Of course that is not an argument but a puerile appeal to emotions. Someone pass the hankies, please.
Here is a link that may assist you folks with obtaining some understanding:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html
God bless you.
sandy: answer these claims against Christianity
- Thread starter Kadark
- Start date
Of course that is not an argument but a puerile appeal to emotions. Someone pass the hankies, please.
Here is a link that may assist you folks with obtaining some understanding:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html
God bless you.
Oh, I know the names they gave. It's funny, because those Muslim "suspects" are alive and well. Wow, crashing into a steele infrastructure at 600 mph and entering a blazing inferno and still surviving is quite special. (Sarcasm).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues.
If the leader of this organization says the war is illegal, and his organization governs these types of issues, then it is certainly illegal.
With what money?
Since when was buying "missiles" equivalent to buying nuclear weapons? Nukes are pretty darn expensive, in case you didn't know. Besides, Saddam had every right in the world to possess missiles and weapons. Sure, maybe he wasn't allowed by law to make/purchase nukes (which he couldn't any way), but weapons is something every single nation has.
Here is how the US helped Iraq in its war with Iran:
It's also hard to gauge the likely reaction of the Iranian government. In 1988, the United States sank half of Iran's Navy, downed an Iranian Airbus, and gave Iraq intelligence that led to the destruction of two Iranian divisions, and left Iran defenseless against an Iraqi invasion. The reaction of the hard-line Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, was to accept a ceasefire with Iraq.
The Times ("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," 8/18/02) reported that, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the secret program, U.S. officials "provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war."
It's long been known that the U.S. gave Iraq satellite intelligence and other military support to prevent an Iranian victory. What's new in the Times story is the extent of U.S. involvement: "More than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA] were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."
This Pentagon program continued even when it became clear that the Iraqi military "had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested." The obvious implication -- not drawn by the Times -- is that U.S. plans were shaped by the knowledge that Iraq would use chemical weapons. The Washington Post's Bob Woodward reported as much (12/15/86): in1984 the CIA began giving Iraq intelligence which it used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks against Iranian troops. An estimated 50,000 Iranians were killed by Iraqi gas warfare. (Bruce Jentleson, With Friends Like These - Reagan, Bush, and Saddam, 1982-1990, p. 77)
You had five quotes. I can make five quotes on Hitler and pass them off as true. You can't really do this with documented life-events. This one section from my link seems like enough proof for anyone to realize Hitler was Christian.
Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.
Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)
Ottomans accepted other religions. They accepted the Jews banished from Christian Spain into their empire. The Mughal empire (with the exception of one emperor) allowed different religions, allowed public worship of different religions, abolished the non-Muslim tax, etc. I may not agree with all these decisions, but they must have been great for the non-Muslims. This behaviour by the Ottomans/Mughals hardly seems oppressive to other religions.
[/QUOTE]On the contrary, I'm just getting started.[/QUOTE]
It looks like you're finished to me. You're arguing for the sake of getting the last word in, my friend.
Last edited:
Stop pussyfooting around. What are you saying? That the US government ran the planes into the buildings by remote control? Or perhaps the evil Jews did it?
Perhaps the implants put into the pilots by the aliens and/or black helicopter guys were activated and allowed the Jews to control the pilots directly. Or maybe crop circles had something to do with it?
Just thought I might post something on what I saw as the original complaint of the thread starter -
I believe that the old testament was written for humans to understand God in the capacities they had and to be a spur for growth of consciousness of an almost prehistoric people group. It does not contain the full revelation of the reality of God any more than the old and new testament together can describe God in a way which is totally salient and comprehensive to all of modern mankind.
I'm sure, when God is good and ready, or rather, when we are conscious enough to comprehend something beyond the most basic descriptions of morals and have reached some ability to perceive something of the level of God, God will be revealed to us.
Until then, we will have to make due with our ability to reason.
Just toss in "thou shalt not kill" to that first long list of the laws, and any normal dialectical thinker will have a brain short-out. Any violent animalistic people who received the old testament would ignore "thou shalt not kill", and go straight to punishing their neighbors, but any non-violent people who received it would have to follow the more peaceful paths of God's law. A good example of this ability for a people group to choose their own experience is the sufi interpretation of muslim texts which leads them to a high level existence, as opposed to some of the more violent muslims (terrorists, and other "sanctioned" pracitioners of violence).
