Mitt Romney on 'Jihad'

[9mmRifle]

Romney follows Giuliani’s path
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=107420

Tries to Substitute TV Ads for Iowa Campaign Stops

Des Moines – Mitt Romney’s campaign appears to be taking cues from Rudy Giuliani as the former Governor starts airing another television ad in Iowa today, yet fails to actually appear in the state. In the past two months, Romney has spent only two days in Iowa and instead appears to prefer spending his own millions to sway voters through commercials, not personal appearances.

“Mitt Romney has lost focus on what the Iowa caucuses are all about,” said Carrie Giddins, Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director. “Iowans are not swayed by 30 second commercials but by getting the chance to interact with the candidates and ask them the tough questions. Romney can’t substitute commercials paid for by personal loans for the retail politics that has made Iowa a presidential proving ground.”

New Romney Ad, “Jihad.” "It's this century's nightmare. Jihadism. Violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism. Their goal is to unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom loving nations, like us. As President, I'll strengthen our intelligence services, increase our military by at least 100,000 and monitor the calls Al-Qaeda makes into America. And we can and will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOPp9K1JUCs

[Rictor]

My God, what a monumental douche. If I didn't know better, I would swear that this is a parody...it's just too ridiculous to even be offensive. I can almost hear "America F*ck Yeah" playing in the background.

[LMAV]

Whats the problem? Hes talking about a very serious issue. Its pretty telling that you think patriotism is a bad thing when running for president.

[Chulo]

My God, what a monumental douche. If I didn't know better, I would swear that this is a parody...it's just too ridiculous to even be offensive. I can almost hear "America F*ck Yeah" playing in the background.
i dont know what issues u have with it, but i think what hes saying is true ..

” "It's this century's nightmare. It sure is one major issue we are facing
Jihadism. Violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism. That is who most terrorist are - and he didnt say all muslims - just the radical fundementalist
Their goal is to unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate. That is true
To do that, they must collapse freedom loving nations, like us. That is true too
As President, I'll strengthen our intelligence services, Always a good idea
increase our military by at least 100,000 Considering how much clinton had cut down the military, maybe another good idea- especially if they do want to maintain a presence and monitor the calls Al-Qaeda makes into America. Another good idea
And we can and will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.Arguable, but im in for not letting a raciest crazy military hungry and "want to make a point" leader from gettin nuclear weapons
I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message"

[shocker1]

My God, what a monumental douche. If I didn't know better, I would swear that this is a parody...it's just too ridiculous to even be offensive. I can almost hear "America F*ck Yeah" playing in the background.
Well AMERICA F*CK YEAH wootand jihadists should be offended. They offend humanity by breathing.

[bd popeye]

New Romney Ad, “Jihad.” "It's this century's nightmare. Jihadism. Violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism. Their goal is to unite the world under a single jihadist caliphate. To do that, they must collapse freedom loving nations, like us. As President, I'll strengthen our intelligence services, increase our military by at least 100,000 and monitor the calls Al-Qaeda makes into America. And we can and will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message"


I agree with Romney and schocker!.

..What's so hard to understand about the Jihadist? They want everyone in the world to conform to their radical form of Islam or be dead..There is no neiogation with them. It's there way...or death.

[Desk Jockey]

Glad my former govenor has some balls, hope it ain't just politics.

[Rictor]

The establishment of a grand Caliphate, stretching from India to North Africa, is about as realistic as a Martian invasion. The only people who imagine for a second that it's a feasible possibility are bin Laden and folks like Romney.

"Jihadism" is an invented boogeyman - what exists in reality is a dozen rag-tag terrorist outfits scattered around the world, who's collective power is negligible and easily kept in check by police action. Linking Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the ICU in Somalia et al, in one big web of scary nefariousness is a flight of fancy. Romney has deluded himself into thinking that reality is in fact a Tom Clancy novel, with bin Laden and Ahmadinejad twirling their mustache and laughing in some underground bunker as they plot the demise of Western civilization.

[Chulo]

The establishment of a grand Caliphate, stretching from India to North Africa, is about as realistic as a Martian invasion. The only people who imagine for a second that it's a feasible possibility are bin Laden and folks like Romney.

"Jihadism" is an invented boogeyman - what exists in reality is a dozen rag-tag terrorist outfits scattered around the world, who's collective power is negligible and easily kept in check by police action. Linking Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the ICU in Somalia et al, in one big web of scary nefariousness is a flight of fancy. Romney has deluded himself into thinking that reality is in fact a Tom Clancy novel, with bin Laden and Ahmadinejad twirling their mustache and laughing in some underground bunker as they plot the demise of Western civilization.
so u would rather ignore the terrorist outfits since they are small and rag-tag untill they actually have a multi-million dollar weapons budget, sleeper cells around the world and influential political control, murder thousands of people every year and try to establish a country or two based on fundamental Muslim principles ... no wait.. thats all ready been done...

so at what point would u like to consider them a threat?

[Hollis]

"Jihadism" is an invented boogeyman - what exists in reality is a dozen rag-tag terrorist outfits scattered around the world, who's collective power is negligible and easily kept in check by police action.


