Suicide bombers follow Quran,

[troubles1]

NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

[seventy-one]

At 9/30/06 03:24 AM, troubles1 wrote: NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

"Suicide bombers follow Quran"....says the anti-Islam site. Because basing beliefs about religions from sites like those are the way to go right?

That was sarcasm.

[fli]

And Eric Robert Rudolph follows the Bible. No wonder he's so violent.
*eye rollie*

Each religion has its nutters.

[Denta]

Hey, the REAL Quran are AGAINST violence, it's just that the Quran that they follow is edited to fit as propaganda...

And hey, to understand why they go suicide bombing, think of their situation:

You're experiencing the Americans and the Israel bombing your country to pieces...

Your family is killed by US troops...

You go hungry everyday...

No-one takes care of you...

Everyday is a fight for survival...

etc.

No wonder that they'd go suicide bombing.

[WolvenBear]

At 9/30/06 03:30 AM, seventy-one wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:24 AM, troubles1 wrote: NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

"Suicide bombers follow Quran"....says the anti-Islam site. Because basing beliefs about religions from sites like those are the way to go right?

That was sarcasm.

Because since ther're against Islam they MUST logically be wrong...
That was sarcasm.

At 9/30/06 04:21 AM, fli wrote: And Eric Robert Rudolph follows the Bible. No wonder he's so violent.
*eye rollie*

Each religion has its nutters.

No, he doesn't. By his own admission.

And there's nothing in Christian teachings to support his actions. Wow, two sentences...two gross misrepresentations. Way to get the most wrong in the least amount of words.

At 9/30/06 06:04 AM, Denta wrote: Hey, the REAL Quran are AGAINST violence, it's just that the Quran that they follow is edited to fit as propaganda...

Mohammid was violent. Islam was spread by violence. Is it that much of a stretch to say their holy book is violent? No, not really. But hey since not of us read Arabic, we have no way of knowing. Which invalidates your entire argument.

And hey, to understand why they go suicide bombing, think of their situation:

You're experiencing the Americans and the Israel bombing your country to pieces...

Your family is killed by US troops...

You go hungry everyday...

No-one takes care of you...

Everyday is a fight for survival...

etc.

No wonder that they'd go suicide bombing.

Many terrorists are well educated. And the majority of the middle east is pro-terror. There is no reality in your argument.

Have a nice day.

[fli]

At 9/30/06 06:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No, he doesn't. By his own admission.

And there's nothing in Christian teachings to support his actions. Wow, two sentences...two gross misrepresentations. Way to get the most wrong in the least amount of words.

Hey-- We all know that.
Nothing in the Bible to support killing innocent people and stuff.
(If you overlook a few things here and there-- mostly Pentateuch stuff.)

Nonetheless... This guy feels he is doing God's will or something.
And it doesn't change the fact that this guy views himself part of Christianity.
Just because you disagree with what he says doesn't change the fact that he used biblical teachings to terrorize and massacre people.

There is not denying that--
He is a Christian terrorist.

Christianity isn't immune from collecting crazies.
I think no religion.
Nutters will crop up here and there.

I've read EVERY single page of the Bible.
Many translations... Being in the school that I used to be in, I've even got to see how the Bible got put together.

To say that the Bible is only about peace and love and that the Koran is about hate and war is rather ignorant because it only means the person is very biased and unnable to suspend judgement like children.

Bible is great...
Although the Book of Joshua is one of the most terrorfying thing ever.

Koran is cool--
It's actually similar to the Bible. Heck... Bible has its own Jihad thing going on... It's called a Herem.

The differences?
Not much--

Ultimately,
both will always be equal because they will always have retards claiming the other is the worse when clearly neither holy texts are much different in respect that it offers spiritual and legal guidance to people. Infact, we all can learn from both.

All we have to do is read with an open mind,
and ponder, and then--
Dont' try to impose it on somebody else.

Wow-- so simple.

