How far? (terrorism and republicans

[DeathAura]

I got a local e-mail the other day reporting something some weird women "saw" at a local movie theater. She was supposively "frightened" by muslims with laptops and suitcases in the theaters. I e-mailed her back on how its the biggest bullshit ever. So we went back and forth arguing, until we came to terrorism as a whole. Than i picked up 2 big points. Muslims are not terrorist, the saudi's were. And 9/11. I used to live in New York at the time of 9/11 and it took a punch to me. So I bash her with a bunch of stuff about 9/11. She later sent an e-mail saying how sorry she was. I thought to my self, and it sounds kind of weird she just stopped there and came up with another bullshit answer. I later find out in another e-mail that she was lying. Now why? Well, it was so people would be afraid and vote republican so they could go to war with the "terrorist". Is this the point republicans are going for to get elected? If so, how sad.

[dySWN]

I think that immigration and the economy are going to be bigger political bones of contention this year than the war on terror. The really sad thing is that it seems that none of the current frontrunners seem to have any good ideas on how to fix them - at least from where I stand.

[Marth333]

At 2/8/08 12:10 AM, dySWN wrote: I think that immigration and the economy are going to be bigger political bones of contention this year than the war on terror. The really sad thing is that it seems that none of the current frontrunners seem to have any good ideas on how to fix them - at least from where I stand.

I agree completely, although I've yet to see an economic plan I like.

[highwatermark]

At 2/8/08 01:07 AM, Transkar wrote:

At 2/7/08 08:06 PM, DeathAura wrote: Muslims are not terrorist, the saudi's were.

I want you to think about this statement for a minute.

Muslim EXTREMISTS are the terrorists, not the genuine, traditional Muslims. It like how mutations of E. Coli are harmful, when the species as a whole is essential to human survival.

[DeathAura]

At 2/8/08 01:07 AM, Transkar wrote:

At 2/7/08 08:06 PM, DeathAura wrote: Muslims are not terrorist, the saudi's were.

I want you to think about this statement for a minute.

woopsie, sorry guys, I meant irauqi lol, I just had a little brain fart

[DeathAura]

At 2/8/08 10:29 PM, DeathAura wrote:

At 2/8/08 01:07 AM, Transkar wrote:

At 2/7/08 08:06 PM, DeathAura wrote: Muslims are not terrorist, the saudi's were.

I want you to think about this statement for a minute.

woopsie, sorry guys, I meant irauqi lol, I just had a little brain fart

The whole thing has nothing to do with muslims, And only the muslim extremist are terrorist to clear everyone's mind of that

[DeathAura]

At 2/8/08 12:10 AM, dySWN wrote: I think that immigration and the economy are going to be bigger political bones of contention this year than the war on terror. The really sad thing is that it seems that none of the current frontrunners seem to have any good ideas on how to fix them - at least from where I stand.

the only problem is that stupid people get very scared over terrorism, and make it a big thing, like this women did. She went on for a long time with it too.

[Bolo]

At 2/9/08 12:26 AM, chocolate-penguin wrote: www.thereligionofpeace.com
The only true Muslims are terrorists.

You lose 1000 credibility points just for posting that link.

I truly wonder; Have you ever even met a Muslim person before? Or are you so ensconced in your own flawed beliefs that the only way to declare yourself the idealogical victor over all others is to categorize these equally-incredible beliefs as "terrorist" in nature, and degrade them based on the inevitable radicals that exist within EVERY sect, and of which you, no doubt, are an unknowing part in your own faction?

In any scenario, I extend a sincere, heartwarming thanks from humanity, for doing your part to preserve and further political and religious divisions in the world.

[SolInvictus]

Chocolate do we really have to go over this shit again?

[parallax10]

At 2/9/08 01:47 AM, SolInvictus wrote: Chocolate do we really have to go over this shit again?

We may have to. Some of the idiot children here just don't pay attention to facts, logic, and common sense.

