
> Non-answer noted. Why can't you pathetic terrorist apologists simply
> answer
> the question?
>
> And I challenge you to produce any evidence that I have called for the
> annihilation of Muslim civilians or made statements comparable to those of
> Muhammed. If you cannot -- and you can't, because I haven't done so --
> then
> you will (again) be exposed as a pathetic liar. You liberals must hate the
> way the internet has made it so easy to uncover your lies. You should
> limit
> yourself to hysterical overreaction and stop the lying. It's just too easy
> to catch you.
>
> And since literacy isn't your strong suit, I'll repeat the questions that
> you have unartfully evade:
>
>
> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British Muslim
> leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>
> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
> reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate
> them,
> conquer them, etc.?
>
> Go ahead, terrorist apologist, answer the questions.
>
> --Ty
>
>
Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more
violence." ... Quote: "I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only
over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world."
AND this guy actually signed the recent "condemnation".
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90646 ] |
Mo, 25 Juli 2005 00:05 |
|
Ty wrote:
> "Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Ty wrote:
> > > "Yuk Tang" <jimlaker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns969BD9E067576yos132000yahoocouk [at] 195.92.193.157...
> > >
> > > > More importantly, what business is it of Ty's what we do here? The
> > > > risk to the UK should reduce at the end of this year, when we begin
> > > > our pullout from Iraq.
>
> > > Neville Chamberlain would be proud of you.
>
> > Here's a head up for you Ty. You might be mortally afraid of these
> > extremists, so afraid, in fact that you think it sane to compare the
> > threat posed by Islamic extremism to the scourge of pre-war Nazism. But
> > you fail to realise that WE don't share your fear, and aren't moved by
> > your descriptions of your own cowardice.
>
> Heh -- being called a coward by someone who favors appeasing savages.
>
Like your hero Donald Rumsfeld is doing right now, you mean?
> > > 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British
> Muslim
> > > leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>
> > Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
>
> Why can't you idiots just answer the question? Is it because you simply
> don't want to admit that the Muslim leaders did *not* condemn all Muslim
> terrorism? Or is it somehow not terrorism when the civilians are Israelis,
> Australians or Americans?
>
> <snip of lies>
>
non-answer noticed - so we'll return to the question:
Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
yours, on the other hand, was equivocal at best, and seriously
undermined by your previous statements in support of torture. Why
should we question their sincerity, but not yours?
> > > 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
> > > reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate
> them,
> > > conquer them, etc.?
>
> > It's a double edged sword Ty. Your own statements rank with theirs for
> > extremist rhetoric.
>
> Non-answer noted. Why can't you pathetic terrorist apologists simply answer
> the question?
>
You're mistaken - nobody here is making apologies for your remarks.
Except for yourself.
> And I challenge you to produce any evidence that I have called for the
> annihilation of Muslim civilians or made statements comparable to those of
> Muhammed. If you cannot -- and you can't, because I haven't done so -- then
> you will (again) be exposed as a pathetic liar.
It's pretty obvious Ty. You claimed that it was ok for the US military
to torture innocent people to death, and in fact, that it was ok for
the US administration headed up by Cheney/Rusmfeld/Wolfowitz to use the
deaths of nealry 3000 innocent pople on Sept 11, 2001 as an excuse to
invade a third party country that they'd had their eyes on as a money
making exercise. You claim that it was ok for those PNAC folks to play
on the terrible fear that swept the country they are supposed to lead
and guide, just so they could line their own pockets.
It's pretty clear that since you felt no compunction about either of
those events, that you are quite quite fond of the principle of
indiscriminate killing in general. You don't mind if its Americans, or
Balinese, or Muslims. You just like to see folk die.
> You liberals must hate the
> way the internet has made it so easy to uncover your lies. You should limit
> yourself to hysterical overreaction and stop the lying. It's just too easy
> to catch you.
>
Rant on brother, rant on. You'll never win converts to your hateful
maddrassas here. We know you too well.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #90653 ] |
Mo, 25 Juli 2005 01:56 |
|
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Heh -- being called a coward by someone who favors appeasing savages.
> Like your hero Donald Rumsfeld is doing right now, you mean?
Did you miss your medication today?
