Terrorism

[surveyor]

Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) 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.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.

[Arraya]

As for the facts, (reading comprehension time), I was referring to the fact that I have facts on my side that Hasan was a jihadist. Your position, that religion and him being muslim had nothing to do with his actions and that it was some sort of CIA conspiracy – that had no facts. And it still has no facts.

That was never OUR argument. Geez, talk about comprehension. We were debating violence being taught by religions AND I countered you point by point.

Remember your 3 points on why Islam was different. Which I disagreed and showed you, all three religions met all the criteria which you set fourth. EXCEPT the universal call for violence which you just made up in your fairy tail laden reality. When confronted you said “Well they say it’s not universal but they are lying” In typical surveyor fashion replacing beliefs with evidence, while claiming he has the “facts”.

As for Hasan, at first, I thought it was some sort of cover up because of the other alleged shooters in early reporting. Which btw, were never explained and just disappeared w/o explanation. However, since they don’t report on them or even offer an explanation we don’t talk about it. Because the media is free and always looking out for honesty in reporting, right?

Here is another article on how they manipulated the original reporting. Can’t trust anything, I tell ya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/massive-media-fail-female_b_355600.html

I never really cared if he killed because of religion or craziness. B/c it is the SAME shit to me.

Another headline for the story could have been:

BREAKING NEWS: Man slowly loses mind due to pressures of war and finds sanctuary in the violence of religion, army and CIA fail to see obvious warning for years!

Not quite as sexy as your terrorist porn, is it.

[Arraya]

As for the facts, (reading comprehension time), I was referring to the fact that I have facts on my side that Hasan was a jihadist. Your position, that religion and him being muslim had nothing to do with his actions and that it was some sort of CIA conspiracy – that had no facts. And it still has no facts.

That was never OUR argument. Geez, talk about comprehension. We were debating violence being taught by religions AND I countered you point by point.

Remember your 3 points on why Islam was different. Which I disagreed and showed you, all three religions met all the criteria which you set fourth. EXCEPT the universal call for violence which you just made up in your fairy tail laden reality. When confronted you said “Well they say it’s not universal but they are lying” In typical surveyor fashion replacing beliefs with evidence, while claiming he has the “facts”.

As for Hasan, at first, I thought it was some sort of cover up because of the other alleged shooters in early reporting. Which btw, were never explained and just disappeared w/o explanation. However, since they don’t report on them or even offer an explanation we don’t talk about it. Because the media is free and always looking out for honesty in reporting, right?

Here is another article on how they manipulated the original reporting. Can’t trust anything, I tell ya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/massive-media-fail-female_b_355600.html

I never really cared if he killed because of religion or craziness. B/c it is the SAME shit to me.

Another headline for the story could have been:

BREAKING NEWS: Man slowly loses mind due to pressures of war and finds sanctuary in the violence of religion, army and CIA fail to see obvious warning for years!

Not quite as sexy as your terrorist porn, is it.

[Arraya]

As for the facts, (reading comprehension time), I was referring to the fact that I have facts on my side that Hasan was a jihadist. Your position, that religion and him being muslim had nothing to do with his actions and that it was some sort of CIA conspiracy – that had no facts. And it still has no facts.

That was never OUR argument. Geez, talk about comprehension. We were debating violence being taught by religions AND I countered you point by point.

Remember your 3 points on why Islam was different. Which I disagreed and showed you, all three religions met all the criteria which you set fourth. EXCEPT the universal call for violence which you just made up in your fairy tail laden reality. When confronted you said “Well they say it’s not universal but they are lying” In typical surveyor fashion replacing beliefs with evidence, while claiming he has the “facts”.

As for Hasan, at first, I thought it was some sort of cover up because of the other alleged shooters in early reporting. Which btw, were never explained and just disappeared w/o explanation. However, since they don’t report on them or even offer an explanation we don’t talk about it. Because the media is free and always looking out for honesty in reporting, right?

Here is another article on how they manipulated the original reporting. Can’t trust anything, I tell ya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/massive-media-fail-female_b_355600.html

I never really cared if he killed because of religion or craziness. B/c it is the SAME shit to me.

Another headline for the story could have been:

BREAKING NEWS: Man slowly loses mind due to pressures of war and finds sanctuary in the violence of religion, army and CIA fail to see obvious warning for years!

Not quite as sexy as your terrorist porn, is it.

[Arraya]

As for the facts, (reading comprehension time), I was referring to the fact that I have facts on my side that Hasan was a jihadist. Your position, that religion and him being muslim had nothing to do with his actions and that it was some sort of CIA conspiracy – that had no facts. And it still has no facts.

That was never OUR argument. Geez, talk about comprehension. We were debating violence being taught by religions AND I countered you point by point.

Remember your 3 points on why Islam was different. Which I disagreed and showed you, all three religions met all the criteria which you set fourth. EXCEPT the universal call for violence which you just made up in your fairy tail laden reality. When confronted you said “Well they say it’s not universal but they are lying” In typical surveyor fashion replacing beliefs with evidence, while claiming he has the “facts”.

As for Hasan, at first, I thought it was some sort of cover up because of the other alleged shooters in early reporting. Which btw, were never explained and just disappeared w/o explanation. However, since they don’t report on them or even offer an explanation we don’t talk about it. Because the media is free and always looking out for honesty in reporting, right?

Here is another article on how they manipulated the original reporting. Can’t trust anything, I tell ya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/massive-media-fail-female_b_355600.html

I never really cared if he killed because of religion or craziness. B/c it is the SAME shit to me.