[Musician]

At 2/10/08 02:02 AM, parallax10 wrote: We may have to. Some of the idiot children here just don't pay attention to facts, logic, and common sense.

You mean like you and chocolate penguin? Yes I agree completely.

[Britkid]

http://www.goacom.org/overseas-digest/Re ligion/Bible-its%20making/ot-god.html

You do realise that there are similar passages in the Old Testament about the Israelites slaughtering all their neighbours, as well as a few passages of sexism and what not.

http://www.evilbible.com/sexism_in_the_t orah.htm

Now let's examine the Torah. Now the website may be a bit extreme but the quotes there speak for themselves

So, what can we conclude from this? That every religious book has its 'anomalies' in it, as all were written at a different time. Society is different now, and the majority of Muslims as well as Christians and Jews have adapted.

[Empanado]

At 2/10/08 03:01 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: "Yes, yes, yes, blah blah blah, Christianity and Jews have that, too."
It shouldn't matter. Very, very, very, few Christians and Jews practice that.
Yet many Muslims still live in the 6th century, sadly.

I'm afraid that you're oversimplifying the issue of Islamic terrorism, and to be honest that does more harm than good.

I mean - You admit that Christians and Jews also have "that" in their respective sacred books, but they don't practice it. The real question is, how come so many Muslims go crazy while most Christians and Jews are chillin'? I mean, we've stablished that the religion - the set of beliefs themselves, [Q'uran + faith + religious traditions] (not to be confused with cultural or political traditions) probably doesn't contain anything that can't be found in some point during the history of Christianity and Judaism.

Just like believing in salvation via good deeds and/or faith in Jesus Christ, going to church in general and/or following the bible are some of the things that make you Christian, the things that are undeniable requisites to being Muslim are the Five Pillars (creed, charity, praying, fasting and pilgrimage) and following the Q'uran. That's all that Islam, in and by itself, is about.
Islam in its basic definition is 5 pillars + Q'uran, everything else being an external construction, much like the line that divides Christianity as a whole from the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

So we know that :
1) the Bible and the Torah have crazy parts about butchering a lot of people.
2) the Q'uran has crazy parts about butchering a lot of people.

The fact that a lot of Muslims actually want to butcher a lot of people can't be just explained by the Q'uran, since that doesn't explain why other texts about butchering don't ellicit the same butchering urges, or why western, well-adjusted and adapted Muslims (as opposed to first and second-generation immigrants who tend to favor sentences such as the famous "behead those who behead Islam") don't want to butcher no peoples either. Since the explanation can't be found in the Five Pillars of Islam either, we are left out of explanations within Islam itself.
That is, unless there's some sort of invisible evil hand that magically makes Islam much more evil than any other religion despite not having any inherent evil that can't be found elsewhere, as I said earlier.

So what do all these countries full of rabid fanatics with AK's have in common, other than Islam? They're all in the Middle East or Africa. They were all under the sphere of influence of the Ottoman Empire. Let's remember that the Ottoman Empire was pretty fond of (coincidence!) butchering. And, here's a big one, they're all brutal dictatorships, repressive monarchies or thinly-disguised theocracies.
Once we realize this, we begin to see a pattern. The longer that a nation with a sizeable amount of Muslims has been a functioning democracy, the less crazy people you'll find in charge (or in the streets burning stuff up, for that matter). Turkey is a rather thriving secular republic. Indonesia is still recovering from the Suharto regime and is still kind of freaky but is steadily marching towards liberalisation. Lebanon has been a rather weird democracy for the last 15 years or so, and despite having deep political problems (being Syria's bitch) and having to deal with Hizbullah and assorted lunatics, it's probably the Muslim country with the most modern laws regarding censorship, free speech, civil freedoms, etc. (Example: It was the only nation in the entire Arab world that didn't have the Borat movie banned)

This all has little to nothing to do with Islam itself. It's all politics. Repressive governments are the ones that created and implemented the Shariah. Repressive governments are the ones that issued fatwas calling for the slaughtering of Salman Rushdie. Repressive governments are the ones that instill anti-semitism, sexism, anti-americanism and homophobia on the general population. None of these things can stem merely from religious influence.