Why don't you play with this data base, then get back to us about your so-called invention.

http://www.tkb.org/IncidentDateModule.jsp

[Rictor]

Terrorism has existed since the dawn of time; the ability to blow up a few people does not an existential threat make. Romney has stated (in another video) that jihad "intends on bringing down civilization". That's beyond hyperbole. Do you believe that Hamas, who can't even pay the salaries of its own police, can do that? Do you believe that Hezbollah, who's leader can't show his face for fear of getting assassinated, can do that? Can the Muslim Brotherhood, who's leaders can be arrested at a whim and who can't even run candidates in elections, can do that? Can the ICU, who were driven out by underfed Ethiopians in pick-up trucks, can do that?

Violent jihadists are utterly marginal and powerless. If the US lived with the Soviet Union for half a century, why are a handful of Arab revolutionaries suddenly the next Hitler?

[SBL]

^Jihadist's are relevant because their end goal is to drive the muslim world into war with the west. What are terrorist attacks but tools of influence? If you can pull off enough of them, you can convince people that the global events are shifting one way or the other.

[Shellshock1918]

My God, what a monumental douche. If I didn't know better, I would swear that this is a parody...it's just too ridiculous to even be offensive. I can almost hear "America F*ck Yeah" playing in the background.

Yea seriously.

This guy is the Republican John Kerry. A total aristocratic douche.

There is no way in hell jihadists will destroy the United States of America. They are a threat yes, but they are NOT the Soviet Union.

[sidman69]

unfortunetely Fear tactics work.

[LMAV]

Violent jihadists are utterly marginal and powerless. If the US lived with the Soviet Union for half a century, why are a handful of Arab revolutionaries suddenly the next Hitler?

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the situation. There is no comparison between the soviet union MAD policy and the asymmetrical warfare we face now.


unfortunetely Fear tactics work.

This is sort of rhetorical, but do you beleive the democrats use fear tactics when talking about the environment or health care?

[Hollis]

Violent jihadists are utterly marginal and powerless. If the US lived with the Soviet Union for half a century, why are a handful of Arab revolutionaries suddenly the next Hitler?


One of the major problems is the use of proxies, which became real popular during the cold war. While a Jihadist/terrorist group may not have the resources their sponsors may have or do.

There is a touch of the "MAD" thinking in that the US responded very strongly when it was attacked in 2001, terrorist sponsor, know the US will probably respond. Prior to 2000 the US responce to terrorist attacks was almost condusive to encouraging the terrorist to attack the US again.

Do not discount the effectiveness of proxies.

[dangerclose]

The establishment of a grand Caliphate, stretching from India to North Africa, is about as realistic as a Martian invasion. The only people who imagine for a second that it's a feasible possibility are bin Laden ...



You kinda just shot down your own argument. Regardless of how realistic a chance islam has of conquering the world, the true believers can sure kill alot of people trying.

[martinexsquaddie]

the USSR could turn most of the rest of the world into a radioactive wasteland where Kevin kostner is the best hope for mankind:(

jihaidsts can't do this
more big battalions won't help its intelligence and politics that will deal with this threat.
there are no muslim hordes coming over the horizon

[Chulo]

Terrorism has existed since the dawn of time; the ability to blow up a few people does not an existential threat make. Romney has stated (in another video) that jihad "intends on bringing down civilization". That's beyond hyperbole. Do you believe that Hamas, who can't even pay the salaries of its own police, can do that? Do you believe that Hezbollah, who's leader can't show his face for fear of getting assassinated, can do that? Can the Muslim Brotherhood, who's leaders can be arrested at a whim and who can't even run candidates in elections, can do that? Can the ICU, who were driven out by underfed Ethiopians in pick-up trucks, can do that?

Violent jihadists are utterly marginal and powerless. If the US lived with the Soviet Union for half a century, why are a handful of Arab revolutionaries suddenly the next Hitler?
that same mentality was why there was such a hole in the intelligence and suppression of terrorism in the 90's . Clinton had many good opportunities to deal blows against terrorist. But nothing was done until 9/11

and you point out only the short comings of terrorist organizations, but fail to mention the thousands of people they kill every month.

as for your USSR - Islamic terrorist comparison. i see fundamental Religiously motivated terrorist more dangerous..

there are 1.56528 Billion Muslims in the world http://www.islamicpopulation.com/world_general.html





Among every four humans in the world, one of them is a Muslim.
Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to nearly 1.6 billion.
By comparison,
Christians have increased by only 47 percent.
Hinduism, 117 percent and
Buddhism by 63 percent.
Islam is the second largest religious group in France, Great Britain and the US (Muslims in the US are ten million and Jews are six million)
http://www.tamilislam.com/ENGLISH/OTHERS/Worldmuslimspopulation.htm


and these terrorist are working hard to bring them all into their fundamentalist views, and they have been increasing their numbers. so while you think its a small problem right now, what about in 10 years or 20 years? even if they make up 10% of the population.. thats alot more man power than many countries. and the fact that there is no country but small cells of different nationalities makes the job even harder


im not saying suppress Muslims, but in any religion there are fundamentalist that pervert and take the teachings to the extreme to the peril of many. <while i have a different view of the teachings of Islam and who is actually the fundamentalist and how are the liberals doing exactly what the Koran teaches>


but u are right, lets just ignore the problem for now..