[lapis]

Suicide Bombers don't follow the Qur'an, they just selectively read from the Qur'an. The martyr is highly revered and will be rewarded in Heaven, one of these rewards being the service of Houri (although the Qur'an itself doesn't specifically say that you can have sex with them), but the martyr must die while defending the course of justice in order to receive recompense. He may not aggress (Sura 2:190) and he may not kill those who are innocent (Sura 5:31). A suicide bomber who blows himself up near an Israeli military post might be rewarded, but if he blows himself up in a restaurant he sins and God never advocates sin (Sura 7:28).

The victims who died in 9/11 most likely did not fight Islam so their deaths were not the will of God according to the Qur'an, making the hijackers transgressors and therefore not real Muslims. Islam only condones retaliatory violence, and even though Jesus rejected all forms of violence (except turning over a few tables of money changers in the Second Temple) most modern Christians don't adhere to this belief.

In the end it all depends on the person and not on the religion itself, like people always point out. There are good Muslims and good Christians, like there will always be bad Muslims and bad Christians who misuse the scriptures. But most of today's suicide bombers do not follow the Qur'an as in: I don't want to slay these people but the Qur'an tells me to. They want everlasting bliss but choose the wrong way to attain it.

[drDAK]

At 9/30/06 03:24 AM, troubles1 wrote: NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

My father and grandparents are both Islamic, I am not Islamic and they are not trying to kill me. Maybe you should research a little more into the subject than a quick glance at an obviously biased website.

[lapis]

At 9/30/06 09:45 AM, lapis wrote: (Sura 5:31)

Crap, that should be Sura 5:32.

[Denta]

At 9/30/06 06:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Mohammid was violent.

ORLY?

Lol, Sarcasm

Islam was spread by violence.

As with Christianity.

Is it that much of a stretch to say their holy book is violent?

No, not really.

No, but the book has been changed so that now most Qu'ran books in the Middle East is provoking violent act in the name of Allah, to protect their own religion and land.

But hey since not of us read Arabic, we have no way of knowing. Which invalidates your entire argument.

*Sighs* Qu'ran is like the bible is: TRANSLATED!

Idiot

[Gunter45]

At 9/30/06 11:30 AM, Denta wrote:

At 9/30/06 06:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Mohammid was violent.

ORLY?

Yeah, he founded Islam on a convert or die campaign.

Islam was spread by violence.

As with Christianity.

Wrong, Christianity was not spread by violence. That sort of thing happened in the Crusades, sure, but not only was that a solid 1000 years or so after its founding, that wasn't the premise of the war. It's just like now, some people sign up for the service just to kill Arabs, but that doesn't make the war a genocide, does it? Just because people signed up for the Crusades to convert people doesn't make the war any less about the defense/capture of Israel, depending on which Crusade we're talking about.

[HabeasCrapus]

Nobody realizes that the religion is the uniting banner for a political goal. Not the political goal itself.

Their goals are to stop American support for Israel, stop American occupation in Iraq and to stop American occupation in Afghanistan as well as probably several other things -- they seek to accomplish through their little makeshift landmines as well as through kamikaze suicide tactics, terrorism, hostage taking as well as several other tactics that they use.

I like the term, violent radical muslim, rather than "terrorist" or something to the likes of that. Radical muslims do exist, but not all of them are violent, violent radicals do exist, but not all of them are muslim. What's my stance on Hezbollah? I think that they were formed as a result of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and want a united Lebanon that has a competent military force that can defend their country.

I don't really think that Israel should be as aggressive as it currently is, I think that Israel should be a little more passive-aggressive without bombing civilian areas and so forth. You don't bomb peoples' houses, then expect them to not support their only competent defence force? Whether you consider them
"terrorists" or not, they are really one of the only competent defence forces in Lebanon at the moment, right?

Suicide bombers have followed other religions, such as Imperial-Taoism in Japan which caused many of them to crash their airplanes into American ships in the Pacific in the name of the "emperor" or whatever. Yeah, the Japanese were pretty nuts, too at one time -- we didn't call them "terrorists", did we?

The religion is just a motivating cause for a political goal -- that's my conclusion. I don't believe that they "hate" our freedoms or whatever. I think that the current American administration is acting irrationally about the whole thing and is acting a little crazy and stupid forgetting hundreds of years of military tactics and forgetting over eight hundred years of progress in civil liberties and law.