> > > > 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British
> > Muslim
> > > > leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
> >
> > > Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
> >
> > Why can't you idiots just answer the question? Is it because you simply
> > don't want to admit that the Muslim leaders did *not* condemn all Muslim
> > terrorism? Or is it somehow not terrorism when the civilians are
Israelis,
> > Australians or Americans?
> >
> > <snip of lies>
> >
> non-answer noticed - so we'll return to the question:
> Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
Non-answer noted again.
Since you are "satisfied" with the condemnation, does this mean that you
don't have a problem with terrorist attacks against Israeli, American and
Australian civilians? <non-answer predicted>
> > Non-answer noted. Why can't you pathetic terrorist apologists simply
answer
> > the question?
> You're mistaken - nobody here is making apologies for your remarks.
> Except for yourself.
I can't decide if you're more contemptible because you support terrorists or
because you're too gutless to admit it.
> > And I challenge you to produce any evidence that I have called for the
> > annihilation of Muslim civilians or made statements comparable to those
of
> > Muhammed. If you cannot -- and you can't, because I haven't done so --
then
> > you will (again) be exposed as a pathetic liar.
>
> It's pretty obvious Ty.
Except that you failed to produce the evidence requested. Therefore, it is
apparent that you are a liar...and a particularly stupid liar at that. It
seems that you witless dullards are incapable of understanding how easy it
is to verify your lies these days.
<snip of conclusory assertions>
> > You liberals must hate the
> > way the internet has made it so easy to uncover your lies. You should
limit
> > yourself to hysterical overreaction and stop the lying. It's just too
easy
> > to catch you.
> Rant on brother, rant on. You'll never win converts to your hateful
> maddrassas here. We know you too well.
<chuckle> A cowardly terrorist apologist condemning someone else for being
an extremist. Priceless.
So tell us, terrorist-coddler, why can't you answer 2 simple questions:
1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British Muslim
leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them,
conquer them, etc.?
Go ahead, moron, answer them if you can. I double-dog dare you...
--Ty
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #92911 ] |
Mo, 25 Juli 2005 15:06 |
|
Ty wrote:
> "Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Heh -- being called a coward by someone who favors appeasing savages.
>
> > Like your hero Donald Rumsfeld is doing right now, you mean?
>
> Did you miss your medication today?
>
No. Why do you ask?
> > > > > 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British
> > > Muslim
> > > > > leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
> > >
> > > > Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
> > >
> > > Why can't you idiots just answer the question? Is it because you simply
> > > don't want to admit that the Muslim leaders did *not* condemn all Muslim
> > > terrorism? Or is it somehow not terrorism when the civilians are
> Israelis,
> > > Australians or Americans?
> > >
> > > <snip of lies>
> > >
> > non-answer noticed - so we'll return to the question:
>
> > Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
>
> Non-answer noted again.
>
Notably, you failed to answer the question posed - so we'll return to
it again:
Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
yours, on the other hand, was equivocal at best, and seriously
undermined by your previous statements in support of torture. Why
should we question their sincerity, but not yours?
> Since you are "satisfied" with the condemnation, does this mean that you
> don't have a problem with terrorist attacks against Israeli, American and
> Australian civilians? <non-answer predicted>
>
No, it doesn't mean that - only an idiot would think so. Are you an
idiot?
> > > Non-answer noted. Why can't you pathetic terrorist apologists simply
> answer
> > > the question?
>
> > You're mistaken - nobody here is making apologies for your remarks.
> > Except for yourself.
>
> I can't decide if you're more contemptible because you support terrorists or
> because you're too gutless to admit it.
>
I daresay lot's of extremists hold me and my principles (which I share
with every civilised person) in contempt. I don't care. I see guys on
the street every day who have mental problems, ranting and raving about
this or that apocalypse, threatened by milk in plastic bottles, aliens,
arab boogeyman. I might pity them, but I don't their view of reality in
high esteem. Neither yours.
> > > And I challenge you to produce any evidence that I have called for the
> > > annihilation of Muslim civilians or made statements comparable to those
> of
> > > Muhammed. If you cannot -- and you can't, because I haven't done so --
> then
> > > you will (again) be exposed as a pathetic liar.
> >
> > It's pretty obvious Ty.
>
> Except that you failed to produce the evidence requested.
