Nuke all Muslims
- Thread starter LawDog
- Start date
- Status
MaterDei
Member
ojibweindian
Member
jimpeel
palehorse was refering to Abraham and Hagai. You know, the Old Testament. Abraham and Sarah had no kids of their own, etc, etc, etc.
palehorse was refering to Abraham and Hagai. You know, the Old Testament. Abraham and Sarah had no kids of their own, etc, etc, etc.
jimpeel
Member
ojibweindian
Ahhhh, so.
Thanks
j
Ahhhh, so.
Thanks
j
Sgt Stevo
Member
All churches are made by man. Not God. And the one you hang out with does not dictate your sanity. I already explained this on another thread. And the guys who said they wanted to nuke Iraq already said they were kidding. I wont go on and on. A criminal and mass murderer is just that. It comes down to good and evil. Period. I like others, have spent a great deal of my life in third world countrys. And like I told the guys on the thread. It is hard to tell their kids from ours.
I HAVE fought Moslems. Recently. And in most cases. The guy next me. and being sent up front. In the Stans. Had a different concept of God then I do. But relax HR. Anger over current events makes people say silly things. Stevo...........
I HAVE fought Moslems. Recently. And in most cases. The guy next me. and being sent up front. In the Stans. Had a different concept of God then I do. But relax HR. Anger over current events makes people say silly things. Stevo...........
fjolnirsson
Member
CRYSTAL.
I'll shut up now, lest I type disrespectfully.
fix
Member
thanks pax
self edit to correspond with pax's deletion.
self edit to correspond with pax's deletion.
mountainclmbr
Member
There are many Muslem observers that are peaceful and wish me no harm. The same with any other group of people. But, those who wish widespread destruction in my country should not get the kid gloves treatment.
From the Muslims I see and from what I believe, the vast majority of Muslims in the world, are decent peaceful people. The problem is that the Koran encourages very aggressive conversion of non-Muslims, even violence towards those who reject Islam.
So as I see it, the problem isn't radical Islam, as these so called extremists are merely practicing what the Koran says. The problem is Islam itself.
Christianity had a period of extreme violence, but the foundations for that violence aren't found in the Bible. This is the difference between all major religions and Islam. With other religions you get to choose, with Islam you don't. You convert or you live at the whim of the Islamists. Sure, you can say that people have always oppressed one another for various reasons, but Islam is so closely linked to govt in the middle east, that to reject Islam is viewed in the same light as treason.
I don't mean this as an insult to Muslims, I just think it's a realistic assessment of their theocracy/religion.
So as I see it, the problem isn't radical Islam, as these so called extremists are merely practicing what the Koran says. The problem is Islam itself.
Christianity had a period of extreme violence, but the foundations for that violence aren't found in the Bible. This is the difference between all major religions and Islam. With other religions you get to choose, with Islam you don't. You convert or you live at the whim of the Islamists. Sure, you can say that people have always oppressed one another for various reasons, but Islam is so closely linked to govt in the middle east, that to reject Islam is viewed in the same light as treason.
I don't mean this as an insult to Muslims, I just think it's a realistic assessment of their theocracy/religion.
jimpeel
Member
Mark13
I agree with your premises. The Koran allows different treatment of fellow Islamists as opposed to Infidels.
There is no dishonor in breaking a sworn oath made to an Infidel.
There is no dishonor in stealing from an Infidel.
There is no shame in lying to an Infidel.
There is no crime in slaying an Infidel.
These are only a problem if perpetrated on a fellow Islamist.
In the Koran, these are not considered crimes and are not an offense in the sight of God. In the Christian Bible, all of these are crimes against God and man.
In the Koran, the body may be used to kill an Infidel causing the destruction of the Islamist. In the Christian Bible, the body is the embodiment, image and temple of God and the willful self-destruction of the body is a sin against God.
I agree with your premises. The Koran allows different treatment of fellow Islamists as opposed to Infidels.
There is no dishonor in breaking a sworn oath made to an Infidel.
There is no dishonor in stealing from an Infidel.
There is no shame in lying to an Infidel.
There is no crime in slaying an Infidel.