[lapis]

At 9/30/06 12:49 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Just because people signed up for the Crusades to convert people doesn't make the war any less about the defense/capture of Israel, depending on which Crusade we're talking about.

Yeah, I'm not trying to smear Christianity but I have to disagree with this. The goal of the first crusade was to unite the Christians by focusing their wars against non-Christians, Muslims in particular.

"The peace movement acting in the name of God developed into a war against those seen as ungodly. The Peace of God was accomplished through holy war. At the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II called on all Christians to take part in the crusade. The Council was, "first of all, a peace council". The preaching of the crusade was the logical outcome, the next step of the peace movement. The pope enacted peace legislation with greater determination and in broader scope than had ever been done before. Peace became universal, in the sense that it was binding on the whole of Western Christendom; the new peace legislation directed the arms of Christians against the heathen. All versions of Urban's speech in Clermont note that the pope urged Christians to fight righteous wars against non-Christians instead of being engaged in iniquitous and fratricidal combats among themselves."

And let's not forget how Christianity spread in South America, namely by purging all that was non-Christian. Archaeologists still mourn the behaviour of the Spaniards who went a little overboard in their quest of forced conversion. All of this doesn't agree with the teachings of Jesus but the fact remains that the Conquistadors called themselves Christians, like al Qaeda calls itself Muslim, and that this violence resulted in almost an entire continent following the teachings of the Catholic church.

[lapis]

Argh, I forgot my source. Sorry for the second double post in this thread.

[seventy-one]

At 9/30/06 06:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Because since ther're against Islam they MUST logically be wrong...
That was sarcasm.

Well, I highly doubt that they're reliable for such news. They just happened to get a hold of a Pentagon briefing themselves, and it just happened to be a report that says the Quran is violent. The story is just another propaganda tool for what they believe. So, unless that report actually is true (i.e. it came from a reliable news source), this thread turns into another debate about whether Islam is violent.

[jlwelch]

Troubles1 is absolutely correct, and I commend you for bringing this up.

Muslims suicide bomb places because they follow a false relgion that Satan has inspired. Their fanatical actions have driven them so far from the Word of God that they are no longer recognizable as humans. They are more like wild animals that need to be kept on a leash, which is one of the many reasons why I fully support the actions of the United States, England, and Israel. For proof of any of this, just look at the Satan inspired Quaran!

[fallen-son]

At 9/30/06 03:24 AM, troubles1 wrote: NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

not all people who follow the quran are bombers, there are nazi extremists in every religeon. thats like if one white guy shits on an old lady and the whole race is labeled lady shitter oners.

[fallen-son]

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote: For proof of any of this, just look at the Satan inspired Quaran!

hey, in the bible god tel isriel to commit genocide to plenty of races. thats fucking hypocritical to call it satanic when the bible's done plenty of that shit in the name of "god". whens omthing good happens its "god" when somthing bad happens its "satan". thats bull shit, either god has complete control or he has no control.

[jlwelch]

At 9/30/06 03:35 PM, fallen-son wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote: For proof of any of this, just look at the Satan inspired Quaran!

hey, in the bible god tel isriel to commit genocide to plenty of races.

Yes, that is because the Cannanites had to be removed from the promised land, the jews were enslaved by pagans, etc... Do not confuse righteous actions that God commanded with the grossly immoral actions of Islam.

thats fucking hypocritical to call it satanic when the bible's done plenty of that shit in the name of "god". whens omthing good happens its "god" when somthing bad happens its "satan". thats bull shit, either god has complete control or he has no control.

God has complete control, but he wanted us to have free will, which is how Satan operates. Because of this, there are a great multitude of pagan religions and anti-Christian scum that has turned the world upside down. One day, when no one expects it, Judgement Day will come and this matter will be dealt with, but that is not for feeble human minds to contemplate.

[Abyss]

What I don't get is that a suicide bomber, if Muslim and follows Islam, would go to hell because:
A) Nowhere in the Quran does it say kill people
B) Nowhere does it say we don't like Christians, in fact in says respect people like Christians, Jews etc
C) Nowhere does it say you should commit suicide, not even for your religion

They're just extremists who'll do anything to help, even if it won't

[Abyss]

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote: Troubles1 is absolutely correct, and I commend you for bringing this up.