The old testament was a "mistake" for human consciousness in the same way the ice age was a "mistake" for human evolution - in other words it was a step on the path for us to evolve, and I don't think we can say we are finished yet - at least I hope we aren't finished yet.
I believe that the old testament was written for humans to understand God in the capacities they had and to be a spur for growth of consciousness of an almost prehistoric people group. It does not contain the full revelation of the reality of God any more than the old and new testament together can describe God in a way which is totally salient and comprehensive to all of modern mankind.
I'm sure, when God is good and ready, or rather, when we are conscious enough to comprehend something beyond the most basic descriptions of morals and have reached some ability to perceive something of the level of God, God will be revealed to us.
Until then, we will have to make due with our ability to reason.
Just toss in "thou shalt not kill" to that first long list of the laws, and any normal dialectical thinker will have a brain short-out. Any violent animalistic people who received the old testament would ignore "thou shalt not kill", and go straight to punishing their neighbors, but any non-violent people who received it would have to follow the more peaceful paths of God's law. A good example of this ability for a people group to choose their own experience is the sufi interpretation of muslim texts which leads them to a high level existence, as opposed to some of the more violent muslims (terrorists, and other "sanctioned" pracitioners of violence).
The old testament was a "mistake" for human consciousness in the same way the ice age was a "mistake" for human evolution - in other words it was a step on the path for us to evolve, and I don't think we can say we are finished yet - at least I hope we aren't finished yet.
Because the price of sin is death. The OT made that Clear. The price of Sin is still death.
God told the Jews to carry out the death sentence as a sign to all that the price of sin is death. But Jesus delivered the message of Gods mercy through repentance. So with this we also practice mercy. The burden of carrying out the death penalty has been taken of our shoulders. We are here to deliver both the message that sin leads to death but also that the door to eternal life is accessed through Gods mercy and that mercy is accessed via acceptance of the Word of Jesus.
So the death penalty of the OT is still in force. It is only the process of the law, that has changed. Who carry’s out the penalty and when the penalty is carried out.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Very very few are Christian.
Most of the supposed "christians" are not much disimilar to muslims. They are not interested in turning the other cheek, the logic of this world has made them like the worldly. But Jesus himself said this about the time of his return.
Luke 18
7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
So do not be dismayed that so few supposed followers of Jesus actually follow Jesus. Jesus Himself predicted as much.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Adstar, what exactly is wrong with Muslims?
I feel just shy of entirely sure that God didnt say any of those things. Theyre horrible because they were written by horrible humans who wanted to control and herd people. Its just a deep down feeling I have. I could explain it through personal logic, but ultimately all I have to do is place my conviction that God didnt say any of those things next to the idea that God did say all those things and ask myself "at a glance, without thinking too much, using only vague intuition if youd like, which is true?" heh.
And as always, Im seemingly endlessly amazed at how people can debate the history of ANYTHING! Asking for proofs of this and that, establishing authority by siting the most acceptably reliable authoritative sources for their version of the history in order to... um... have the last word on just how the fiction, I mean history (I really mean fiction) went down. Thanks for the laughs
note: Id like to acknowledge the history debaters out there who debate by the best accepted conventions for establishing the "facts" of a past event, while realizing all the while that no matter what, what is ultimately arrived at, is still false, little more than an illusion. Live on.
And as always, Im seemingly endlessly amazed at how people can debate the history of ANYTHING! Asking for proofs of this and that, establishing authority by siting the most acceptably reliable authoritative sources for their version of the history in order to... um... have the last word on just how the fiction, I mean history (I really mean fiction) went down. Thanks for the laughs
note: Id like to acknowledge the history debaters out there who debate by the best accepted conventions for establishing the "facts" of a past event, while realizing all the while that no matter what, what is ultimately arrived at, is still false, little more than an illusion. Live on.
Knowing that I am going to Heaven is my God-given right when I am a born-again Christian.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:2, 3) ...