These are only a problem if perpetrated on a fellow Islamist.
In the Koran, these are not considered crimes and are not an offense in the sight of God. In the Christian Bible, all of these are crimes against God and man.
In the Koran, the body may be used to kill an Infidel causing the destruction of the Islamist. In the Christian Bible, the body is the embodiment, image and temple of God and the willful self-destruction of the body is a sin against God.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
jimpeel, I haven't a clue as to whether your statements about the Koran are correct or not. Seems to me there are as many interpretations or translational variations with it as there are with the Bible.
That's why I generally prefer to preface such a type of post with, "My understanding is..." That way, I don't have to worry about some truly knowledgeable scholar coming along and saying, "Art, you seduced the canine once again!"
, Art
That's why I generally prefer to preface such a type of post with, "My understanding is..." That way, I don't have to worry about some truly knowledgeable scholar coming along and saying, "Art, you seduced the canine once again!"
, Art
RealGun
Member
I think some of it is the quick-fix, instant gratification mentality. I have to wonder about such a person using good judgment with a gun or whether there is a general tendency toward violence (acting out anger) in other life situations. I prefer to think that it is not normal.
The other thing it demonstrates is that some people cannot handle raw information.
Yeah, that'd make more sense in this case. I'll just say we disagree, and leave it at that. I'd go so far as to say "you're flat out wrong," but we've tried that in other threads....
Back to tolerance.
angrywalkindude
Member
BOOM
capt. Nemo
Member
Jimpeel said:
"I agree with your premises. The Koran allows different treatment of fellow Islamists as opposed to Infidels.
There is no dishonor in breaking a sworn oath made to an Infidel.
There is no dishonor in stealing from an Infidel.
There is no shame in lying to an Infidel.
There is no crime in slaying an Infidel.
These are only a problem if perpetrated on a fellow Islamist.
In the Koran, these are not considered crimes and are not an offense in the sight of God. In the Christian Bible, all of these are crimes against God and man.
In the Koran, the body may be used to kill an Infidel causing the destruction of the Islamist. In the Christian Bible, the body is the embodiment, image and temple of God and the willful self-destruction of the body is a sin against God."
Careful there Jim...you're saying bad things about Islam! You obviously haven't read the latest and greatest newest translation/version of the Koran.
Mods?
"I agree with your premises. The Koran allows different treatment of fellow Islamists as opposed to Infidels.
There is no dishonor in breaking a sworn oath made to an Infidel.
There is no dishonor in stealing from an Infidel.
There is no shame in lying to an Infidel.
There is no crime in slaying an Infidel.
These are only a problem if perpetrated on a fellow Islamist.
In the Koran, these are not considered crimes and are not an offense in the sight of God. In the Christian Bible, all of these are crimes against God and man.
In the Koran, the body may be used to kill an Infidel causing the destruction of the Islamist. In the Christian Bible, the body is the embodiment, image and temple of God and the willful self-destruction of the body is a sin against God."
Careful there Jim...you're saying bad things about Islam! You obviously haven't read the latest and greatest newest translation/version of the Koran.
Mods?
seeker_two
Member
Can I still say that all TERRORISTS must die, or are we getting touchy-feely about that, too?...
Derek Zeanah is a good moderator & an intelligent poster. I've appreciated his views about many things here on THR. And, unlike many Muslims who have access to a mass medium, he's been outspoken against the atrocities done by insane monsters trying to justify their actions by tying it to his religion. I feel the same way (just give me ten minutes, some rope, & a skinning knife in a locked room w/ someone from the "Christian Identity" movement...
).
I also hope that Derek (& his friends) can make the connection that when many here talk about "nuking all Muslims", they are referring to those peoples in the Middle East who are actively (& sometimes covertly) trying to destroy Western Civilization and anyone who doesn't cow to their "god-given authority" & interpretation of Islam--and anyone who supports those same people.
Derek isn't in either of those groups. Neither are his friends.
Emotions are running high now. People here want justice done for the terrorists' actions against American civilians & soldiers. I want it for the Iraqi civilians who are being murdered by "out-of-towners" from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, & other terrorist-harboring nations. And I think that justice will only come when this nation puts aside its "nice guy" image & leaves a vast number of dead terrorist bodies strewn about the land. Or vaporized...