Muslims suicide bomb places because they follow a false relgion that Satan has inspired. Their fanatical actions have driven them so far from the Word of God that they are no longer recognizable as humans. They are more like wild animals that need to be kept on a leash, which is one of the many reasons why I fully support the actions of the United States, England, and Israel. For proof of any of this, just look at the Satan inspired Quaran!

The Quran isn't Satan inspired if you read it, before questioning what it says. It is very much like Judism or Christianity, only difference is that Muslims are more conservative, otherwise.. just look for an English translated Quran online basically the same as any religion, just started in Arabic and is now translated

[TheMason]

At 9/30/06 06:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:30 AM, seventy-one wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:24 AM, troubles1 wrote: NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

At 9/30/06 04:21 AM, fli wrote: And Eric Robert Rudolph follows the Bible. No wonder he's so violent.
*eye rollie*

Each religion has its nutters.

No, he doesn't. By his own admission.

And there's nothing in Christian teachings to support his actions. Wow, two sentences...two gross misrepresentations. Way to get the most wrong in the least amount of words.

But if you read the Qur'an there is nothing in there that supports the view that suicide bombing is legitimate. I do not know where these analysts got this information. If this report and organization does exist, this is just one analyst's opinion and does not reflect any sort of consensus in the DoD (Dept of Defense) intelligence community or the American intelligence community as a whole. Also note that they do not show any parts of the report other than a few lines.

At 9/30/06 06:04 AM, Denta wrote: Hey, the REAL Quran are AGAINST violence, it's just that the Quran that they follow is edited to fit as propaganda...

Mohammid was violent. Islam was spread by violence. Is it that much of a stretch to say their holy book is violent? No, not really. But hey since not of us read Arabic, we have no way of knowing. Which invalidates your entire argument.

Christianity's early history was one of violence against other Christians. Christian sects fought each other over which books to include in Christian canon, and many early gospels were lost to the torch of early evangelical zeal. However, the Roman Church was able to spread its view of Christianity across the Roman Empire and into NW Europe. Meanwhile, other Christian sects remained intact in the ME. Many of these were threatened when the Crusaders swept in and put Muslim, Jew and local Christian to the sword. Then there was the wonderful Inquisition in which my church tortured Jew, Muslim and unorthodox European Christians. Then there was the bloodshed by the violent conflicts that came with the Protestant Reformation. Meanwhile, the Islamic Empire ruled and influenced by the Persians preserved Western Civilization by importing and copying much of the intellectual heritage of the Greeks and Romans (all while the Pope was putting these scrolls and manuscripts to the torch). Later in the 1800s Muslim, Jew and local Christians were getting along well and living together in peace. Then France, England and later Germany decided to start carving away the Ottoman Empire at its weakest borders. Then when they got into the First World War the destruction of the Ottomans became a strategic imperative since they had allied themselves with the Germans. As a result France and England made overlapping promises of making national rulers out of tribal warlords/chieftans as well as promises of a Jewish homeland in Palestine to expatriot Jews (the Zionists). After the war the West carved up the Empire and made artificial national boundaries that 80 years later we are dealing with the blowback of these European mistakes.

And hey, to understand why they go suicide bombing, think of their situation:

You're experiencing the Americans and the Israel bombing your country to pieces...

Your family is killed by US troops...

You go hungry everyday...

No-one takes care of you...

Everyday is a fight for survival...

etc.

No wonder that they'd go suicide bombing.

Many terrorists are well educated. And the majority of the middle east is pro-terror. There is no reality in your argument.

WolvenBear,

You need to spend some time actually looking at the reality on the ground in the ME. There are many, many factors at work. Education does not mean affluence in every part of the ME. In Iran for example there is only jobs for 50% of each year's college graduates. In fact many go to college in order to get government subsidies to stave off poverty for another four years. In Palestine access to education and basic social services is very limited. Israel has displaced a people and moved them into refugee camps, and now five generations have known no other life than the camps. Thus the Palestinians cannot have much hope for their future.