[Shellshock1918]

and these terrorist are working hard to bring them all into their fundamentalist views,.

So maybe instead of playing into terrorists hands by bombing and invading more Muslim countries maybe we should wage an information war?

[Chulo]

So maybe instead of playing into terrorists hands by bombing and invading more Muslim countries maybe we should wage an information war?
you have to be ready for everything.. and information is not just for those people, but for your own people to understand the risk and damage that can be done.. unfortunately the basic response to that is "fear mongering, that threat dont exist, and over emphasis of the risk"

and then again... with terrorist rhetoric, what do u do to those that subscribe to them and wont take any comprise? hold hands and keep on trying to talk to them "diplomatically?"

[Hollis]

1.6 Billion, egads, it has about half of that now. Yes growth is fast when you enslave a people and demand obedience or death.


Al Jazeera had a article about the mass exodus of people leaving Islam (numbers where pretty high), especially in freer countries. Why do you think the jihadist hate democracy.

Interesting how Islam goes from 1 Billion to 1.2 Billion NOW 1.6 Billion. In a just a few years, when even the Islamic media is saying other wise.

Is this a example of Al Taquia? (SP?)

[Chulo]

1.6 Billion, egads, it has about half of that now. Yes growth is fast when you enslave a people and demand obedience or death.


Al Jazeera had a article about the mass exodus of people leaving Islam (numbers where pretty high), especially in freer countries. Why do you think the jihadist hate democracy.

Interesting how Islam goes from 1 Billion to 1.2 Billion NOW 1.6 Billion. In a just a few years, when even the Islamic media is saying other wise.

Is this a example of Al Taquia? (SP?)
the reason why islam has such high numbers is because they count the believers as those of the family. If you are born into the family then you are counted as a Muslim. Other religions count it differently <based on personal admission of faith>


so its not REAL believers, but it is still a very fast growing number

[Hollis]

Chullo, Al Jazeera had a article, I will try to find it.

These might help:

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/33Rlg/Islm/IslmDemis.htm

http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=972

"Here is my partial translation of the AL-Jazeerah intervew between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani talking about the issue of 6 million muslims leaving Islam every year in Africa alone. This was a television interview that was transcribed and I translated it into English.

Here is the original article I translated from Arabic from Al-Jezeerah's web site.

http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/share ... 2-12-6.htm (http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/shareea/articles/2000/12/12-12-6.htm) "

[Chulo]

Chullo, Al Jazeera had a article, I will try to find it.

These might help:

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/33Rlg/Islm/IslmDemis.htm

http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=972

"Here is my partial translation of the AL-Jazeerah intervew between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani talking about the issue of 6 million muslims leaving Islam every year in Africa alone. This was a television interview that was transcribed and I translated it into English.

Here is the original article I translated from Arabic from Al-Jezeerah's web site.

http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/share ... 2-12-6.htm (http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/shareea/articles/2000/12/12-12-6.htm) "
thanks! im goin to read it

[Shellshock1918]

Way to try and fear monger us into believing this mess...

We were attacked on 9/11, lets just find the thugs responsible, kill them and come home. We don't need to embark on a adventuristic foreign policy.

[9mmRifle]

This guy is the Republican John Kerry. A total aristocratic douche. Didn't some papers think he was a closet scientologist ?

[Chulo]

Way to try and fear monger us into believing this mess...

We were attacked on 9/11, lets just find the thugs responsible, kill them and come home. We don't need to embark on a adventuristic foreign policy.
humm what about the other attacks that have killed a significant number of Americans - USS Cole? 1983 Beirut barracks bombing? and how many attacks have been stopped because the government had taken the fight to them?

I can tell you that personally i was supposed to be on one of those planes last year that was taking off from London to U.S with those liquid bombs. and am quite happy that people chose not to ignore the threat.

or you u rather have 9/11 attacks happen and THEN go after them?>

[LMAV]

Way to try and fear monger us into believing this mess...

We were attacked on 9/11, lets just find the thugs responsible, kill them and come home. We don't need to embark on a adventuristic foreign policy.

You know we tried that kind of policy under Clinton and I'd say it was pretty disastrous.

[Laworkerbee]

The establishment of a grand Caliphate, stretching from India to North Africa, is about as realistic as a Martian invasion. The only people who imagine for a second that it's a feasible possibility are bin Laden

Stop right there, because that belief is all that matters! as long as men follow Bin Laden and are willing to kill to achieve this idea they are our enemies to the end.

[Shellshock1918]

humm what about the other attacks that have killed a significant number of Americans - USS Cole? 1983 Beirut barracks bombing? and how many attacks have been stopped because the government had taken the fight to them?

I can tell you that personally i was supposed to be on one of those planes last year that was taking off from London to U.S with those liquid bombs. and am quite happy that people chose not to ignore the threat.

or you u rather have 9/11 attacks happen and THEN go after them?>

Ever look at the reasons they attack us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

Occupation is the number one driving force behind suicide terrorism. Not radical religion. Guess in what country the most suicide terrorists come from?
Sri Lanka.