Sandy, upon what basis in fact do you know absolutely that you are born-again?
And also, according to the above verse you quoted, babies who die, young children, the mentally impaired, and anyone else adult or not who dies without being born-again, without understanding or without ever having the opportunity of hearing the gospel even once, will be tortured in hell for all eternity. Millions on this earth have apparently been damned to hell throughout history just because of the time and culture and country they were born into. How can you think that this is justice?
Thank You
Oh, I know, because the invalidation of one or two suspects means that there was no crime in the first place. Forget the other dozen or so. And hey look: from the BBC site you linked:
Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver'
Identity theft. As predicted. Yet the other guys are right on the video. Strange stuff eh? (Sarcasm).
Again: this body functions via committee and law, not UN Commissioner fiat, you illiterate.
Gee, I dunno. Borrowed? GDP? Same money he used for the rest of the military gear he purchased? Lend-lease? Maybe you should read the book? This is the first time I've heard the "poverty defense" for old Hussein.
Let those who have eyes, see. The subject of the book is nukes, not missiles.Well that's curious. First you're all down with UN legislation and regulation, then not. The head of the UN opines that the war is illegal - arguably - and you're all "hey, that war is illegal". A UN commission (which is legal, BTW) decides "Iraq can't have nukes" and your response is "well, they couldn't afford them" followed up smartly by "and anyway, it's just a law". So which side is it, sonny?
Ah - ah! Now, now, little fellow. You said the Yanks sold them weapons. So did they or not? Come on, now, admit you were wrong. Fair's fair.
OK, so you kind of admit in a roundabout way that you were the one to bring up the ridiculous "baptism thing", which is almost respectable. But your assertions are still based on the public appearance of Hitler, which is not the same as his actual motivations. Read "Hitler's Table Talk", and see the following link, and actually read it this time, real careful-like.
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
And, I should add, "Hitler's Pope" is about the Catholic Church's toadying to Hitler, and not the other way around. Ridiculous.
And promptly extorted the hell out of them: please look up "Maimonides" and his commentary on dhimmitude, and the devshirme, and dhimmitude in general.
...well, well. And which of these decisions is it you "may not agree with": the lifting of the jizya, the permission of the expression of different religions, or the permission of their existence altogether? You do realize that this sort of marks you as an islamic supremacist? You don't work for MPACUK or CAIR, do you?
Oh, not at all, little radical. There's lots and lots more. Lots.
So how do you know that Muslims stole the passport?
And who gets the final say? Whose decision is most important?
You know Geoff, what money you borrow, you pay back even more. If Saddam spent the billions he would need to get the equipment, the nuclear reactors, the people who knew how to make it, etc, he may be able to make these weapons. But now…he’s in BILLIONS of dollars of debt, and the nukes he made…no revenue. He’s broke as a joke. You can’t just borrow all that money and invest it into a project that brings back no loot.
Excuse me? The war is illegal, via the UN. Can Iraq have access to such weapons? It’s illegal, via the UN. I can disagree with all my heart on any of these notions, but the fact remains that both practices were illegal. I’m not arguing “should” these things be illegal, I’m arguing “are” they. And yes, both are illegal.
So chemical WEAPONS don’t count? It’s under dispute whether any chemical weapons were sold directly, but the information CERTAINLY was. And mustard gas is so easy to make that the information is just as good as giving them the weapons. It’s unbelievably cheap, easy, yet extremely dangerous. If you have a bit of chemistry in your background like me, you’ll know how easy some of these things are.
Would these pictures exist if Hitler weren’t Christian?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
Completely bullshit.
Jews, driven out of Spain by the Inquisition in the 15th century, were welcomed in the Ottoman Empire. In his book 'Constantinople', Philip Mansel quotes a rabbi in Turkey writing to his brethren in Europe where they were facing increasing persecution after 1453:
"Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed by heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and each one of us lives in freedom. Here a Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame as is the case in Germany where even wealth and great fortune is a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kinds of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect up your forces and come to us."
Written by a rabbi.
Stop trying to turn the tables. It matters not what I think of events that happened hundreds of years ago; what matters is the events themselves. The freedom of religion, lack of tax, acceptance, freedom, etc, is just an example of how well these empires treated religions other than their own.