[SolInvictus]

At 2/10/08 03:01 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: "Yes, yes, yes, blah blah blah, Christianity and Jews have that, too."

It shouldn't matter. Very, very, very, few Christians and Jews practice that.

Yet many Muslims still live in the 6th century, sadly.

why shouldn't it matter? the simple fact that they say the same things yet Christians and Jews don't live the same way completley discredits this "evil Islam" idea you keep pushing.

[Al6200]

At 2/10/08 09:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

why shouldn't it matter? the simple fact that they say the same things yet Christians and Jews don't :live the same way completely discredits this "evil Islam" idea you keep pushing.

I'd just like to point out a logical/factual error. In Christianity, the New Testament is a higher order of canon than the old testament, especially to protestant Christians.

[SolInvictus]

At 2/11/08 06:31 AM, Al6200 wrote: I'd just like to point out a logical/factual error. In Christianity, the New Testament is a higher order of canon than the old testament, especially to protestant Christians.

which is why i mentioned Judaism as well.

[PantyWipe]

At 2/7/08 08:06 PM, DeathAura wrote: Muslims are not terrorist, the saudi's were.

and all irish people are alcoholics and all black people smoke menthols.

*Shakes head*

[Proteas]

At 2/10/08 09:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote: why shouldn't it matter? the simple fact that they say the same things yet Christians and Jews don't live the same way completley discredits this "evil Islam" idea you keep pushing.

"Live the same way?"

Tell me something, which book merely presents a historical record of slaughter, and which book instructs it's readers to go forth and slaughter?

[DeathAura]

At 2/11/08 01:48 PM, PantyWipe wrote:

At 2/7/08 08:06 PM, DeathAura wrote: Muslims are not terrorist, the saudi's were.

and all irish people are alcoholics and all black people smoke menthols.

*Shakes head*

Well for one, its the Radical Muslims, not just MUSLIMS in total, and the statement you announced is so unclear, I don't know if your agreeing with me or disagreeing

[SadisticMonkey]

What people seem to forget is that juts because most Muslims aren't suicide bombers, does not mean they aren't causing other problems.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/10/08 09:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote: why shouldn't it matter? the simple fact that they say the same things yet Christians and Jews don't live the same way completley discredits this "evil Islam" idea you keep pushing.

No, Soll, it doesn't. If "the same thing" is in both books (it's not), yet both faiths aren't acting the same, then there's a difference in the religions that you're not getting.

By glossing this over, you're deliberately not getting it.

[thedo12]

there are lots of muslims in my school they are nice people, I just wish the women would show a bit more skin

[SolInvictus]

At 2/11/08 02:12 PM, Proteas wrote: Tell me something, which book merely presents a historical record of slaughter, and which book instructs it's readers to go forth and slaughter?

well heys! it looks like both do.

" If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)"

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)"

"If your enemy be hungry, give him food to eat, if he be thirsty, give him to drink; For live coals you will heap on his head, and the Lord will vindicate you. (Proverbs 25:21-22 NAB)"

"Folly is close to the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15 NAB)"

"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock. Psalms 137:9 NAB"

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)"

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression Tim. 2:9-14"

"Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29"

its interesting how while it may be historical slaughter, it is historical slaughter sanctioned and instructed by God for particular reasons (these stories aren't just there to look pretty, they are intended to convey messages).

as for Wolvenbear, lets have another look at what i said since you seem to have completley misread it.
i never said Islam, Judaism and Christianity are the same or that its followers are the same (any mention of same was with regards to the people being peaceful, which should have been obvious within the context of discussion). let me present it in another manner;

1 will refer to scripture (the three Abrahamic faiths have similar scriptures and morals)
2 will refer to violence of its followers
3 will refer to relative peacefulness
c will be the variable

Extremist Islam: 1 = 2
Islam: 1 = 3
Christianity: 1 = 3
Judaism: 1 = 3

so there is clearly something wrong if two different answers are possible with similar scripture, lets look at what else may factor into this discrepency.