Clinton embarked on the same Foreign policy Bush is doing. In fact, lets not forget how critical Bush was of Clinton's foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-FiXTgKFo

[JKD]

^I remember that debate and the "humble" foreign policy comment well. That's part of why I voted for Bush in 2000. I was under the mistaken impression he was a conservative.

Too bad once elected he just ended up taking all his advice from the Project For the New American Century crowd.

...I even remember him calling on Clinton to set timetables for our involvement in Kosovo.

[Chulo]

Ever look at the reasons they attack us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

Occupation is the number one driving force behind suicide terrorism. Not radical religion. Guess in what country the most suicide terrorists come from?
Sri Lanka.

Clinton embarked on the same Foreign policy Bush is doing. In fact, lets not forget how critical Bush was of Clinton's foreign policy.


and who exactly were we occupying before sept 11th? Some of Clinton's foreign policies were weak and steps in the wrong direction

[ElHombre]

Glad my former govenor has some balls, hope it ain't just politics.

What you're calling cajones is actually just ill-informed playground machismo. The results of having a President like that have been evident for the past seven years.

[Chulo]

What you're calling cajones is actually just ill-informed playground machismo. The results of having a President like that have been evident for the past seven years.
so how would u suggest we meet the threat ? or is there no threat?

[Rictor]

humm what about the other attacks that have killed a significant number of Americans - USS Cole? 1983 Beirut barracks bombing? and how many attacks have been stopped because the government had taken the fight to them?


The USS Cole and the barracks bombing took place in Qatar and Lebanon, respectivelly. Now, let's think about that for a second. If, say, China decided one day to station troops in Los Angeles, do you believe for a second that they would not be subject to attack? The lesson to learn here is: don't put soldiers where they don't belong, which is namely every place on Earth that is not part of your sovereign, national territory.

Islam will start loosing adherents en masse within a few decades, undergoing the same process as Christianity in the 20th century. Once people become relatively prosperous and relatively modern, religion goes out the window. So all those who fear that the terrible Mohammedan hordes will take over the world can rest easy.

[Shellshock1918]

and who exactly were we occupying before sept 11th? Some of Clinton's foreign policies were weak and steps in the wrong direction

Oh good grief..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts

730 bases in 160 countries. Do the math.

[ElHombre]

so how would u suggest we meet the threat ? or is there no threat?

You can start by realizing what the threat actually is. Seeing as how none of these (often mutually opposing) groups have any sort of ability to strategic move thousands of troops across oceans, the odds of their actual threat to the overthrow of the US gov't is... zilch. So anyone telling you that they pose a threat to the US should immeadiately be laughed out of the room and refused re-entry until they grow up. For pete's sake, the US faced a bigger threat by the British and French in the 18th century than we do now by terrs. The biggest threat they pose to the US is that we are changing ourselves in overreaction to them.

[Chulo]

Oh good grief..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts

730 bases in 160 countries. Do the math.
there is a diffrence between having a base and being an occuping army.

[Shellshock1918]

there is a diffrence between having a base and being an occuping army.

Not to Bin Laden and his band of thugs. Most Muslims see us on their holyland; they take that as an insult. That incites hatred. Just think if Russia occupied Hawaii or Alaska, we would be enraged and we might commit acts of violence.

[dangerclose]

You can start by realizing what the threat actually is. Seeing as how none of these (often mutually opposing) groups have any sort of ability to strategic move thousands of troops across oceans, the odds of their actual threat to the overthrow of the US gov't is... zilch. So anyone telling you that they pose a threat to the US should immeadiately be laughed out of the room and refused re-entry until they grow up. For pete's sake, the US faced a bigger threat by the British and French in the 18th century than we do now by terrs. The biggest threat they pose to the US is that we are changing ourselves in overreaction to them.


Cue the video of the planes slamming into the twin towers and people jumping from 100 floors up. 19 guys with box cutters. Multiple cities could be lit up in a nuclear attack and the U.S. Government would still stand. That doesn't negate the threat.


Having our airliners turned into manned-cruise missiles against us would be an act of war to anyone who was sane. It wasn't a mere criminal act brought on by ourselves and an unfortunate inevitability that we're just going to have to learn to live with. 10 or 20 here, 100 there, maybe a couple more thousand next time. No biggie.

[dangerclose]

Not to Bin Laden and his band of thugs. Most Muslims see us on their holyland; they take that as an insult. That incites hatred. Just think if Russia occupied Hawaii or Alaska, we would be enraged and we might commit acts of violence.

According to Bin Laden, you being clean shaven and not facing roughly south east 5 times a day in prayer is an insult that incites hatred.

[LaoSexMachine]

Not to Bin Laden and his band of thugs. Most Muslims see us on their holyland; they take that as an insult. That incites hatred. Just think if Russia occupied Hawaii or Alaska, we would be enraged and we might commit acts of violence.