I hope it’s better than what I’ve seen from you up to this point.
Cause it got used later in the purposes of islamic terrorism.
And why are you trying to make a generalized "muslims" thing? I'm talking about political islam.
I suppose that would be up to their internal systems to decide. You know, process of law. Not fiat.
sarc
Wow. When you contrast the kind of fiscal ignorance required to ignore such a potential debt with Saddam's well-known capacity for humanitarian good will and social justice...I just don't know what to say.
/sarc
Well, that's funny, because you just said that you didn't care if Saddam's getting the weapons was illegal or not. Also, you have yet to prove that the war was illegal.
Let me see...does a PhD in molecular biology count as a "little bit of chemistry"?
I've bolded your comment above - it seems to contrast with your earlier position that the Americans had pumped tons of money for arms at the Iraqis. They may indeed have helped them during the Iran-Iraq war, but they didn't sell them arms.
But, as they say, salvage what you can, Qa'Dark.
Yes. It's called "public relations". Perhaps they don't address this subject when you've got a little bit of chemistry in your background, but it exists nonetheless.
Sadly, not. The Jews were subject to persecution and hatred at varying points in the East as they were in the West. Read this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
You also didn't look up Maimoindes like I told you:
"Maimonides (pictured) narrowly escaped death during the massacre of dhimmis in Cordoba"
No, the tables don't need to be turned, since you were never leading the argument. You are on the bottom where you began, but much, much further down now; and you are now forced into the position - uncomfortable for you, amusing for me - of having to explain yourself.
I repeat, now, in response to your words: which of these decisions is it you "may not agree with": the lifting of the jizya, the permission of the expression of different religions, or the permission of their existence altogether?
It is of course abundantly true that dhimmitude and jizya exist, and were fundamentally and morally wrong. I find it amusing that someone so deluded as to think that he argues from a position of moral superiority could possibly be defending the history of dhimmitude, and slavery, come to think of it. Do you long, too, for the reclamation of al-Andalus?
My work always gets better and better. The problem is that eventually it becomes so good as to be completely over the heads of those daring to contradict me, little radical.
It’s not so much about muslims it is about islam.
Muslims follow the call of the angel that gave the message to muhammad to execute sinners. By stoning and by beheading.
Jesus said if you hate a man then you are a murderer. So all men have hated in their lives. So all men who execute another person for being a murderer are just as guilty as the one they execute.
Jesus said if you even look at a woman and think of having sexual intercourse with her then you are guilty of adultery. Therefore when a muslims executes a person by beheading or stoning because they have committed adultery then they are hypocrites of the highest order. All men are guilty of adultery except for men who are homosexuals and they have also committed an abomination against God.
Jesus said love your enemies do good to those who do evil to you unto death. The message the "angel" gave to muhammad is to wage war and bring terror to the infidel until all submit to the religion of muhammad. muhammad’s message is a worldly message just like others who call for bloodshed to save themselves from physical death.
islam is based on faith in the angel who delivered the message to muhammad but the scriptures give a stern warning to all about the level of deception satan would engage in to draw people away from the Love of the truth.
2 Corinthians 11
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
That’s right satan can masquerade as an angel of God if he wills to.
And Again
Galatians 1
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
All men are guilty before God. Salvation is through the gift of forgiveness by God to those who accept it. The act of acceptance of Jesus is an act of acknowledgment before God that you are guilty of sin and worthy of eternal damnation. This is an act of repentance and shows the right attitude towards the Will of God. We can only be obedient to God is spirit because we are human beings who have come to know the knowledge of good and evil and with that knowledge we are unable to stop sinning.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Incorrect.
Let's not forget that the verse to which you refer is not the only verse in the Bible. The issue of babies and the mentally impaired is covered in Deuteronomy 1:39, Romans 4:15, 5:13.
Does this prove that Muslims did it? Yes, passports may have been stolen, but by whom? How do we know it wasn’t a Jew/Buddhist/Atheist/etc?
And I’m talking about the people behind 911.
And what did they conclude? The link says, the war was illegal. Interesting.
You never know what to say, so it surprises me not.