Extremist Islam: 1 + c = 2
Islam: 1 + c = 3
Christianity: 1 + c = 3
Judaism: 1 + c = 3

what does that mean? that there is more at play here then simple scripture and religion.

[Proteas]

At 2/12/08 02:20 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well heys! it looks like both do.

" If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)"

Taken in full context, this is speaking about the Lord's physical return to earth when He shall no longer have need of phrophets to go out and spread the Word.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Leviticus primarily deals with the law of ancient Israel and fair dealings in the market place, and this verse in particular is not at all violent nor does it say you should do any of these things or that you are right for doing them, just that you may.

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)"

Considering that one of the 10 Commandments states "Thou shalt honor thy father and mother," this comes as no surprise to me.

"If your enemy be hungry, give him food to eat, if he be thirsty, give him to drink; For live coals you will heap on his head, and the Lord will vindicate you. (Proverbs 25:21-22 NAB)"

To heap live coals on your enemy's head is a simile, you are in essence "turning the other cheek" and treating an enemy as a friend to their shame.

"Folly is close to the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15 NAB)"

And? Is this to somehow say you shouldn't discipline your children?

"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock. Psalms 137:9 NAB"

Taken so far out of context that it's not even funny, man.

(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

This more deals with someone coming into your midsts and trying to sway you from worship of the Lord, not going out into the world and slaying those who refuse to convert to the Lord (which is what the Que'ran commands, and what I was ultimately after in my original question).

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression Tim. 2:9-14"

Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Male chauvinism on the part of the Apostle Paul which does not have any actual basis in prior scripture, and beside the point.

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29"

At that point in time, an unmarried woman who was not a virgin would have died a begger in the streets because she was not pure under the law. Having the rapist take care of her as his wife is certainly a fairer fate for the victim than what is proscribed under Islam, which states that it is the woman's fault for being raped because she somehow tempted the man into doing it, and she is the one that gets criminal charges pressed against her.

its interesting how while it may be historical slaughter, it is historical slaughter sanctioned and instructed by God for particular reasons (these stories aren't just there to look pretty, they are intended to convey messages).

You cited a grand total of 10 seperate passages, two of which actually had to do with the law proscribing the death penalty, one of which was taken completely out of context, and the other 7 of which had absolutely nothing to do with my original question.

[Peacock4ever]

The problem is that prejuges of fear of attacks have spreed and have broght fear which is the terrosts main objective. how this fearis not only being take advantage not only by the terrorst but by poltisons.

the only resson why bush got elected again was beacuse of promace to take terror and stop the fear. however this is not his main resson for war and the most proable resson is oil or other ressores ect...

bush, amiarca and yes probbaly most of the westen world were consoing war with iraq for oil and used saddam is a puppet is get the pepole on there side

in short yes terrorism and republicans are nearly the same as there are just one step form fashsium

PS SOZ about poor speling.

[WolvenBear]

At 2/12/08 03:52 PM, Proteas wrote: You cited a grand total of 10 seperate passages, two of which actually had to do with the law proscribing the death penalty, one of which was taken completely out of context, and the other 7 of which had absolutely nothing to do with my original question.

And 2 of them are unprecidented in their kindness, as opposed to the remainder of history.

[SolInvictus]

At 2/12/08 03:52 PM, Proteas wrote: Taken in full context

which is also what fails to be done when quotes from the Qu'ran are presented.

this is speaking about the Lord's physical return to earth when He shall no longer have need of phrophets to go out and spread the Word.

so theres no problem pointing out violence against non-believers and transgressers in the Qu'ran but its wrong to do so with the Old Testament?