Is that so? Funny then, that you chose to remove the remarks I made, as
if I had never made them. But never mind - Ctrl C, Ctrl V:
You claimed that it was ok for the US military
to torture innocent people to death, and in fact, that it was ok for
the US administration headed up by Cheney/Rusmfeld/Wolfowitz to use the
deaths of nealry 3000 innocent pople on Sept 11, 2001 as an excuse to
invade a third party country that they'd had their eyes on as a money
making exercise. You claim that it was ok for those PNAC folks to play
on the terrible fear that swept the country they are supposed to lead
and guide, just so they could line their own pockets.
It's pretty clear that since you felt no compunction about either of
those events, that you are quite quite fond of the principle of
indiscriminate killing in general. You don't mind if its Americans, or
Balinese, or Muslims. You just like to see folk die.
> Therefore, it is
> apparent that you are a liar...and a particularly stupid liar at that. It
> seems that you witless dullards are incapable of understanding how easy it
> is to verify your lies these days.
>
I wish you could at least attempt some form of intellectual argument,
this is like arguing with boneless chicken - fun to punch, but
progressively more boring as the night wears on. Ho-hum.
Can't expect too much, I suppose.
>
> > > You liberals must hate the
> > > way the internet has made it so easy to uncover your lies. You should
> limit
> > > yourself to hysterical overreaction and stop the lying. It's just too
> easy
> > > to catch you.
>
> > Rant on brother, rant on. You'll never win converts to your hateful
> > maddrassas here. We know you too well.
>
> <chuckle> A cowardly terrorist apologist condemning someone else for being
> an extremist. Priceless.
>
> So tell us, terrorist-coddler, why can't you answer 2 simple questions:
>
> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did the British Muslim
> leaders not issue a blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>
Again, their condemnation of the terrorist attacks was satisfactory,
yours, on the other hand, was equivocal at best, and seriously
undermined by your previous statements in support of torture. Why
should we question their sincerity, but not yours?
> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then how do you
> reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate them,
> conquer them, etc.?
>
It's a double edged sword Ty. Your own statements rank with theirs for
extremist rhetoric. If we DO decide that we will no longer tolerate
extremism YOUR extremism will be targetted as well.
> Go ahead, moron, answer them if you can. I double-dog dare you...
>
Tsk Tsk.
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #92918 ] |
Mo, 25 Juli 2005 17:56 |
|
Ty wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:gcp7r2-tmd.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
>> Ty wrote:
>
>>> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
>>> news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did they not issue a
>>> blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>>
>> Because (a) you can't get "Islam" to speak with a unified voice any more
>> than you can get "Christianity" to;
>
> Your answer fails to convince. The issue is whether Islam *really*
> condemns terrorist attacks.
Of course it fails to convince. You wouldn't be convinced by anything less
than every single Muslim condemning violence in any manner. However,
"Islam" will _never_ condemn terrorism, however much the vast majority of
Muslism will.
> Or, if you prefer, whether a majority of
> Muslims actually believe that terrorist attacks violate the tenets of
> their faith.
And I believe that a large majority of Muslims _do_ believe that, _and say
so_.
> And, we are talking about the specific Muslim leaders who
> issued the anemic pseudo-condemnation of the first round of attacks.
No, _we_ aren't. If you want to keep it to such a discussion, stop using
generalizations about "they" and "the Muslims" and "Islam". I agree with
you that phrases like "Islam condemns violence against innocents" do
nothing to help, because the terrorists don't believe there _are_ any
innocents.
> It is equally reasonable to conclude from such carefully worded
> pseudo-condemnations that a majority of Muslim leaders do *not* believe
> that terrorist attacks violate the rules of their faith.
No it's not. I hear, day after day, Muslim leaders issuing blanket
condemnations, but you and much of the world's media don't want to hear
those people. You'd rather focus on the radicals, and their more
wishy-washy opponents.
>> ...and (b) your definition of terrorism
>> doesn't necessarily match with others - you want Muslims to be pacifists
>> when their lands are invaded
>
> You terrorist apologists need to stop misrepresenting my statement. It
Please learn a little English. An apologist is one who argues for
something, not one who apologizes for it. It's hardly the insult you make
it.
> isn't very complicated, you know. I want Muslim leaders to condemn *all*
> attacks that target civilians.
In which case, how does that make me a "terrorist apologist", since I argued
for the same thing.