Where did I say, “I don’t care if Saddam’s weapons are illegal or not”?
Also, the war is illegal, and you know what they say: links speak louder than words (poor attempt at humor).
From Kofi Annan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
From US hawk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
Wonderful website: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html
Did I say Americans “pumped tons of money for arms”? Please point it out to me. Money and weapons (information) was definitely supplied, regardless of the size of the portions. Just the intelligence of mustard gas alone from the Americans left tens of thousands of Iranians dead.
Shaking the pope's hand is one thing, but being seen leaving church and giving poses in front of churches is something else.
Where in this link does it say that the “Ottomans extorted the hell out of the Jews after accepting them from Spain”? Those were your words. Prove them.
You also didn't look up Maimoindes like I told you:
Where is his affiliation with the Ottoman empire? That is the empire we were talking about, Geoff.
I don’t believe that the debaters choose the winners.
What is wrong with paying tax so you can be protected by the Muslim army? When you pay taxes in America, Uncle Sam spends it on the military (in portions). Where’s the big difference?
Arrogance diminishes wisdom.
Thanks for your response, Nutter, but I still have a few questions for you regarding the verses you quoted.
Deuteronomy 1:39 (New International Version)
39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.
I think that the above verse was written in the context of entering the Promised Land on earth not eternal life in heaven. None of these children were born-again, were they? In fact, was anyone ever born-again in the Old Testament? Not as far as I know. Can you please show me differently? If they were not born-again and they still inherited eternal life then it is plainly not necessary to be born-again to enter the kingdom, as Jesus claimed, and John 3:2-3 is false. Is that what you are trying to tell me?
Romans 4:15 (New International Version)
15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
I must really be missing something on this one. Are you saying that all babies who die, young children who die, the mentally impaired who die, and anyone else adult or not who dies without being born-again, without understanding or without ever having the opportunity of hearing the gospel even once, are not even under the eternal Law of God. If you are saying this I would appreciate further proof of this. Jesus said that: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:2-3). But you seem to be saying that there really are other ways, and that Jesus was wrong here. Is there any verse anywhere that says the equivalent that if you are too young to understand, or if you are mentally impaired, or if you just never even heard the gospel, then you will automatically see the kingdom? Why does Jesus teach just the opposite of this in John 3:2-3?
Romans 5:13 (New International Version)
13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Again, according to this verse, if you are saying what I think you are saying, then a person does not have to be born-again if he/she lived before the Law was given to mankind. So, again, you declare the words of Jesus false? Even so, what about today, right now, and the children that play down the street from you. Is their ignorance of the law an excuse? Can that ignorance justify them apart from the cross? If so, then that is another way of salvation, that does not require being born-again or Christ at all, and again, the words of Jesus are false. And why even tell them the gospel if in doing so they might reject it and fall from a position of being automatically saved in ignorance to a position of being damned in knowledge.
You seem to be in disagreement with Jesus on this point. His words are clear enough and you know exactly what they mean. According to Jesus in John 3:2-3 is being born-again absolutely necessary or not, Nutter? Is this verse true or false?
Thanks Again!
Last edited:
Ok, an agnostic Jewish guy stole it...and then it ended up in an attack motivated by islamic terrorism.
Right: Saudi Arabia, possibly, and al Qaeda, and Bin Laden.
And, arguably legal too. Interesting.
When confronted with the kind of staggering idiocy required to ignore the fact that Saddam had substantial reserves for the purchase of conventional weapons, and basically his country's entire GDP (and do you think there's a nation on earth that can't afford to buy a nuke??), I admit to being sometimes struck speechless, yes.
Here:
Sad.
Yes. A poor attempt. But can you honestly illustrate to me that the war was ruled illegal by the UN? Come on: I actually believe you might have a case here. Just show me the proof.
Weapons are not information, except in the most abstract of reflections, which is a capacity you lack. So, don't bother with that nonsense.
As to your accusation, it occurred (and foolishly, I add) in a line wherein you tried to make out that that the Iran-Iraq war was a religious conflict from the perspective of the Americans. You diverged a bit when you found that line untenable, and came up with this:
Again: what funding? Compared to who? The Russians? The Chinese? The French? Czechoslovakia? A pittance.
