- This topic has 1,215 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 11, 2009 at 10:23 AM #481337November 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM #480627
surveyor
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
November 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM #480798Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
November 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM #481159Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
November 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM #481238Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
November 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM #481460Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=surveyor][quote=sdduuuude]
Has nothing to do with Muslim or not Muslim. The quesiton is – what was this guy trying to accomplish and did he demand anything first ?[/quote]Bzzzzt! Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.
[/quote]How could I be wrong ?
I asked a question – did he demand anything first ?Just because he wants the people to sing the praises of Islam doesn’t mean that he actually asked them to before or after the violence. In other words, hey may have wanted to terrorize – that is, scare the people into converting, but did he actually terrorize ? That’s all I’m saying.
Unless you issue demands, you are just a killer, not a terrorist.
I’d label this a hate-crime or a fundamental religious nut-job, but not terrorism the way I believe it is defined.[/quote]
=sigh= Ok, let me spell it out for you then.
According to the scripture I quoted, many muslims are commanded by the Koran to TERRORIZE. This interpretation of the Koran has been upheld by many of their religious scholars, even up to today. So your statement of whether he was muslim or not muslim having nothing to do with his action was wrong. It had everything to do with his being a muslim.
You know, maybe he didn’t fit your definition of terrorist. But when you look at the Koran and his actions, he is following the commandments of the Koran and Mohammed’s example, who said to TERRORIZE. So he is a terrorist.
There may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
Instantly assuming that his being muslim had nothing to do with his actions is willful blindness, the same kind of willful blindness that let the military to keep him inside despite his long history of disturbing behavior. It was this blindness that allowed him to kill those people in Ft. Hood.
That’s how you were wrong.
Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”
November 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM #480661Arraya
ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
That’s because it has not been seen as necessary. Terrorism is the little brother of warfare. And a symptom of desperation fused with religious extremism aka taking religious scripture as literal.
Right now fundamentalist evangelicals and zionists are actively supporting ethnic cleansing in Gaza because of prophecy and divine right. Which under any humane standards could be construed as “terrorism”. However, this is state sanctioned religious fundamentalism and the cause of much of the resurgence of muslim religious killing. Actually, I could make a case that it is instrumental in achieving imperial goals and welcomed by heads of state for various reasons. Put another way: If terrorism subsides we would look like assholes with our military over huge oil deposits, wouldn’t we Or Israel would not be able to emancipate land as easily. It works very well for achieving ulterior motives.
Jihadists actively seeking to kill innocents took a several hundred year hiatus until the past few decades. It is helpful to understand why rather than blathering about religious scripture. Because two can play that game.
As russ points out above, Imperialism can be construed as forms of “terrorism” as well, because it is essentially killing people that don’t want to play along. These days it’s much harder to do just for the sake of coveting.
Pre-christianity most empires just concurred for the glory of it. It became necessary to manufacture a “casus belli” as the Romans called it, a pretext or excuse for war at some point. Note that the Romans didn’t need that in the earliest days of their republic, they just went out and conquered as they pleased!
Nowadays it’s such a set notion in all people that one shouldn’t start a war without just cause, that propagandists everywhere are kept gainfully employed coming up with such excuses because we really have not changed that much.
November 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM #480831ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
That’s because it has not been seen as necessary. Terrorism is the little brother of warfare. And a symptom of desperation fused with religious extremism aka taking religious scripture as literal.
Right now fundamentalist evangelicals and zionists are actively supporting ethnic cleansing in Gaza because of prophecy and divine right. Which under any humane standards could be construed as “terrorism”. However, this is state sanctioned religious fundamentalism and the cause of much of the resurgence of muslim religious killing. Actually, I could make a case that it is instrumental in achieving imperial goals and welcomed by heads of state for various reasons. Put another way: If terrorism subsides we would look like assholes with our military over huge oil deposits, wouldn’t we Or Israel would not be able to emancipate land as easily. It works very well for achieving ulterior motives.
Jihadists actively seeking to kill innocents took a several hundred year hiatus until the past few decades. It is helpful to understand why rather than blathering about religious scripture. Because two can play that game.
As russ points out above, Imperialism can be construed as forms of “terrorism” as well, because it is essentially killing people that don’t want to play along. These days it’s much harder to do just for the sake of coveting.
Pre-christianity most empires just concurred for the glory of it. It became necessary to manufacture a “casus belli” as the Romans called it, a pretext or excuse for war at some point. Note that the Romans didn’t need that in the earliest days of their republic, they just went out and conquered as they pleased!
Nowadays it’s such a set notion in all people that one shouldn’t start a war without just cause, that propagandists everywhere are kept gainfully employed coming up with such excuses because we really have not changed that much.
November 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM #481193ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
That’s because it has not been seen as necessary. Terrorism is the little brother of warfare. And a symptom of desperation fused with religious extremism aka taking religious scripture as literal.