But there is no one Pan-Arab country. They don't get along. Shiites, Sunnis, and what not. Seems to me it's just attempted to blame shyt on others while the whole time you are the one responsible for you situation in life.

[Shellshock1918]

According to Bin Laden, you being clean shaven and not facing roughly south east 5 times a day in prayer is an insult that incites hatred.
That does not motivate him and his followers to commit suicide terrorism. Occupation by foreign non-Muslim armies does!

That honestly just sounds so stupid. You really think they want to blow themselves up because I shave? How naive you are.

[9mmRifle]

McCain talking about Romney and Giuliani (former Mayor of NYC who married his own cousin)

http://www.youtube.com/v/4b3U5E38AtY

[martinexsquaddie]

so what you going to do with another 100 000 troops invade saudi?

theres no real target you can knock over.

[Chulo]

That does not motivate him and his followers to commit suicide terrorism. Occupation by foreign non-Muslim armies does!

That honestly just sounds so stupid. You really think they want to blow themselves up because I shave? How naive you are.
and you think that they dont like the west just because of war? Their ideological beliefs are the main reason for their aggression and expansion. Their beliefs and call the arms by their own religious leaders are for conversion and bring their beliefs to other the main motivation.
Iraq is a new excuse, but what and why was al-quada created? it wasnt just to remove bases from a few countries.

i think it would be very naive and a big mistake if you think that just because you dont bother them they wont bother you. Jihad is not just a word for defense, but an aggressive offensive to convert those who do not believe what they believe. the main basis and root of Islam is the expansion and absorption of non-believers.

[Shellshock1918]

and you think that they dont like the west just because of war? Their ideological beliefs are the main reason for their aggression and expansion. Their beliefs and call the arms by their own religious leaders are for conversion and bring their beliefs to other the main motivation.
Iraq is a new excuse, but what and why was al-quada created? it wasnt just to remove bases from a few countries.
And you plan to change that by invading their countries and inadvertently killing thousands of them? Oh man, you need a lesson in PR.


i think it would be very naive and a big mistake if you think that just because you dont bother them they wont bother you.
People won't bother you if you look strong and mind your own business. People will bother you if you go around bullying people and invading and occupying their land.


Jihad is not just a word for defense, but an aggressive offensive to convert those who do not believe what they believe. the main basis and root of Islam is the expansion and absorption of non-believers.
Jihad is the invention of a few small radical clerics. The ignorant, ill-informed Muslim public believes these things. Its an information war we are fighting.

Right now, we're building 14 permanent bases in Iraq, we have an embassy the size of the vatican. You don't think that sends a signal that we plan to be there for a while? Muslims don't want this, they don't want foreigners occupying their land. We would be pissed if Russia claimed rights to Alaska and invaded it.

Have we forgotten the golden rule?

[Laworkerbee]

Jihad is the invention of a few small radical clerics. The ignorant, ill-informed Muslim public believes these things. Its an information war we are fighting.

Why don't you learn about Islam a bit before making such asinine statements such as this.

[Chulo]

And you plan to change that by invading their countries and inadvertently killing thousands of them? Oh man, you need a lesson in PR.

Again, the only time u can justify that argument is post 9/11 - but pre 9/11 there was still plenty of attacks that were not because of military bases but rather culture and in the name of religion.



People won't bother you if you look strong and mind your own business. People will bother you if you go around bullying people and invading and occupying their land.


Jihad is the invention of a few small radical clerics. The ignorant, ill-informed Muslim public believes these things. Its an information war we are fighting.


Have we forgotten the golden rule?
i agree with LAWB - u are mistaking the basic tenets of islam, that is your metanarrative when you say "leave them alone and they will leave you alone" but their relgion REQUIRES them to expand and convert as many people possible, and by the sword is not out of the question.

[Shellshock1918]

Why don't you learn about Islam a bit before making such asinine statements such as this.

Um, I'm not the one who is mistaken here.

[Shellshock1918]

i agree with LAWB - u are mistaking the basic tenets of islam, that is your metanarrative when you say "leave them alone and they will leave you alone" but their relgion REQUIRES them to expand and convert as many people possible, and by the sword is not out of the question.

So is the call of Christians. To spread Christianity....your point is?

[dangerclose]

So is the call of Christians. To spread Christianity....your point is?


Yeah but the Great Commission isn't a call to kill those who refuse.



Enough with the symmetrical comparisons between Christianity and Islam. Compare what the two founders taught then get back to us. Oh and, the crusades were like a thousand years ago and those who perpetrated it are getting their just rewards now.

[Laworkerbee]

Um, I'm not the one who is mistaken here.

*Jihad is the invention of a few small radical clerics*

Um yes you are. Jihad's are called often, one wages a jihad to quit cigarettes for example. You probably have never held a quron in your life.

[dangerclose]

*Jihad is the invention of a few small radical clerics*

Um yes you are. Jihad's are called often, one wages a jihad to quit cigarettes for example. You probably have never held a quron in your life.


Who needs a jihad when cigarettes are like $7 a pack?

[Laworkerbee]

Who needs a jihad when cigarettes are like $7 a pack?