What a curious phrase, "being seen leaving church". Anyway: no, it isn't. That is also PR. If Bush goes to a mosque, is he then muslim?
One never has to dig too far, really, to find the evidence. Now, are you going to prove your little version of alternate history, in which the US freed black slaves to fight the Nazis?
Erm...how would this not be an anti-Jewish measure?
Do you perhaps, just perhaps, begin to see why sharia law and the entire dhimmitude system is wrong? Can you perhaps begin to understand that a law of protection dependent on the whim of the ruler is no protection at all?
And dhimmitude is the system I am talking about.
That's odd, because as of last post you seemed to think that was true. Listen: your opinion really doesn't matter here, frankly. You are, once again, asked to explain your position:
"Which of these decisions is it you "may not agree with": the lifting of the jizya, the permission of the expression of different religions, or the permission of their existence altogether?"
Because the taxes so obtained were frequently double that of zakat (the muslim tax), which was also often optional, and that the jizya was frequently - contrary to belief - applied to women and children also. Read "The Sword of the Prophet" by Serge Trifkovic. The problem is that, instead of a standardized tax for everyone, the leaving of protection up to the whim of any given ruler and their personal prejudice creates a vast array of potential victims for exploitation. I prefer a constitutional system, thanks.
Ignorance, even more so.
Perhaps it would be best if you simply admitted to the overriding fact that a legal system discriminating among the citizens of a country on the basis of religion is no fair system, or at least not as applied in dar-al-islam. That would seem fair, to me.
What attack was motivated by Islamic terrorism? 911? What proof is there other than pictures I already debunked?
Evidence?
This is the biggest BS sidestep I've ever seen in a debate.
Oh, he bought the nukes now? From who did he buy them?
BS. I didn't say "I don't care if his weapons are illegal are not." I'm saying, Saddam has the right to regular missiles and weapons, and he couldn't get the nukes if he wanted to. In no way does that mean, "I don't care."
The UN discusses international issues. The UN look deeply into issues like Iraq, and use their universal laws to conclude what's legal and what's not. Kofi Annan gives the verdict to these issues after they talk it over, and his verdict was an illegal war.
Read below.
This funding.
The United States provided intelligence information, bogus and real, to both sides, provided arms to one side, funded paramilitary exile groups, sought military bases, and sent in the U.S. Navy -- and all the while Iranians and Iraqis died.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
If we knew nothing of Bush's religion, and saw him leaving mosques, taking military poses in front of it, etc, people are going to say he's Muslim. Common sense.
One never has to dig too far, really, to find the evidence. Now, are you going to prove your little version of alternate history, in which the US freed black slaves to fight the Nazis?
Erm...how would this not be an anti-Jewish measure?
So...they had a regular Muslim tax, and weren't very prosperous (although the Rabbi I quoted would vehemently disagree). Where is this comparable to being "extorted the hell out of"?
Can you show me where the sharia law tolerates people killing Jews without reason and banishing them?
Because you had little to say against the Ottomans, correct?
That's a completely different discussion. We can argue, "should" these have occurred, but we're not. I'm arguing, these decisions did occur, and non-Muslims were treated great in these empires of Muslims. That's how the debate started.
What the hell are you talking about? Zakat is a yearly donation by Muslims to poor people and orphans. This was not their regular tax. The jizya is only applied to working men, which makes sense because only these working men would be expected to go to war (which they didn't have to do). I would like to see where you found that women and children were taxed, and I would like to see one Muslim source defend it.
Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book, and/or non-Muslim living in lands under Muslim rule and the funds were collected for the benefit of the Muslim Ummah. There was no amount permanently fixed for the tax, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.[20] Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy, as were mendicant monks—those living in productive monasteries had to pay. Though jizya was mandated specifically for other monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism), under the Maliki school of Fiqh jizya was extended to all non-Muslims.[21] Thus some Muslim rulers also collected jizya from Hindus and Sikhs under their rule. The collection of the tax was sometimes the duty of the elders of those communities, but often it was collected directly from individuals, in accordance with specific payment rituals described in the writings of Muslim jurists.