Does this justify the "nuke all Muslims" statements said here?
No.
Does it make the sentiment understandable?
Yes.
I think that many of those who talk about "nuking all Muslims" would be some of the first to stand in Derek's defense if he were personally threatened. I would be. And I see that many others here have done so. And THAT is reassuring...
Sometimes taking "the High Road" means looking through the initial insult to understand the true meaning of a statement.
I hope we can all do that here....
Derek Zeanah is a good moderator & an intelligent poster. I've appreciated his views about many things here on THR. And, unlike many Muslims who have access to a mass medium, he's been outspoken against the atrocities done by insane monsters trying to justify their actions by tying it to his religion. I feel the same way (just give me ten minutes, some rope, & a skinning knife in a locked room w/ someone from the "Christian Identity" movement...
).I also hope that Derek (& his friends) can make the connection that when many here talk about "nuking all Muslims", they are referring to those peoples in the Middle East who are actively (& sometimes covertly) trying to destroy Western Civilization and anyone who doesn't cow to their "god-given authority" & interpretation of Islam--and anyone who supports those same people.
Derek isn't in either of those groups. Neither are his friends.
Emotions are running high now. People here want justice done for the terrorists' actions against American civilians & soldiers. I want it for the Iraqi civilians who are being murdered by "out-of-towners" from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, & other terrorist-harboring nations. And I think that justice will only come when this nation puts aside its "nice guy" image & leaves a vast number of dead terrorist bodies strewn about the land. Or vaporized...
Does this justify the "nuke all Muslims" statements said here?
No.
Does it make the sentiment understandable?
Yes.
I think that many of those who talk about "nuking all Muslims" would be some of the first to stand in Derek's defense if he were personally threatened. I would be. And I see that many others here have done so. And THAT is reassuring...
Sometimes taking "the High Road" means looking through the initial insult to understand the true meaning of a statement.
I hope we can all do that here....
The phrase "Nuke all the Muslims" disgusts me under any circumstance. Anyone who can make such a statement doesn't understand the principles that are embodied in our constitution and is un-American.
A better phrase would be "Conquer all the Muslims". America is superior not through our genetics, but because of what we believe. Make no mistake, I think that all those dark ages style middle eastern theocracies/fascist states have no place in the modern world.
What we are doing in Iraq is far more difficult than genocide, and I don't know if we will succeed. No one has ever tried it before. And frankly, Americans don't have the stomach for it. But I respect Bush for risking his political career to do what is right.
All the other states surrounding Iraq are terrified that we will set up a western style human-rights oriented state in Iraq. Because they know they're next. Well at least if a Democrat isn't in office.
A better phrase would be "Conquer all the Muslims". America is superior not through our genetics, but because of what we believe. Make no mistake, I think that all those dark ages style middle eastern theocracies/fascist states have no place in the modern world.
What we are doing in Iraq is far more difficult than genocide, and I don't know if we will succeed. No one has ever tried it before. And frankly, Americans don't have the stomach for it. But I respect Bush for risking his political career to do what is right.
All the other states surrounding Iraq are terrified that we will set up a western style human-rights oriented state in Iraq. Because they know they're next. Well at least if a Democrat isn't in office.
I'm not sure that this is a thread hijack or not. Stop me if it is.
Obviously the "Kill 'em all" mentality is moronic and has no place here. But I would like to bring up what I see as one of the reasons behind it.
I wrote this article http://www.john-ross.net/race&rtc.htm
last year about race and values. For those that don't want to read the whole thing, here's the part relevant to this discussion:
"At the risk of being accused of blaming blacks for all their own problems, it strikes me that as long as so many blacks have such different value systems from their white counterparts, we will never see the generally easy coexistence that whites enjoy with Asians and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Hispanics.
"Never was this brought home so dramatically for me as at the O.J. Simpson trial. I am not talking about the fact that a largely black jury reached a verdict of Not Guilty in the murder of two whites. This has happened many times in our history on the other side of the racial aisle. I am referring to what columnist Bill McClellan called "the absolutely breathtaking reaction" of America’s entire black population when the verdict was announced. Across the country, Black America was positively jubilant.