That would be me :|

[Chulo]

So is the call of Christians. To spread Christianity....your point is?
there is a difference between a conversion by faith and a conversion by the sword.

a command to go spread the teachings and kill those who do not accept, a teaching that it is ok to lie and steal from non-believers because they are not worthy, a calling to take every opportunity to use and take advantage of those non-believers, who teaches that by killing and murdering nonbelievers you are rewarded?... that is nothing like Christianity.

as for you understanding of islam? i think its weak if u think the Jihad was an invention of some teachers.. The jihad is known as the 6th pillar of Islam - which means the majority / all of them practice it or are in acceptance of it.

here are some direct teaching from the koran . which i assure is not the teachings of some teachers, but the direct teaching of Mohammad


The directive of the Jihad given to Muslims in Qur'an is:[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#_note-jjihad)
These verses told Muslims that they should not merely fight the Banu Quraish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quraish) if they resist them in offering Hajj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj), but the Qur’an goes on to say that they should continue to fight the Banu Quraish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quraish) until the persecution perpetrated by them is uprooted and Islam prevails in the whole of Arabia. Initially Muslims were required to fulfill this responsibility even if the enemy was ten times their might. Afterwards, the Qur'an reduced the burden of this responsibility.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#_note-jjihad) As in Qur'an:
Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

—Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an), [Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) 8:65 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.065)]

[From] now, God has lightened your [task] for He knows that there is now weakness amongst you: But [ever so], if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred, and if a thousand, they will subdue two thousand, with the leave of God: for God is with those who patiently persevere.

—Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an), [Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) 8:66 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html#008.066)]
Some interpret above verses that Jihad never becomes obligatory unless the military might of the Muslims is up to a certain level. In the times of Muhammad, when large scale conversions took place in the later phase, the Qur'an reduced the Muslim to enemy ratio to 1:2. It seems that Muslims should not only consolidate their moral character, but it is also imperative for them to build their military might if they want to wage Jihad when the need arises. The Qur’an gave a similar directive to Muslims of Muhammad times in the following words:[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#_note-jjihad)

Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged.

—Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an),

[Shellshock1918]

Yeah but the Great Commission isn't a call to kill those who refuse.


Tell that to the Crusades.

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

[9mmRifle]

The Crusades have been over for 800 years, its a very long time ago when the Euros were in the dark ages wanting to stone non believers or spread Christianity by the sword. Muslims have freedom of religion in Europe for a long time and they have full rights in the United States, there are no 'Crusades' anymore and I think these radical Muslims should STFU about the Crusades, its ridiculous.

[Shellshock1918]

The Crusades have been over for 800 years, its a very long time ago when the Euros were in the dark ages wanting to stone non believers or spread Christianity by the sword. Muslims have freedom of religion in Europe for a long time and they have full rights in the United States, there are no 'Crusades' anymore and I think these radical Muslims should STFU about the Crusades, its ridiculous.
They still remember. At the time of the Crusades, the Muslims were experiencing their enlightment. For a while, the Muslim world was waaaay ahead of the European Christian world. But it ended prematurely.

Remember back when the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan started, Bush first called it a "Crusade" then had to retract it because of sensitivity to Muslims?

Its an information war more than anything. The more good information we are able to spread about democracy, liberty and equality, the more likely we are to see the Muslim world change. Invading their countries won't solve our problem.

[Chulo]

Tell that to the Crusades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crusades
the crusades were done for political and military reason rather than religious. Religion was only an excuse. There is no part in the New Testament that tells Christians to go kill other people for not converting or listening, rather the New testament requires one to love everyone- especially those that do not believe in the same thing you do. Are we perfect? no, and there has been many times man/believers have done the opposite, in the name of Christianity, BUT that is NOT what the Bible teachers.

why do people always use the Crusades as a reason to point out in this argument when the Crusades had nothing to do with what the Bible teaches. while on the other hand the Koran teaches and orders its believers to kill by the sword.



They still remember. At the time of the Crusades, the Muslims were experiencing their enlightment. For a while, the Muslim world was waaaay ahead of the European Christian world. But it ended prematurely.

Remember back when the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan started, Bush first called it a "Crusade" then had to retract it because of sensitivity to Muslims?

Its an information war more than anything. The more good information we are able to spread about democracy, liberty and equality, the more likely we are to see the Muslim world change. Invading their countries won't solve our problem.

i agree, the crusades are remembered and a bitter point between Christians and Muslims ,and it was wrong to use that word in the context President Bush did. Stupid mistake, but an even stupider mistake is that to think you can sit back and talk it out by saying "we are not doing anything, so dont do anything to us" because the very fact we exist and our society exist is against their religion. Can u assure that our ideologies such as democracy and equality dont interact with their society? because that is exactly what their religion teaches,and what any true Islamic nation strives to do - Afghanistan for one . There is a good paper on "Moderate Islam is not true Islam" u should read it. If there is to be a common peaceful co-existence between any other culture with Islam, then Islam must be able to change. Because they are the intolerant ones

[Shellshock1918]

the crusades were done for political and military reason rather than religious. Religion was only an excuse. There is no part in the New Testament that tells Christians to go kill other people for not converting or listening, rather the New testament requires one to love everyone- especially those that do not believe in the same thing you do. Are we perfect? no, and there has been many times man/believers have done the opposite, in the name of Christianity, BUT that is NOT what the Bible teachers.
Thats the whole idea. The perversion of religion is what leads to these conflicts.