In return for the tax, those who paid the jizya were permitted to keep their non-Muslim religion. They could not serve in the military or bear arms, but their community was considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions. Non-Muslims were also exempt from zakat, or mandatory charity paid by Muslims. If someone refused to pay the jizya, he could be imprisoned, according to Abu Yusuf.
If this were true, we'd be under the assumption that wisdom and ignorance at times could coexist. (But we know this isn't true).
"Debunked"? And, where, pray tell, did you do this?
[quoteEvidence?[/quote]
Bin Laden's own admission, for starters.
Then you should read the part where you first okayed Saddam's "Quest for Nuclear Fire", and then accused the Americans of supplying his arms, without wondering where the majority of it came from.
....do you know the meaning of the word "conventional"? I'm just curious.
You used it in context of nukes. Ipso facto, you okayed the nukes. I win.
:yawn: Then you should have no difficulty locating where it was decided in committee and ratified by some council or other. Off you go.
You mean...this funding? From your own link:
Yet, you only pillory the Yanks. Now, in the face of your self-claimed religious differences with them (and, apparently, with oppressed dhimmis in dar-al-islam), why do you think you single them out for your abuse?
So again you're claiming arms were sold to Iraq by the US, and apparently you think it was more significant than the other powers, so as to deserve censure. Yet, this part of the article is strangely uncited. How odd. And you have yet to respond to my very modest points about the amount of arms sold by other countries, which is also odd, or not.
Here's a link. Try reading it this time, shall we? There's a good fellow.
I
My word! Egypt?? Not Egypt! Surely they wouldn't be so immoral, so anti-muslim as to provide Iraq with weapons, would they? Why, those vicious islamophobes.
Ah. And you've hit on the rub. The thing is, we know Bush's religion from his personal comments made to insiders. We can be sure of it. And, similarly, we know Hitler's religion from personal comments made to insiders. We can be sure of it. The only thing we can seemingly not be sure of is what grade you're in.
Well, when one is - at will - able to simply force people out of their holdings and send them to deserts at threat of their lives, I would regard this as a form of extortion.
You'd be better to ask that question of the Ottomans themselves. Basically any law that sets one people as the "protectors" of another on religious basis has problems.
Of course I had lots to say: but I've always felt it better to just let one's reputation speak for one. Sharia, dhimmitude, jizya, devshirme, pogrom, genocide. These terms about the Ottomans say much more, and more eloquently, than I could give them justice for.
Wrong. It is easily incorporated into this discussion, and non-muslims were treated at the whim of the dictators over them.
You will now answer:
"Which of these decisions is it you "may not agree with": the lifting of the jizya, the permission of the expression of different religions, or the permission of their existence altogether?"
.
I have given my source; it is for you to respond to it.
Thanks for the quote. It means something other than what you believe, apparently. Compare and contrast:
If they could not pay, they were forcibly converted, then. And if they still couldn't pay? What then, Qa'Dork?
Protection, as in the protection organized crime might grant; yes, I know, thankyou. And what conditions? Ah, yes: keep quiet. Don't speak out. Permit yourselves to be exploited. Or else. What a wonderful system.
Correct: it isn't true.
Geoff- there is no reasoning with these people.
They will NEVER admit the source of their violence is the Koran.
They will NEVER admit 911 even though binLaden and other terrorists did. They will NEVER admit they are trying to destroy the US even though their terrorist friends brag about it.
They will NEVER admit they are trying to take over the US with Islam when even THEIR OWN leaders and CAIR admit it.
They will NEVER admit their goal in life is to destroy.
People like you and me p!ss them off because we expose their lies.
They are liars and deceivers. The great satan. Beware.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
They will NEVER admit the source of their violence is the Koran.
They will NEVER admit 911 even though binLaden and other terrorists did. They will NEVER admit they are trying to destroy the US even though their terrorist friends brag about it.
They will NEVER admit they are trying to take over the US with Islam when even THEIR OWN leaders and CAIR admit it.
They will NEVER admit their goal in life is to destroy.
People like you and me p!ss them off because we expose their lies.
They are liars and deceivers. The great satan. Beware.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/