Leviticus primarily deals with the law of ancient Israel and fair dealings in the market place, and this verse in particular is not at all violent nor does it say you should do any of these things or that you are right for doing them, just that you may.

once again ancient practices being judged differently depending on the source.

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)"

Considering that one of the 10 Commandments states "Thou shalt honor thy father and mother," this comes as no surprise to me.

so then why is everyone freaking out when the Qu'ran says to kill or punish violently those who break God's laws?

To heap live coals on your enemy's head is a simile, you are in essence "turning the other cheek" and treating an enemy as a friend to their shame.

so something as seemingly specific as heaping coals upon an enemy has a different meaning yet its impossible that less descriptive passages from the Qu'ran could mean something else?

"Folly is close to the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15 NAB)"

And? Is this to somehow say you shouldn't discipline your children?

if beating them is the way to go then sure. once again its a practice we would normally recoil in horror from yet no one seems shocked by it.

"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock. Psalms 137:9 NAB"

Taken so far out of context that it's not even funny, man.

sorry, i know it was, i just couldn't help myself.

This more deals with someone coming into your midsts and trying to sway you from worship of the Lord, not going out into the world and slaying those who refuse to convert to the Lord (which is what the Que'ran commands, and what I was ultimately after in my original question).

yet the quotes presented made reference to fighting non-believers that have done Muslims wrong. most other mentions of conflicts with non-believers used the word fight not kill.

in the "retelling" of past events the Jews are justified and obliged to kill non-believers (men, women, children and infants) by the Lord for their lack of faith. to say these were intended simply as a history lesson would be ridiculous and have played their part in shaping and justifying actions and traditions. for one, the fact that the Muslims consider themselves superior to people of other faiths was brought up numerous times yet the fact that this is the same for the Jews (less today) as the Chosen People is brushed aside.
does this make Judaism evil? of course not even though many passages could be interpretted to justify attrocities. the same goes for Islam the problem is that unlike Christianity and Judaism, which no longer has those who follow more violent interpretations, there are those who wish to, and do interpret passages from the Qu'ran to justify actions that would otherwise be against their own religion (albeit through different interpretations).
since this is the case would it be correct to strike at the peaceful majority's beliefs? of course not.

the equations probably worked better.

[Proteas]

At 2/12/08 08:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote: which is also what fails to be done when quotes from the Qu'ran are presented.

Okay, put these verses that ChocolatePenguin cited in proper context for me.

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Sura (2:191-193)

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them." Sura (4:34)

"and the men are a degree above them" Sura (2:228)

"Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..." Sura (33:59)

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will." Sura (2:223)

"Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins" Sura (66:5)

so theres no problem pointing out violence against non-believers and transgressers in the Qu'ran but its wrong to do so with the Old Testament?

This isn't violence against non-believers you pointed out, it was violence against a believer who was speaking for the Lord when there was no need to do so. And since the Lord has not returned yet, it was probably never carried out.

once again ancient practices being judged differently depending on the source.

The thing is, these are ancient practices you brought up, not modern practices. Christians and Jews aren't running around in modern civilization buying slaves and the like for set amounts, and saying that these verses are somehow indicative of how we should judge them today is bullshit.

so then why is everyone freaking out when the Qu'ran says to kill or punish violently those who break God's laws?

Because their adherents are actually doing it TODAY. Honor Killings, mutilation, Dhimmi status, stonings, it's all going on in Islamic cultures.

so something as seemingly specific as heaping coals upon an enemy has a different meaning yet its impossible that less descriptive passages from the Qu'ran could mean something else?

It doesn't say to heap hot coals on the head of your enemy, it says to treat them as a friend and the Lord shall avenge you. If you were to heap hot coals on your enemy's head, why would you wait on divine retribution? You just avenged yourself!

if beating them is the way to go then sure. once again its a practice we would normally recoil in horror from yet no one seems shocked by it.