I take it you are not Muslim and have never been Muslim. Unless you are a theological scholar with a concentration in Islam, I don't think you completely understand their religion.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Jihad





i agree, the crusades are remembered and a bitter point between Christians and Muslims ,and it was wrong to use that word in the context President Bush did. Stupid mistake, but an even stupider mistake is that to think you can sit back and talk it out by saying "we are not doing anything, so dont do anything to us" because the very fact we exist and our society exist is against their religion. But that's just it, we have been doing things to Muslims. In their eyes, the claims of the radical clerics are justified when we invade their countries, bomb them and occupy their holy lands.


Can u assure that our ideologies such as democracy and equality dont interact with their society? because that is exactly what their religion teaches,and what any true Islamic nation strives to do - Afghanistan for one . There is a good paper on "Moderate Islam is not true Islam" u should read it. If there is to be a common peaceful co-existence between any other culture with Islam, then Islam must be able to change. Because they are the intolerant onesWhat the Islamic world lacks is enlightenment. They were at one time far more advanced than the Western world.

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

"The main views on the causes of decline comprise the following: political mismanagement after the early Caliphs in the 8th century, closure of the gates of ijtihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad) (independent reasoning) in the 12th century and the institutionalisation of taqleed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqleed) (imitation) rather than ijtihad or bid‘ah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid%E2%80%98ah) (innovation), foreign involvement by invading forces and colonial powers (11th century Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades), 13th century Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols), and 19th century Europeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European)), and the disruption to the cycle of equity based on Ibn Khaldun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun)'s famous model of Asabiyyah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah) (the rise and fall of civilizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization))."

[Chulo]

Thats the whole idea. The perversion of religion is what leads to these conflicts.

I take it you are not Muslim and have never been Muslim. Unless you are a theological scholar with a concentration in Islam, I don't think you completely understand their religion.
"
ok.. so u want to play the scholar card i have:
Bachelor of Science degree with my minor in international relations (2004)
Masters of Arts in religion with a concentration in Missions and world religions (2007)
Masters of Divinity with a concentration on apologetics and Eastern religions (to be completed in 2008)

so whats your understanding of their religion?

[Chulo]

But that's just it, we have been doing things to Muslims. In their eyes, the claims of the radical clerics are justified when we invade their countries, bomb them and occupy their holy lands.
and the plan is to just withdraw and hope that they wont bother you, and that is a big mistake, because if you are not on the defensive then you are soon going to be facing attacks- the point of Islam is to convert, and "radical" Islam is growing in popularity and dont have much of a problem recruiting from "moderate" Islam.
you use invasion over and over as a justification for their attacks, but ignore their own religion, or the fact that the invasion scale you are talking about is only post 9/11 - so what caused the 9/11? Osama Bin-laden only started attacking american targets around 1992, but in the early 1980s he was already striking out against those that were going against the ethics of his religion. and i consider Osama a real follower of Muhammad and his teachings . again, read the papers on the flaws of "Moderate Islam" and their deviations from real islam to better understand the real agenda.



What the Islamic world lacks is enlightenment. They were at one time far more advanced than the Western world.

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

"The main views on the causes of decline comprise the following: political mismanagement after the early Caliphs in the 8th century, closure of the gates of ijtihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad) (independent reasoning) in the 12th century and the institutionalisation of taqleed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqleed) (imitation) rather than ijtihad or bid‘ah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid%E2%80%98ah) (innovation), foreign involvement by invading forces and colonial powers (11th century Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades), 13th century Mongols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols), and 19th century Europeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European)), and the disruption to the cycle of equity based on Ibn Khaldun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun)'s famous model of Asabiyyah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asabiyyah) (the rise and fall of civilizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization))."
Enlightenment from your metanarrative and the western thinking, while to them they believe they are doing quite good, take Afghanistan under the Taliban - which was praised to be an ideal Muslim rule under Sharia law .

So as your quotes show, their downfall was because of a natural cycle while at the same time the strict control of freewill and independent reasoning. So what if they were at once the most advance nation? one time or the other every other major nation has had that title, but do you see them calling on killing all non-believers?

[Laworkerbee]

I take it you are not Muslim and have never been Muslim. Unless you are a theological scholar with a concentration in Islam, I don't think you completely understand their religion.

You are quite a laugh, let me ask you again have you ever even picked up a quron? or do you consider Wiki enough for your research. :roll:

[Shellshock1918]

ok.. so u want to play the scholar card i have:
Bachelor of Science degree with my minor in international relations (2004)
Masters of Arts in religion with a concentration in Missions and world religions (2007)
Masters of Divinity with a concentration on apologetics and Eastern religions (to be completed in 2008)

so whats your understanding of their religion?

So with all of that knowledge and understanding you have learned, why do you continue to take a position of ignorance?