"When white Americans see film footage of some pus-gut like Bull Connor and his thugs using fire hoses and billy clubs on peaceful black freedom marchers, the near-universal reaction is revulsion. The same is true of lynchings.
"It is true that over the years there have been cases where an all-white jury has ignored the evidence and freed a white man for a vicious crime because his victim was black, but White America as a whole has never, in my memory, cheered such events. I would like you to engage in a little exercise here with me. I would like you to envision the O.J. Simpson case, with the races reversed.
"Imagine a white Hall of Fame footballer turned actor/pitchman, like Howie Long. Imagine Howie had a moderately hot-looking black ex-wife with a high school education and breast implants. (To my knowledge Mr. Long is not so encumbered, but bear with me.)
"Imagine that there was overwhelming DNA and other evidence that Howie had butchered this black ex-wife and a black male acquaintance of hers. Imagine the entire Howie Long Trial being televised for months, and being called the "Trial of the Century." Imagine Greta Van Susteren's TV career being "made" by her televised legal commentary on The Howie Long Trial. Imagine that during The Howie Long Trial there is the revelation that one of the black cops involved with Howie’s arrest disliked whites and had used the terms "white devil" and "honky" in the past. Imagine the defense team running with this and arguing that all the city's black officers tampered with evidence and engaged in a huge conspiracy to frame Howie for the two murders. Finally, imagine a largely white jury telling us they had weighed the evidence and decided Howie was Not Guilty.
"Can you, in your most reckless imaginings, see White America having a mass celebration over this Not Guilty verdict, and repeating the mantra "The black bitch (and her friend, presumably) deserved it"? I can’t. Not at all. Similarly, can you imagine whites all across America being particularly upset at the possibility that Howie might get sent to Death Row for murdering two black people? The concept is ludicrous."
This, I believe, is what many people here would like to know: When we are shown film footage of large masses of Middle Eastern citizens literally dancing with joy about the WTC attacks or other American deaths, IS THIS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION THERE OR NOT?
When that racist in Texas chained the black guy to his truck and dragged him to death, I suppose there might have been some Klan group *somewhere* that was slapping their thighs, but not in public where they'd be seen. Every white person I knew (and that a news crew might find to interview) felt real revulsion for that act.
Have the news crews somehow staged these Middle Eastern celebrations of American deaths?
Are these kind of people truly an infinitesimal minority, or do they represent, say, half the adult male population?
JR
Obviously the "Kill 'em all" mentality is moronic and has no place here. But I would like to bring up what I see as one of the reasons behind it.
I wrote this article http://www.john-ross.net/race&rtc.htm
last year about race and values. For those that don't want to read the whole thing, here's the part relevant to this discussion:
"At the risk of being accused of blaming blacks for all their own problems, it strikes me that as long as so many blacks have such different value systems from their white counterparts, we will never see the generally easy coexistence that whites enjoy with Asians and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Hispanics.
"Never was this brought home so dramatically for me as at the O.J. Simpson trial. I am not talking about the fact that a largely black jury reached a verdict of Not Guilty in the murder of two whites. This has happened many times in our history on the other side of the racial aisle. I am referring to what columnist Bill McClellan called "the absolutely breathtaking reaction" of America’s entire black population when the verdict was announced. Across the country, Black America was positively jubilant.
"When white Americans see film footage of some pus-gut like Bull Connor and his thugs using fire hoses and billy clubs on peaceful black freedom marchers, the near-universal reaction is revulsion. The same is true of lynchings.
"It is true that over the years there have been cases where an all-white jury has ignored the evidence and freed a white man for a vicious crime because his victim was black, but White America as a whole has never, in my memory, cheered such events. I would like you to engage in a little exercise here with me. I would like you to envision the O.J. Simpson case, with the races reversed.
"Imagine a white Hall of Fame footballer turned actor/pitchman, like Howie Long. Imagine Howie had a moderately hot-looking black ex-wife with a high school education and breast implants. (To my knowledge Mr. Long is not so encumbered, but bear with me.)