As for the majority of the ME being pro-terror there are several fallacies to your argument. The first example is even CNN and Fox have reported that about 75% of Iranians want better relations and contact with Americans. Before the 2002 State of the Union address there was cooperation between US and Iranian intelligence on the Afghanistan campaign as well as accepting US assistance following an earthquake in Qur, Iran. After 9/11 about a million Iranians demonstrated IN SOLIDARITY WITH the US. Even Hussein dispatched a letter of sympathy.

As for the legitimacy of terrorism; how is a group that perceives it is being oppressed by the technological superiority of US military equipment (either by the US or an ally), supposed to fight the US? You don't fight a superior foe on its terms and against its strengths. You fight on your terms, against their weaknesses. Terrorism is a form of Guerilla warfare.

Also just a little critique on your rhetorical/forensic skill: never tell someone that their argument has no basis in reality or state that the argument is finished just because you have presented an argument that you reinforce with an emotional argument (in this case your faith). What you have shown in your post is only your ignorance of both the faith of the Muslims and your own. (Note: ignorance means one is only lacking knowledge. Stupid means lack of capicity for knowledge. And we are all, every one, ignorant.)

Have a nice day.

I will...as soon as I find my communal wine!

[jlwelch]

At 9/30/06 04:49 PM, Abyss wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote:

The Quran isn't Satan inspired if you read it, before questioning what it says. It is very much like Judism or Christianity, only difference is that Muslims are more conservative, otherwise.. just look for an English translated Quran online basically the same as any religion, just started in Arabic and is now translated

It is not the Word of God, and it leads people away from the One True God, therefore I am well aware of its danger. Even if its teachings were the exact same as the Bible, it is not the Bible and it sets about worshipping a false God and false prophet!

[TheMason]

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote: Troubles1 is absolutely correct, and I commend you for bringing this up.

For proof of any of this, just look at the Satan inspired Quaran!

I've started reading the Qur'an. So far it is about the same as the New Testament and MUCH more appealling and non-violent than the OT that makes up the first half of the Christian Bible. In fact some early Christians believed that there were two Gods: the one who created the earth and people. This god was violent and spiteful and evil (kindof like Satan).

However, JC's coming (according to some of these early Christians) signified the one, true, loving and peaceful God who dispelled the evil one. They however, remain silent on Muslims and the Qur'an.

So I guess this means the OT that is created and inspired by Satan. Gee that would explain why Israel is so violent and wages terror campaigns of its own, and why we have seen a Christian history smeared with blood. Whereas much of Islam's history has been of tolerance in the region as well as political stability under the Ottomans.

AAK

[TheMason]

At 9/30/06 05:05 PM, jlwelch wrote:

At 9/30/06 04:49 PM, Abyss wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote:

The Quran isn't Satan inspired if you read it, before questioning what it says. It is very much like Judism or Christianity, only difference is that Muslims are more conservative, otherwise.. just look for an English translated Quran online basically the same as any religion, just started in Arabic and is now translated

It is not the Word of God, and it leads people away from the One True God, therefore I am well aware of its danger. Even if its teachings were the exact same as the Bible, it is not the Bible and it sets about worshipping a false God and false prophet!

Funny the main Muslim problem with Christianity is that by declaring Jesus as divine; they are in fact committing a blasphamy against God. That while they respect JC as a great man and prophet, Christians have turned him into a false god AND false prophet (an amazing 2 for 1 deal not even the Muslims can match!) This is why there was revelation to Muhammed, to fix our apostacy. However, the Qur'an is tolerant/enlightened enough that it can still preach respect for Christians and Jews to practice their beliefs, whereas EUROPEAN Christianity has preached a more convert or die message...

[jlwelch]

At 9/30/06 05:15 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/30/06 05:05 PM, jlwelch wrote:

At 9/30/06 04:49 PM, Abyss wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:28 PM, jlwelch wrote:

Funny the main Muslim problem with Christianity is that by declaring Jesus as divine; they are in fact committing a blasphamy against God. That while they respect JC as a great man and prophet, Christians have turned him into a false god AND false prophet (an amazing 2 for 1 deal not even the Muslims can match!)