[Shellshock1918]

and the plan is to just withdraw and hope that they wont bother you, and that is a big mistake, because if you are not on the defensive then you are soon going to be facing attacks- the point of Islam is to convert, and "radical" Islam is growing in popularity and dont have much of a problem recruiting from "moderate" Islam.
you use invasion over and over as a justification for their attacks, but ignore their own religion, or the fact that the invasion scale you are talking about is only post 9/11 - so what caused the 9/11? Osama Bin-laden only started attacking american targets around 1992, but in the early 1980s he was already striking out against those that were going against the ethics of his religion. and i consider Osama a real follower of Muhammad and his teachings . again, read the papers on the flaws of "Moderate Islam" and their deviations from real islam to better understand the real agenda.
How can you claim to have college level degrees yet still take the side of ignorance?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

The reasons laid out in this fatwa are the reasons bin laden uses to justify terrorism against the United States.

We've been involved in the Middle East since atleast the 1950s when we overthrew Mossadeq and replaced him with the Shah for oil reasons.
To say we were just "minding our own business" prior to 9/11 is just stupid.

[Chulo]

How can you claim to have college level degrees yet still take the side of ignorance?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

The reasons laid out in this fatwa are the reasons bin laden uses to justify terrorism against the United States.

We've been involved in the Middle East since atleast the 1950s when we overthrew Mossadeq and replaced him with the Shah for oil reasons.
To say we were just "minding our own business" prior to 9/11 is just stupid.

im still waiting to know how you got your deep understanding of Islam and your insight. Because by your own admission you have to know and understand the religion before u can argue against it. So what are your credentials ?

p.s Bin Ladens first attack against America was in 1992 - but here were plenty of terrorist attacks prior to that.

[Shellshock1918]

im still waiting to know how you got your deep understanding of Islam and your insight. Because by your own admission you have to know and understand the religion before u can argue against it. So what are your credentials ?


In terms of degrees I have none. But, I was not out their saying that Islam means this or Islam means that. I merely stated we have to look at it from their perspective and not assume that their religion is filled with hate. You were claiming you understood Islam and I wanted to know what credentials you had that qualified you to make statements like that.

Regardless, you still take the position of ignorance. Saying that Islam is bad is an ignorant statement. Saying that somehow Islam encourages violence is ignorant.

[Chulo]

In terms of degrees I have none. But, I was not out their saying that Islam means this or Islam means that. I merely stated we have to look at it from their perspective and not assume that their religion is filled with hate. You were claiming you understood Islam and I wanted to know what credentials you had that qualified you to make statements like that.

Regardless, you still take the position of ignorance. Saying that Islam is bad is an ignorant statement. Saying that somehow Islam encourages violence is ignorant.
if you don't know what u are talking about and by your own admission Unless you are a theological scholar with a concentration in Islam, I don't think you completely understand their religion. then what position are you to tell me what i have studied is wrong and that what i believe is ignorant?

[Shellshock1918]

if you don't know what u are talking about and by your own admission Unless you are a theological scholar with a concentration in Islam, I don't think you completely understand their religion. then what position are you to tell me what i have studied is wrong and that what i believe is ignorant?
Saying that their religion encourages them to wage violence is just stupid. It is not true of most all religions and it sure as hell isn't true of Islam.

For someone who claims to have studied religion you take fairly ignorant stance.
Anybody can just make **** up its easy. "I have a Masters in Theology with a concentration in Islam from UNC Wilmington (2005)"
Its what you say that proves whether or not you know what you are talking about. For many years before our enlightenment, Christians justified violence in spreading religion and fighting for their God. The Crusades are a big example.

[Chulo]

Saying that their religion encourages them to wage violence is just stupid. It is not true of most all religions and it sure as hell isn't true of Islam.

For someone who claims to have studied religion you take fairly ignorant stance.
Anybody can just make **** up its easy. "I have a Masters in Theology with a concentration in Islam from UNC Wilmington (2005)"
Its what you say that proves whether or not you know what you are talking about. For many years before our enlightenment, Christians justified violence in spreading religion and fighting for their God. The Crusades are a big example.
You ask for a creditability stance on what comments i make saying that unless i have studied it and understand the religion i cant comment on it, so i tell you what my creditability is , but you cant stand up to your own standard?

am i ignorant because of my findings or because it does not match your belief?

and im not making up my degrees, would u like me to PM u a pic of my MAR ? would that convince u? i doublt it, because you are set on your belief, and i just say, dont listen to the media or what other people have to say, but rather read and discover yourself.

[Shellshock1918]

and im not making up my degrees, would u like me to PM u a pic of my MAR ? would that convince u? i doublt it, because you are set on your belief, and i just say, dont listen to the media or what other people have to say, but rather read and discover yourself.

The general idea of the people who back this war is that Islam is evil and is all about violence. I find that ignorant.

[Chulo]

The general idea of the people who back this war is that Islam is evil and is all about violence. I find that ignorant.
you may find it / think it ignorant, but what proof is that based on? that is your personal opinion but dont say how u came to that conclusion. i told you my position and my basis for it and my educational background which you said is required to make a proper conclusion.


the flaw in your argument is that you yourself has not met your own standards to have a valid option