Right now fundamentalist evangelicals and zionists are actively supporting ethnic cleansing in Gaza because of prophecy and divine right. Which under any humane standards could be construed as “terrorism”. However, this is state sanctioned religious fundamentalism and the cause of much of the resurgence of muslim religious killing. Actually, I could make a case that it is instrumental in achieving imperial goals and welcomed by heads of state for various reasons. Put another way: If terrorism subsides we would look like assholes with our military over huge oil deposits, wouldn’t we Or Israel would not be able to emancipate land as easily. It works very well for achieving ulterior motives.
Jihadists actively seeking to kill innocents took a several hundred year hiatus until the past few decades. It is helpful to understand why rather than blathering about religious scripture. Because two can play that game.
As russ points out above, Imperialism can be construed as forms of “terrorism” as well, because it is essentially killing people that don’t want to play along. These days it’s much harder to do just for the sake of coveting.
Pre-christianity most empires just concurred for the glory of it. It became necessary to manufacture a “casus belli” as the Romans called it, a pretext or excuse for war at some point. Note that the Romans didn’t need that in the earliest days of their republic, they just went out and conquered as they pleased!
Nowadays it’s such a set notion in all people that one shouldn’t start a war without just cause, that propagandists everywhere are kept gainfully employed coming up with such excuses because we really have not changed that much.
November 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM #481273ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
That’s because it has not been seen as necessary. Terrorism is the little brother of warfare. And a symptom of desperation fused with religious extremism aka taking religious scripture as literal.
Right now fundamentalist evangelicals and zionists are actively supporting ethnic cleansing in Gaza because of prophecy and divine right. Which under any humane standards could be construed as “terrorism”. However, this is state sanctioned religious fundamentalism and the cause of much of the resurgence of muslim religious killing. Actually, I could make a case that it is instrumental in achieving imperial goals and welcomed by heads of state for various reasons. Put another way: If terrorism subsides we would look like assholes with our military over huge oil deposits, wouldn’t we Or Israel would not be able to emancipate land as easily. It works very well for achieving ulterior motives.
Jihadists actively seeking to kill innocents took a several hundred year hiatus until the past few decades. It is helpful to understand why rather than blathering about religious scripture. Because two can play that game.
As russ points out above, Imperialism can be construed as forms of “terrorism” as well, because it is essentially killing people that don’t want to play along. These days it’s much harder to do just for the sake of coveting.
Pre-christianity most empires just concurred for the glory of it. It became necessary to manufacture a “casus belli” as the Romans called it, a pretext or excuse for war at some point. Note that the Romans didn’t need that in the earliest days of their republic, they just went out and conquered as they pleased!
Nowadays it’s such a set notion in all people that one shouldn’t start a war without just cause, that propagandists everywhere are kept gainfully employed coming up with such excuses because we really have not changed that much.
November 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM #481495ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
That’s because it has not been seen as necessary. Terrorism is the little brother of warfare. And a symptom of desperation fused with religious extremism aka taking religious scripture as literal.
Right now fundamentalist evangelicals and zionists are actively supporting ethnic cleansing in Gaza because of prophecy and divine right. Which under any humane standards could be construed as “terrorism”. However, this is state sanctioned religious fundamentalism and the cause of much of the resurgence of muslim religious killing. Actually, I could make a case that it is instrumental in achieving imperial goals and welcomed by heads of state for various reasons. Put another way: If terrorism subsides we would look like assholes with our military over huge oil deposits, wouldn’t we Or Israel would not be able to emancipate land as easily. It works very well for achieving ulterior motives.
Jihadists actively seeking to kill innocents took a several hundred year hiatus until the past few decades. It is helpful to understand why rather than blathering about religious scripture. Because two can play that game.
As russ points out above, Imperialism can be construed as forms of “terrorism” as well, because it is essentially killing people that don’t want to play along. These days it’s much harder to do just for the sake of coveting.
Pre-christianity most empires just concurred for the glory of it. It became necessary to manufacture a “casus belli” as the Romans called it, a pretext or excuse for war at some point. Note that the Romans didn’t need that in the earliest days of their republic, they just went out and conquered as they pleased!
Nowadays it’s such a set notion in all people that one shouldn’t start a war without just cause, that propagandists everywhere are kept gainfully employed coming up with such excuses because we really have not changed that much.
November 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM #480666ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
What about this guy…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/
WICHITA, Kansas – Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions through decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher and his wife was in the choir.
November 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM #480836ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
What about this guy…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/
WICHITA, Kansas – Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions through decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher and his wife was in the choir.
November 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM #481198ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
What about this guy…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/
WICHITA, Kansas – Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions through decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher and his wife was in the choir.
November 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM #481278ParticipantThere may be violent verses in the Bible, but there are none that actively say or have been interpreted by religious scholars as “go kill people today”.
What about this guy…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/
WICHITA, Kansas – Dr. George Tiller, who remained one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions through decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher and his wife was in the choir.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.