>
> Their unwillingness to do so is a strong indication of their true feelings
> on the matter.
I agree, but it is specific Islamic leaders, _not_ "Islam" or even a
majority who are at fault.
>> whereas they see themselves as fighting for
>> their homes. I don't condone bombing civilians but bombing Israeli,
>> American or even Canadian troops is _not_ terrorism, though the US still
>> plans to try people for exactly that.
>
> So, do you condemn a Muslim terrorist attack that targets Israeli
> civilians?
Absolutely.
>
>>> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then please
>>> reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate
>>> them, conquer them, etc.
>
>> I consider Christianity to properly be tolerant too, but I can't
>> reconcile Christianity with various Pope's (and other religious leaders)
>> exhortations
>> to slaughter Muslims & Jews.
>
> This discussion does not concern Christianity.
Of course it does. You can't hold other cultures up to a different standard
than your own. If you say "well that was a long time ago" (not defensible,
anyway, as Christian leaders definitely _did_ exhort their followers to
genocide as recently as Ruanda), then one only has to point out that
Mohammed was a long time ago, too.
> However, I challenge you to
> find any exhortations from Christ that compare with Muhammed's commands to
> slaughter the infidels, humiliate them, etc.
Not the same. Christ, to Christians, is God. Mohammed is only God's
prophet - a man who revealed God's plan to humanity. He is far more like a
Pope - and Popes _have_ exhorted Christians to slaughter Muslims.
> You apologists constantly
> assume that Islam and Christianity have very similar theological tenets.
I never have, and never will.
> Your ignorance on this point is stunning,
pot=kettle
remainder of ill-considered rant snipped...
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #92925 ] |
Mo, 25 Juli 2005 20:39 |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:umefr2-7ta.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
> Ty wrote:
>
>> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
>> news:gcp7r2-tmd.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
>>> Ty wrote:
>>
>>>> "Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1121703164.756630.324340 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> 1. If Islam *truly* condemns terrorist attacks, why did they not issue
>>>> a
>>>> blanket condemnation of all Muslim terrorism?
>>>
>>> Because (a) you can't get "Islam" to speak with a unified voice any more
>>> than you can get "Christianity" to;
>>
>> Your answer fails to convince. The issue is whether Islam *really*
>> condemns terrorist attacks.
>
> Of course it fails to convince. You wouldn't be convinced by anything
> less
> than every single Muslim condemning violence in any manner. However,
> "Islam" will _never_ condemn terrorism, however much the vast majority of
> Muslism will.
My issue is that several of the imans who have signed the so-called
condemnation have also been preaching jihad in the mosques on Friday and
calling the suicide attackers "martyrs". How much credence should we give
such a condemnation when manyu of the people who are part of it are so
obviously insincere?
>
>> Or, if you prefer, whether a majority of
>> Muslims actually believe that terrorist attacks violate the tenets of
>> their faith.
>
> And I believe that a large majority of Muslims _do_ believe that, _and say
> so_.
>
>> And, we are talking about the specific Muslim leaders who
>> issued the anemic pseudo-condemnation of the first round of attacks.
>
> No, _we_ aren't. If you want to keep it to such a discussion, stop using
> generalizations about "they" and "the Muslims" and "Islam". I agree with
> you that phrases like "Islam condemns violence against innocents" do
> nothing to help, because the terrorists don't believe there _are_ any
> innocents.
>
>> It is equally reasonable to conclude from such carefully worded
>> pseudo-condemnations that a majority of Muslim leaders do *not* believe
>> that terrorist attacks violate the rules of their faith.
>
> No it's not. I hear, day after day, Muslim leaders issuing blanket
> condemnations, but you and much of the world's media don't want to hear
> those people. You'd rather focus on the radicals, and their more
> wishy-washy opponents.
>
>>> ...and (b) your definition of terrorism
>>> doesn't necessarily match with others - you want Muslims to be pacifists
>>> when their lands are invaded
>>
>> You terrorist apologists need to stop misrepresenting my statement. It
>
> Please learn a little English. An apologist is one who argues for
> something, not one who apologizes for it. It's hardly the insult you make
> it.
>
>> isn't very complicated, you know. I want Muslim leaders to condemn *all*
>> attacks that target civilians.