That is a TERRIBLE LIE SIR!!!
Jesus is the Son of God! The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make up the ONE TRUE GOD! Furthermore, Jesus is our Savior, for no one speaks to the Father except through Christ!

This is why there was revelation to Muhammed, to fix our apostacy. However, the Qur'an is tolerant/enlightened enough that it can still preach respect for Christians and Jews to practice their beliefs, whereas EUROPEAN Christianity has preached a more convert or die message...

The "tolerance" of the Muslims is no longer true today. Satan has corrupted their minds over time so that now they are even more misguided than before! Hence, suicide bombings and acts of evil that are so frequently perported by the followers of Muhammed. Durk Durk ALLAH DURKA DURKA!!!!!

[Laos101]

lets put this into a one-way situation

your a missionary for, lets say christianity. If you want to get that guy over there who lets say is, a native pagen. If you want him to say " Wow! Christianity sounds like a great religion and God sounds a lot better than this pagenism" Are you gonna tell him about the good accomplishments of christians and about how jesus cured people? Or are you gonna tell him about the book of Revalations?

Its common sense, Osama will take things he feel are right from the quran ( It does say to kill all infidels, but it does say not to be obessed with war)

U take what supports your actions and let the "details" Fall through

[troubles1]

At 9/30/06 10:04 AM, drDAK wrote:

At 9/30/06 03:24 AM, troubles1 wrote: NO WONDER THEY ARE VIOLENT...
LINK

My father and grandparents are both Islamic, I am not Islamic and they are not trying to kill me. Maybe you should research a little more into the subject than a quick glance at an obviously biased website.

I never said they were, I am for the first time in my life actually reading the Q'uran, the holy book of Islam, And it is a holy book, And worth reading. even though I am not trying to convert from Christianity.....knowledge in any book of GOD is not a bad idea. I know first hand that not all Muslim people are Evil... And strap bombs to there chest. I am just comparing to great books, That if used by intelligent people will make there lives more fulfilling, and in the hands of ignorance, make-The lives of the people around them pure hell.
So far my perception is that the BIBLE is by far more peaceful, that is after the[Old testament] or TORAH. And less likely to be misinterpreted, for EVIL. The Quran is more violent , and in the wrong hands or the hands of ignorant, or people going through tough times will be able to use it and justify very bad actions.

ALSO, drDAK , Don't be a dick, or one of the unintelligent people I spoke of . I am trying to be as unbiased as possible, wile still keeping true to the religion I believe to be the one GOD has chosen for me.

[WolvenBear]

At 9/30/06 01:09 PM, lapis wrote: Yeah, I'm not trying to smear Christianity but I have to disagree with this. The goal of the first crusade was to unite the Christians by focusing their wars against non-Christians, Muslims in particular.

No the goal of the first crusade was to drive the Muslim out of the holy land. The Pope's speech spoke of the violent campaign against Christians by the Persians, the Turks, The Sarceans, and the infidels. All of those are muslims. It focused Christians against Muslims only and some Christians decided to attack Jews.

Peace stuff

While I'm not sure what that quote comes from, the simple truth is that Islam was spreading by force. Muslims were attacking and murdering Christian pilgrims for the hell of it. And the Pope responded by calling the crusades.

And let's not forget how Christianity spread in South America, namely by purging all that was non-Christian. Archaeologists still mourn the behaviour of the Spaniards who went a little overboard in their quest of forced conversion. All of this doesn't agree with the teachings of Jesus but the fact remains that the Conquistadors called themselves Christians, like al Qaeda calls itself Muslim, and that this violence resulted in almost an entire continent following the teachings of the Catholic church.

