Time To Drop The Gloves On Islamic Extremists ?

zzand · **Posted:** Fri May 14, 2010 3:18 pm

You don't like Bootrz? He is a card carrying Libertarian, thought you would like him.

Barney Hole · **Joined:** Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:11 pm **Posts:** 580

Quote:

But Barney, we already know why (at least some of us that have studied Islam), but no one seems to want to admit it. They, the Islamic extremists, are on a mission to bring all people and all nations, under the precept of Islamic rule. Unless you are willing to live under Islamic Law, you are an infidel and must either change (and soon) or die. It's that simple.

Well my point is that you need to consider the OTHER side as well in order to make a more correct decision. For example, not too long ago, a guy with a local column printed a piece about a student from Macedonia that's here. He said that the people there resent foreign troops occupying his country. He says the locals will purposely charge them more for stuff than the locals. He also said he doesn't understand why Americans have to stick their nose in everbody's business and force their opinions and their way on everyone else. He also wondered how WE would feel if WE had foreign troops stationed in OUR country down the street from where WE live telling US what to do???

I feel that this idiotic notion of stopping terrorism through invading and occupying other countries is NOT the solution. Instead, we're actually encouraging terrorism because of the anger and resentment of them being forced to be occupied and invaded by a foreign nation.

Barney Hole · **Joined:** Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:11 pm **Posts:** 580

Well not only that but ask yourself: How EXACTLY is Revox benefitting from these wars??? Or Barney Hole??? Or zzand??? Or the ordinary John Q. American??? From what I can gather it's no way, shape, or form.

beeyoch · **Joined:** Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:10 pm **Posts:** 462

That is asking for an arguement to present a side of "benefits to these" wars. What were you looking for? Economically? National security? Securing future peace / prosperity / security?

As a response to 9/11, should we have not done anything in Afghanistan considering that is where the plan was made and executed from?

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

Barney Hole wrote:

I feel that this idiotic notion of stopping terrorism through invading and occupying other countries is NOT the solution. Instead, we're actually encouraging terrorism because of the anger and resentment of them being forced to be occupied and invaded by a foreign nation.

Just to clarify my position Barney, I'm not championing the occupation and invasion of other countries. That should always be the option of ablolute last resort. My issue is with how we are approaching the battle within our own border.

While I do think there is a fair amount of resentment (maybe rightly so) from the people living in the countries we currently occupy, I believe there are many that appreciate our presence, women especially.

REVOX wrote:

(those that are not on board and oppose it must be destroyed.) We are constantly shoving our "Christian" way down the throats of the world.

I would be very interested in examples of this to better understand your definition of the above statements.

REVOX wrote:

Here's one for you.,.... What Would Jesus Do with those that hate him? Now I am not foolish, but the approach we've used as a so called "Christian Nation" with "Values" over the last 80 years has been a disgrace to His message.

Although I'm not a theologian, my rudimentary knowledge of Christianity, as it is defined by the bible, forces me to ask not just the question of what Jesus would do, but of what God would do.

You see, Jesus made up only one part of the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Each had a particular specialty if you will. Jesus (turn the other cheek fame) mission here on earth was to live a sin free life and sacrifice himself to wash away the sins of the world. His response would be different than that of God as a whole.

There are plenty of examples contained in the bible of God visiting vengeance on those that hated him or caused misery for his people.

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

REVOX wrote:

And there lies your lack of understanding.......

GOD handles the issue....

Not the United States Government deciding what is right and wrong.....

You, (my, I've been raped in prison avatar bearing friend) were the one that asked, "What would Jesus do?" I didn't offer the position that "God handles the issue." My response was meant only to point out that your question was unfair.

REVOX wrote:

And you really lack the understanding of the Trinity. One in Three - Three in One.

I freely admit that I am not a theologian, nor, do I play one on TV. If you would care to enlighten me, I will be all ears.

REVOX wrote:

What Christ taught is no different than that commanded by God, but since you bring it up....
Where exactly in Scripture is the Representative Republic we are based on shown as the perfered and blessed government structure?

I don't believe that I ever claimed that it was.

beeyoch · **Joined:** Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:10 pm **Posts:** 462

REVOX response to 9-11.... do nothing and appologize for American arrogance. Very France like.

Now you know why I call you out on this anti-American stance that you have REVOX. I disagree. Your response is like saying after Pearl Harbor, we should have appologized to the Japanese for cutting off their energy supplies.

Oh, and Iraq was like 3 years after Afghanistan. I know you are not smart enough to realize that, being an arm-chair quarterback and all. Only being able to look back, and NEVER having enough insight to look forward.

REVOX said it.... The American response to 9-11 should have been to do nothing.

That is why you belong in another country.... not America.

Lemontin · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 1:17 am

Beeyoch, what should have been our response to 9/11? I'm quite sure what we've done wasn't the correct thing to do.