>
> In which case, how does that make me a "terrorist apologist", since I
> argued
> for the same thing.
>>
>> Their unwillingness to do so is a strong indication of their true
>> feelings
>> on the matter.
>
> I agree, but it is specific Islamic leaders, _not_ "Islam" or even a
> majority who are at fault.
>
>>> whereas they see themselves as fighting for
>>> their homes. I don't condone bombing civilians but bombing Israeli,
>>> American or even Canadian troops is _not_ terrorism, though the US still
>>> plans to try people for exactly that.
>>
>> So, do you condemn a Muslim terrorist attack that targets Israeli
>> civilians?
>
> Absolutely.
>>
>>>> 2. If Islam is as tolerant as you apologists claim, then please
>>>> reconcile the Prophet's exhortations to slaughter infidels, humiliate
>>>> them, conquer them, etc.
>>
>>> I consider Christianity to properly be tolerant too, but I can't
>>> reconcile Christianity with various Pope's (and other religious leaders)
>>> exhortations
>>> to slaughter Muslims & Jews.
>>
>> This discussion does not concern Christianity.
>
> Of course it does. You can't hold other cultures up to a different
> standard
> than your own. If you say "well that was a long time ago" (not
> defensible,
> anyway, as Christian leaders definitely _did_ exhort their followers to
> genocide as recently as Ruanda), then one only has to point out that
> Mohammed was a long time ago, too.
>
>> However, I challenge you to
>> find any exhortations from Christ that compare with Muhammed's commands
>> to
>> slaughter the infidels, humiliate them, etc.
>
> Not the same. Christ, to Christians, is God. Mohammed is only God's
> prophet - a man who revealed God's plan to humanity. He is far more like
> a
> Pope - and Popes _have_ exhorted Christians to slaughter Muslims.
>
>> You apologists constantly
>> assume that Islam and Christianity have very similar theological tenets.
>
> I never have, and never will.
>
>> Your ignorance on this point is stunning,
>
> pot=kettle
>
> remainder of ill-considered rant snipped...
> --
> derek
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #92927 ] |
Mo, 25 Juli 2005 21:37 |
|
Bajori wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:umefr2-7ta.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca...
>> Ty wrote:
>>
>>> Your answer fails to convince. The issue is whether Islam *really*
>>> condemns terrorist attacks.
>>
>> Of course it fails to convince. You wouldn't be convinced by anything
>> less
>> than every single Muslim condemning violence in any manner. However,
>> "Islam" will _never_ condemn terrorism, however much the vast majority of
>> Muslism will.
>
> My issue is that several of the imans who have signed the so-called
> condemnation have also been preaching jihad in the mosques on Friday and
> calling the suicide attackers "martyrs". How much credence should we give
> such a condemnation when manyu of the people who are part of it are so
> obviously insincere?
No argument from me - we've had similar things happen in Canada - but I
won't stand by and let Ty use massive generalizations about _all_ Muslims.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #92928 ] |
Mo, 25 Juli 2005 22:16 |
|
Bajori wrote:
[Sorry, old man - I forgot to killfile you. I will, though. I promise.]
>My issue is that several of the imans who have signed the so-called
condemnation have also been preaching jihad in the mosques on Friday
and
calling the suicide attackers "martyrs". How much credence should we
give
such a condemnation when manyu of the people who are part of it are so
obviously insincere?
Please provide the names of such imams (notice the spelling: imaM) and
concrete examples of such behaviour.
=D6jevind
|
|
|
| Re: OT: "There can Never Be an Excuse for Taking an Innocent Life" [message #92932 ] |
Di, 26 Juli 2005 00:04 |
|
"Öjevind Lång" <ojevind.lang [at] bredband.net> wrote in message
news:1122322576.691696.197390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bajori wrote:
[Sorry, old man - I forgot to killfile you. I will, though. I promise.]
>My issue is that several of the imans who have signed the so-called
condemnation have also been preaching jihad in the mosques on Friday
and
calling the suicide attackers "martyrs". How much credence should we
give
such a condemnation when manyu of the people who are part of it are so
obviously insincere?
Please provide the names of such imams (notice the spelling: imaM) and
concrete examples of such behaviour.
Öjevind
I have already done so within this thread. Go have a look.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 13:03:37 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,12190 Sekunden |