Lots of people have called themselves Christian, and have claimed devine inspiration for whatever savage acts they commit. The same can be said of Islam. HOWEVER, this is how the two differ. "Christian terrorists" don't quote the Bible. They can find no justification in the acts they have wrought in Christ's teachings. Muslims have no trouble finding justification in the Qur'an. When Falwell, Phelps or Robertson speaks up (and the worst they ever do is hurt someone's feelings), they are immediately condemned by Christians. Muslims monsters commit violence and one has to search high and low for a single "moderate" to give a non-condemnation condemnation, such as "I wish he hadn't done that, because it makes us look bad." The "Christian extremists" that everyone call so damned dangerous preach such "violence" as the refusal to recognize gay marriage....and the voting that goes with that. Letters and tv spots follow. Muslim clerics call for fatwas and jihads...riots and death follow on large scales.

The two religions aren't even close.

At 9/30/06 01:43 PM, seventy-one wrote: Well, I highly doubt that they're reliable for such news.

Again, because they have formed an opinion doesn't make them less reliable. People who just say "side a said this....side b says this", are unreliable AND useless. And many people claim Islam is peaceful everyday...oh wait, THEY'VE FORMED AN OPINION.

They just happened to get a hold of a Pentagon briefing themselves, and it just happened to be a report that says the Quran is violent. The story is just another propaganda tool for what they believe. So, unless that report actually is true (i.e. it came from a reliable news source), this thread turns into another debate about whether Islam is violent.

The likelihood of that happening is pretty damned good. The Pentagon exists to discover threats to the USA. It has definately studied Islam, and as anyone who's not determined to paint Islam as peaceful despite all the fact, it would say "Islam is violent."

And it should be a debate on whether or not Islam is violent.
Hell, the title of the thread IS "Suicide bombers follow Qur'an." What'd you expect? A discussion what cookies Santa likes best?

At 9/30/06 03:32 PM, fallen-son wrote: not all people who follow the quran are bombers, there are nazi extremists in every religeon. thats like if one white guy shits on an old lady and the whole race is labeled lady shitter oners.

You analogy is irrelevant and without scale. If even TEN percent of a religion fostered violence, we'd look at it as a threat. In almost every country that is Islamic...violence is supported by the vast majority of people. They may not ALL be shitting on old ladies, but the rest aree giving the ones who are the thumbs up while they do it.

At 9/30/06 04:46 PM, Abyss wrote: What I don't get is that a suicide bomber, if Muslim and follows Islam, would go to hell because:
A) Nowhere in the Quran does it say kill people

There are 100s of passages where it says to kill people.

B) Nowhere does it say we don't like Christians, in fact in says respect people like Christians, Jews etc

There is not a single passage that "respects Christianity and Judaism". There are passages telling Muslims not to make friends with them though.

And though I'm too lazy to type it out Sura 9:29-33, talks about how to fight the "people of the book" (the Jews and Christians) who don't truly believe in all of the "correct teachings" and "worship en on the level of God" (Jesus for example).

C) Nowhere does it say you should commit suicide, not even for your religion

But it says in countless places that one should kill and be killed in the service of Allah. If one does a suicide bombing...he kills and is killed in the service of Allah.

They're just extremists who'll do anything to help, even if it won't

You've never read the Qur'an, no more commentary from you.

At 9/30/06 04:49 PM, Abyss wrote: The Quran isn't Satan inspired if you read it, before questioning what it says. It is very much like Judism or Christianity, only difference is that Muslims are more conservative, otherwise.. just look for an English translated Quran online basically the same as any religion, just started in Arabic and is now translated

The "devine intervention" of Garbiel to Mohammid is identical to later passages of djinn (demonic) posession. Mohammid gets the pass on being possessed by demons because hes....well, Mohammid.

[WolvenBear]

At 9/30/06 05:01 PM, TheMason wrote: But if you read the Qur'an there is nothing in there that supports the view that suicide bombing is legitimate. I do not know where these analysts got this information.

They got it from the Qur'an. And the Bible says nothing about AIDS victims or helping them. It simply says that one is to "help the sick". Are AIDS people sick? Yes. So we must help them. But does the Bible command us to help AIDS sufferers? No, because AIDS didn't exist. Similarly, Muslims are to kill and be killed for Allah. That it doesn't tell them to strap up with non-existant C4 doesn't dispute the validity of the leap.

Stupid stuff about only one person thinks this way and consensus.