"Imagine that there was overwhelming DNA and other evidence that Howie had butchered this black ex-wife and a black male acquaintance of hers. Imagine the entire Howie Long Trial being televised for months, and being called the "Trial of the Century." Imagine Greta Van Susteren's TV career being "made" by her televised legal commentary on The Howie Long Trial. Imagine that during The Howie Long Trial there is the revelation that one of the black cops involved with Howie’s arrest disliked whites and had used the terms "white devil" and "honky" in the past. Imagine the defense team running with this and arguing that all the city's black officers tampered with evidence and engaged in a huge conspiracy to frame Howie for the two murders. Finally, imagine a largely white jury telling us they had weighed the evidence and decided Howie was Not Guilty.
"Can you, in your most reckless imaginings, see White America having a mass celebration over this Not Guilty verdict, and repeating the mantra "The black bitch (and her friend, presumably) deserved it"? I can’t. Not at all. Similarly, can you imagine whites all across America being particularly upset at the possibility that Howie might get sent to Death Row for murdering two black people? The concept is ludicrous."
This, I believe, is what many people here would like to know: When we are shown film footage of large masses of Middle Eastern citizens literally dancing with joy about the WTC attacks or other American deaths, IS THIS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION THERE OR NOT?
When that racist in Texas chained the black guy to his truck and dragged him to death, I suppose there might have been some Klan group *somewhere* that was slapping their thighs, but not in public where they'd be seen. Every white person I knew (and that a news crew might find to interview) felt real revulsion for that act.
Have the news crews somehow staged these Middle Eastern celebrations of American deaths?
Are these kind of people truly an infinitesimal minority, or do they represent, say, half the adult male population?
JR
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Not a hijack, John. I see it as a good effort to illustrate a problem in the way certain "sub-cultures" think. The caveat of course is that the TV folks didn't show the (IMO) disgusted reactions of those blacks who are more in a Thomas Sowell camp of thinking and opining.
seeker_two, while I follow your point in "I think that many of those who talk about "nuking all Muslims" would be some of the first to stand in Derek's defense if he were personally threatened." I also believe that those advocating "nuking" are writing without rational thought. Regardless of other views or behaviors, they're being insulting--at best.
Think about it: A nuke is not a precision critter. It's addressed "To whom it may concern within the twenty-mile radius and those downwind." A nuke does in all the local non-Islamics as well. It wipes out friendly non-combatants as well as hostile combatants or wannabes. IOW, such statements are not only insulting but ignorant.
If somebody's just gotta vent such stuff, he oughta do it in the privacy of his own bathroom. "His face was flushed, but his broad shoulders saved him."
Art
seeker_two, while I follow your point in "I think that many of those who talk about "nuking all Muslims" would be some of the first to stand in Derek's defense if he were personally threatened." I also believe that those advocating "nuking" are writing without rational thought. Regardless of other views or behaviors, they're being insulting--at best.
Think about it: A nuke is not a precision critter. It's addressed "To whom it may concern within the twenty-mile radius and those downwind." A nuke does in all the local non-Islamics as well. It wipes out friendly non-combatants as well as hostile combatants or wannabes. IOW, such statements are not only insulting but ignorant.
If somebody's just gotta vent such stuff, he oughta do it in the privacy of his own bathroom.
"His face was flushed, but his broad shoulders saved him."Art
Sorta in line with what John Ross said…
I believe in the premise that a man is known by the company he keeps, therefore I make sure that the company I keep is honorable. It has been close to three years now since Sept. 11th, and I am still waiting for the “leadership†of certain segments of society to condemn what they must view as the dishonorable acts of a minority. My patience grows thin and my opinion of that same leadership is being forced towards an inevitable conclusion. The “company†that certain segments of society appear to be keeping is alienating potential allies. A man can’t pick his relatives but he can pick his friends. I’d like to see some more careful picking.