It's because it's done for the purpose of disciplining a child who doesn't know any better, whereas in Islamic culture beatings are handed out for the slightest offense, typically to women who have no rights to begin with.

yet the quotes presented made reference to fighting non-believers that have done Muslims wrong. most other mentions of conflicts with non-believers used the word fight not kill.

"Slay" was the word I saw, not "fight."

to say these were intended simply as a history lesson would be ridiculous and have played their part in shaping and justifying actions and traditions.

It happened, that's all the Bible records. Where does it state -- as a direct commandment from God -- that you should go out and slay those who don't believe like you do?

for one, the fact that the Muslims consider themselves superior to people of other faiths was brought up numerous times yet the fact that this is the same for the Jews (less today) as the Chosen People is brushed aside.

Could it be because they've not recently done anything to incite the ire of Human Rights groups?

does this make Judaism evil? of course not even though many passages could be interpretted to justify attrocities. the same goes for Islam the problem is that unlike Christianity and Judaism, which no longer has those who follow more violent interpretations, there are those who wish to, and do interpret passages from the Qu'ran to justify actions that would otherwise be against their own religion (albeit through different interpretations).

*face palm*

Okay, devils advocate, I get it...

[Imperator]

Question:

Does anyone know a site where I can read entire books of the Qu'ran, instead of just snippits people use in these debates?

For ex, a site that lets me read Sura 2 in it's entirety, not just lines (or verses?) 191-193?

Thanks in advance.

[SolInvictus]

At 2/12/08 10:05 PM, Proteas wrote::

Okay, put these verses that ChocolatePenguin cited in proper context for me.

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." Sura (2:191-193)

do you see the word "whence" in there (wow, that word was just being discussed)?
whence:
whence /%u02B0w%u025Bns, w%u025Bns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hwens, wens]
-adverb
from what place?: Whence comest thou?
2. from what source, origin, or cause?: Whence has he wisdom?
-conjunction
3. from what place, source, cause, etc.: He told whence he came.

used in the above paragraph it indicates the infidels had once driven the Muslims out of those lands and it is implied they were persecuted thus giving those Muslims the right to retake that land.
generally taking back or defense of one's land is seen as just cause.

and that is without any real context.

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them." Sura (4:34)

"and the men are a degree above them" Sura (2:228)

"Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..." Sura (33:59)

"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will." Sura (2:223)

"Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins" Sura (66:5)

while you dismissed the passages about women being below men as simply an individuals chauvinism it is unlikely that his views were particular and without influence from both culture and religious tradition.

so theres no problem pointing out violence against non-believers and transgressers in the Qu'ran but its wrong to do so with the Old Testament?

This isn't violence against non-believers you pointed out, it was violence against a believer who was speaking for the Lord when there was no need to do so. And since the Lord has not returned yet, it was probably never carried out.

once again ancient practices being judged differently depending on the source.

The thing is, these are ancient practices you brought up, not modern practices. Christians and Jews aren't running around in modern civilization buying slaves and the like for set amounts, and saying that these verses are somehow indicative of how we should judge them today is bullshit.

but that is the point. even if it is indicated in scripture as proper they have adapted to fit the changing world. it is not the fault of the religion or scripture, it is those who have influence on the meanings conveyed. female subservience is still a major part of more fundamentalist sects of Judaism and Christianity which justify their views with passages from Genesis (i'm fairly certain there are others, ancient Israel and the like were male dominated societies).

Because their adherents are actually doing it TODAY. Honor Killings, mutilation, Dhimmi status, stonings, it's all going on in Islamic cultures.

most of what followed could be answered by the following;
once again, if Judaism and Christianity could evolve from what they once were then clearly it is not the religion or scripture that is the problem. for the most part the places where these things are happening are third world countries where little has changed socially and economically since the middle ages, or they have strong fundamentalist theocracies preventing any change in interpretation and religious views (though most of these countries are also poor and with limited educational opertunities).