"Consensus" can be wrong. And it's far more than "one person" who thinks that.

Brief overview

For space I deleted your argument. I will simply offer up a few points that negate the entire focus of your history lesson.
1. Doing something contrary to what you are told/taught is not a reflection on the failings of the values you were taught. Christ says to love my neighbor. If I torch his house down instead, does that make his teachings useless because I committed violence (I COULD even use his name) Obviously it doesn't, because I did what I was told not to do. Likewise any "dark spots" on Christianity's history aren't a real stain on Christianity because to commit said attrocities the had to ignore their own dogmas.
2. Most, if not all, periods of Christian attrocity were committed by those who wished to impose their beliefs over the church and position themselves as divine ruler. That they ignored the teachings is a huge factor here, Because they felt they were IRRELEVANT. Look at the Anglican church. The good king wanted to divorce his wife. He was told no by the church. So he left. And it went down hill from there.
3. Even if (for whatever reason), these Periods of bloodshed were supported by the Bible, we rejected them and have moved on. The Muslims have not. They still live in Dark ages mentality.

WolvenBear,

You need to spend some time actually looking at the reality on the ground in the ME. There are many, many factors at work. Education does not mean affluence in every part of the ME. In Iran for example there is only jobs for 50% of each year's college graduates. In fact many go to college in order to get government subsidies to stave off poverty for another four years. In Palestine access to education and basic social services is very limited. Israel has displaced a people and moved them into refugee camps, and now five generations have known no other life than the camps. Thus the Palestinians cannot have much hope for their future.

How sad. That poor bin Ladin guy...oh wait he's rich. Those poor Saudi royals...oh wait they're rich too! Well that poor Ahmen....damn rich again! Saddam? Rich. Eday, Ubay and Ebay? All rich. The blind shiek? Rich. Jeez, I'm starting to see a pattern. The reality is simple. And tragic. Those who would be terrorists profit off the backs of their less fortunate neighbors. Saddam plundered the countryside, murdered his citizens and attacked his neighbors. He became wealthy. And his is the common story.

As for the majority of the ME being pro-terror there are several fallacies to your argument. The first example is even CNN and Fox have reported that about 75% of Iranians want better relations and contact with Americans. Before the 2002 State of the Union address there was cooperation between US and Iranian intelligence on the Afghanistan campaign as well as accepting US assistance following an earthquake in Qur, Iran. After 9/11 about a million Iranians demonstrated IN SOLIDARITY WITH the US. Even Hussein dispatched a letter of sympathy.

The fallacies with your argument are even simpler. 75% of Iranians neither want sanctions or war with the US. There were many countries in the ME that CELEBRATED the 9/11 attacks, including Iraq and Iran.

As for the legitimacy of terrorism; how is a group that perceives it is being oppressed by the technological superiority of US military equipment (either by the US or an ally), supposed to fight the US? You don't fight a superior foe on its terms and against its strengths. You fight on your terms, against their weaknesses. Terrorism is a form of Guerilla warfare.

Yawn. By at least killing enemy soldiers instead of your own civilians. These people aren't fighting for freedom.

OH, and btw, they've been attacking us for a long time.

Also just a little critique on your rhetorical/forensic skill: never tell someone that their argument has no basis in reality or state that the argument is finished just because you have presented an argument that you reinforce with an emotional argument (in this case your faith). What you have shown in your post is only your ignorance of both the faith of the Muslims and your own. (Note: ignorance means one is only lacking knowledge. Stupid means lack of capicity for knowledge. And we are all, every one, ignorant.)

Many arguments have no basis in relaity. For example. If I said that people could breathe underwater with no mechanical help, that argument has no basis in reality. Also, if I said I could drain you of all your blood and you would survive, that argument SIMILARLY has no basis in reality. There is truth and there is falsehood. If you base your arguments on the latter, well, then your arguments have no basis in reality. For example, there is plenty in the Qur'an to support suicide missions. (The taking of one's live is prohibited, dying in battle is glorified).

And a rebuttal. If you're going to make an argument so easy to refute as "Nowhere in the Qur'an does it support suicide missions (bombings)", don't question someone else's "forensic skills".