I believe in the premise that a man is known by the company he keeps, therefore I make sure that the company I keep is honorable. It has been close to three years now since Sept. 11th, and I am still waiting for the “leadership†of certain segments of society to condemn what they must view as the dishonorable acts of a minority. My patience grows thin and my opinion of that same leadership is being forced towards an inevitable conclusion. The “company†that certain segments of society appear to be keeping is alienating potential allies. A man can’t pick his relatives but he can pick his friends. I’d like to see some more careful picking.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
My grandfather was born in 1885. His grandfather had come to Texas from Frankfurt, Germany, in 18-thirty-something. 85-ish years later, there was a certain amount of local hostility to him during WW I, per comments from my mother. I do not know whether he spoke out against the Kaiser or not.
In periods of high emotion, there will be some sorts of maltreatment, whether physical or verbal. "Polarization" and "opinionated" are appropriate words, along with "perceptions". It's unfair, but I guarantee it will come about.
All we can do here is attempt to be very precise as to what we mean by our various statements. So, once again I bring up "It's not your duty to understand me; it's my duty to make myself understood." And that's a two-way street. Following that dictum requires rational thought, not emotional histrionics.
, Art
In periods of high emotion, there will be some sorts of maltreatment, whether physical or verbal. "Polarization" and "opinionated" are appropriate words, along with "perceptions". It's unfair, but I guarantee it will come about.
All we can do here is attempt to be very precise as to what we mean by our various statements. So, once again I bring up "It's not your duty to understand me; it's my duty to make myself understood." And that's a two-way street. Following that dictum requires rational thought, not emotional histrionics.
, ArtThe_Antibubba
Member
Translating the Koran
One of the most interesting prohibitions in the Koran is one against translating the contents. Translations inevitably fail to to "grok" some subtle cultural aspect embedded in a certain language. So I am somewhat amused by some of our members who tell me "what the Koran says".
I'd like to hear what the Koran says, too, but from someone who read it in Arabic.
Anyone here who can claim that?
Maybe what I should ask is if any of our Muslim members can explain some of the unique reactions that we are seeing and hearing in the Muslim world. True, you shouldn't have to step up on the pedestal as a "representative of your race", but it seems that most of the experts we have these days are "chairborne" commandos, with not enough field experience (not too many muslims living in Bumfrick, TX or whereever, doncha know )
If you don't want to make yourself a better target, I understand. But I am here to learn, as are most of us. Please, when you can, enlighten us.
One of the most interesting prohibitions in the Koran is one against translating the contents. Translations inevitably fail to to "grok" some subtle cultural aspect embedded in a certain language. So I am somewhat amused by some of our members who tell me "what the Koran says".
I'd like to hear what the Koran says, too, but from someone who read it in Arabic.
Anyone here who can claim that?
Maybe what I should ask is if any of our Muslim members can explain some of the unique reactions that we are seeing and hearing in the Muslim world. True, you shouldn't have to step up on the pedestal as a "representative of your race", but it seems that most of the experts we have these days are "chairborne" commandos, with not enough field experience (not too many muslims living in Bumfrick, TX or whereever, doncha know
)If you don't want to make yourself a better target, I understand. But I am here to learn, as are most of us. Please, when you can, enlighten us.
I don't know the Qu'ran from the phone book, but what I do know is that in Pheonix, with a Muslim population of >50,000, only 30 managed to attend a recent well-publicized 'Muslims Against Terror' rally.
This is the problem we are discussing. "Muslims Against Terror" is sounding more and more like a very small, very quiet little club.
- Gabe
This is the problem we are discussing. "Muslims Against Terror" is sounding more and more like a very small, very quiet little club.
- Gabe
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
People have asked me for opinions on Russia, for example...but politely and not in the vein of "you have to answer for your former compatriots' atrocities"...and, by analogy, it would make sense not to hold any one Moslem (be he an American, an East Indian, Bosnian or Indonesian) responsible for something a bunch of nutcases from elsewhere did. Brits had the right attitude when it came to the Sepoys (who were Hindu or Moselm) -- they fought the uprising without a regard to the religion of the ir opposition. The only time they cared about the religion was when the Thuggees committed murder on purely religious grounds and the majority of that group was involved. In that unique instance it was reasonable, whereas in the current conflict only a tiny fraction of Islam's adherents are against us.
- Status