Revox, I'm a little disturbed by this:

REVOX wrote:

Necessary steps?
Second, the so called "Christian" mindset has been responsible for more wars, more bloodshed and more torture than the Muslims any day of the week....

I believe this is a misconception and very incorrect. It sounds like something Bill Maher would say.

I saw him on TV last week and he said the Republican party was responsible for slavery.. which floored me. Not that I'm a Republican, but come on.. what a bunch of crap. Being funny is one thing but his style of comedy/history is far too often taken as fact. I also heard him say once that Jesus couldn't be God because he thought the world was flat. Another misconception. They knew there were planets and orbits and the Earth was shaped like a "sphere" waaaay back when. There's plenty of 1st century historians who make note of this. Especially Josephus (Antiquities of The Jews Book 3 Chapter 6 section 7 ) Which was written between 40-100 AD.

You'll find they do not teach that in public schools. It doesn't fit well with their idea of us as the "age on enlightenment". But you can buy the book at Barns & Noble! If you want to save a few bucks, read it here, go down to section 7:

http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/b3c6.html

If you read the whole thing you'll be amazed at what they knew way back then. I mean, did they think a bunch of idiots built the pyramids? oh no, i watchs tv, dey said it was aliens.. Sorry, I have little regard for the public school system.

Anyway, the "church" IMO, suppressed this knowledge until it was rediscovered by Galileo who, coincidently, was forced to recant under threats of death or other painful "re-education" techniques in an Inquistion style setup. They don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing!!

The inquiitions themselves were targeted at the emerging Protestant movement to break away from the churchs ruling and improper ways. And yes, many Muslims and others were also murdered. But it was not them exclusively. People we know today as Protestant Christians were also persecuted as much. Thanks God for Martin Luther. Thank Martin Luther you can read this today. If not for him spearheading the effort to get the Bible to the mass, onl;y the elite could learn to read and write. So if you don't have Royal blueblood in you, you could not read this. Luthers efforts eventually led to people seeking other places where they could be free.. landing in N. America eventually.

ah, what do I know.. I do play a theologian on the net.. Sorry Bryce..

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

Lemontin wrote:

Thanks God for Martin Luther. Thank Martin Luther you can read this today. If not for him spearheading the effort to get the Bible to the mass, onl;y the elite could learn to read and write.

If I'm not mistaken, he was also imprisoned for a period of time because of his efforts.

zzand · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 9:06 am

Actually REVOX I do believe the Vatican and it's allies have started more wars and killed many more people than this country although I am going back many thousands of years in history.

zzand · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 3:04 pm

Okay, same page...coolness

audiophile · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 4:21 pm

REVOX wrote:

zzand wrote:

Actually REVOX I do believe the Vatican and it's allies have started more wars and killed many more people than this country although I am going back many thousands of years in history.

You are correct. Their "Christian" values are many of what we base our "Traditional Family Values" on. I simply see them as the source.

I think you two are intertwining the Vatican and Rome too closely. Before 300 AD Rome was throwing the Christians in prision, then a change in the guard after 300 AD the official religion of Rome was Christianity. Rome still was expansionary at that time. This became messy...(religion + politics).

I think if you dig a little deeper you'll find there is more to it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome

zzand · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 4:54 pm

Nope, I am talking the Vatican, it's allies and the Catholics....I know what I am referring to and I said what I was referring to. They have a long bloody history of warring against those who didn't believe as they did. Murder, Mass Murders, Torture, Progroms, they did it all in the name of their religion and thanks to the Masons, many were saved from certain death at the hands of them. Not Rome, if I had meant Rome I would have said Rome..

Please refrain from telling me what I think, especially when I have a stack of history books on that very subject in my possession that I am reading right now. You also might try a better source than Wikipedia....Not very trustworthy since anyone can update and change. Books written during the time by great minds who lived through the horrors of the actions taken by the Catholic religious leaders in the Vatican however are slightly more reliable.

audiophile · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 5:21 pm

I never told you what to think (an impossible notion anyway). I suggested there MAY be more to the story.

Wikipedia article is locked and I gave it for timelines only.

Catholicism didn't really exist until it became the state religion of Rome, before that they were busy hanging 'em on crosses or throwing them in jail!

The issue really is the highjacking of religion for political or military gain. This has happened in every country and every religion to some degree.

Israelites had a few battles over the years and depending on how you look at it might have been justified, or not... Same applies to this thread.

To heap today's Catholic in the same pile as in medieval times is a stretch...

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

Gentlemen, if I'm not mistaken, the Crusades began because the Turks (of Muslim faith) had captured Jerusalem and started torturing and killing the Christians that lived there as well as destroying sites considered to be holy. This allowed the Pope at that time to rally all of Europe in the cause to recapture the Holy city.

Time To Drop The Gloves On Islamic Extremists ?

Who is online