Another headline for the story could have been:

BREAKING NEWS: Man slowly loses mind due to pressures of war and finds sanctuary in the violence of religion, army and CIA fail to see obvious warning for years!

Not quite as sexy as your terrorist porn, is it.

[Arraya]

As for the facts, (reading comprehension time), I was referring to the fact that I have facts on my side that Hasan was a jihadist. Your position, that religion and him being muslim had nothing to do with his actions and that it was some sort of CIA conspiracy – that had no facts. And it still has no facts.

That was never OUR argument. Geez, talk about comprehension. We were debating violence being taught by religions AND I countered you point by point.

Remember your 3 points on why Islam was different. Which I disagreed and showed you, all three religions met all the criteria which you set fourth. EXCEPT the universal call for violence which you just made up in your fairy tail laden reality. When confronted you said “Well they say it’s not universal but they are lying” In typical surveyor fashion replacing beliefs with evidence, while claiming he has the “facts”.

As for Hasan, at first, I thought it was some sort of cover up because of the other alleged shooters in early reporting. Which btw, were never explained and just disappeared w/o explanation. However, since they don’t report on them or even offer an explanation we don’t talk about it. Because the media is free and always looking out for honesty in reporting, right?

Here is another article on how they manipulated the original reporting. Can’t trust anything, I tell ya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/massive-media-fail-female_b_355600.html

I never really cared if he killed because of religion or craziness. B/c it is the SAME shit to me.

Another headline for the story could have been:

BREAKING NEWS: Man slowly loses mind due to pressures of war and finds sanctuary in the violence of religion, army and CIA fail to see obvious warning for years!

Not quite as sexy as your terrorist porn, is it.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor]Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) 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.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.[/quote]
I didn’t immediately dismiss the idea of the Koran’s most war justifying passages being a part of Jihad preparation. I said it would not surprise me given the current situation that people would use it as a weapon. If I saw someone doing that,especially with all the other indications Hasan was giving yes that would be a red flag. You are drawing the conclusion that he was let be by the CIA because they also don’t get this, and you don’t know that.

Your energy on assuming that everyone is not as great of a profiler as you and doesn’t care about sabateurs is a bit frightening. Something still gives me the feeling that you are a bit paranoid and would not give the average muslim in the street a fair shake until your version of the New Koran is aproved, perhaps. Not saying it is true but…I get that feeling. Even the comment you made regarding protecting muslims from internment had to include “if they swore to kill Jihadis”. Would you have asked a Jew in the holocaust to prove he was not a radical zionist before saving them from absurd ideological persecution ? Would you have problems with the Talmud that would interefere with your humanity? I really don’t think that would be the way to do it. I think that maybe has a tinge of bigotry. Not sure, there is something about you or perhaps something about me and the rest that has us picking up this view.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor]Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) 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.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.[/quote]
I didn’t immediately dismiss the idea of the Koran’s most war justifying passages being a part of Jihad preparation. I said it would not surprise me given the current situation that people would use it as a weapon. If I saw someone doing that,especially with all the other indications Hasan was giving yes that would be a red flag. You are drawing the conclusion that he was let be by the CIA because they also don’t get this, and you don’t know that.

Your energy on assuming that everyone is not as great of a profiler as you and doesn’t care about sabateurs is a bit frightening. Something still gives me the feeling that you are a bit paranoid and would not give the average muslim in the street a fair shake until your version of the New Koran is aproved, perhaps. Not saying it is true but…I get that feeling. Even the comment you made regarding protecting muslims from internment had to include “if they swore to kill Jihadis”. Would you have asked a Jew in the holocaust to prove he was not a radical zionist before saving them from absurd ideological persecution ? Would you have problems with the Talmud that would interefere with your humanity? I really don’t think that would be the way to do it. I think that maybe has a tinge of bigotry. Not sure, there is something about you or perhaps something about me and the rest that has us picking up this view.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor]Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) 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.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.[/quote]
I didn’t immediately dismiss the idea of the Koran’s most war justifying passages being a part of Jihad preparation. I said it would not surprise me given the current situation that people would use it as a weapon. If I saw someone doing that,especially with all the other indications Hasan was giving yes that would be a red flag. You are drawing the conclusion that he was let be by the CIA because they also don’t get this, and you don’t know that.

Your energy on assuming that everyone is not as great of a profiler as you and doesn’t care about sabateurs is a bit frightening. Something still gives me the feeling that you are a bit paranoid and would not give the average muslim in the street a fair shake until your version of the New Koran is aproved, perhaps. Not saying it is true but…I get that feeling. Even the comment you made regarding protecting muslims from internment had to include “if they swore to kill Jihadis”. Would you have asked a Jew in the holocaust to prove he was not a radical zionist before saving them from absurd ideological persecution ? Would you have problems with the Talmud that would interefere with your humanity? I really don’t think that would be the way to do it. I think that maybe has a tinge of bigotry. Not sure, there is something about you or perhaps something about me and the rest that has us picking up this view.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor]Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) 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.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.[/quote]
I didn’t immediately dismiss the idea of the Koran’s most war justifying passages being a part of Jihad preparation. I said it would not surprise me given the current situation that people would use it as a weapon. If I saw someone doing that,especially with all the other indications Hasan was giving yes that would be a red flag. You are drawing the conclusion that he was let be by the CIA because they also don’t get this, and you don’t know that.

Your energy on assuming that everyone is not as great of a profiler as you and doesn’t care about sabateurs is a bit frightening. Something still gives me the feeling that you are a bit paranoid and would not give the average muslim in the street a fair shake until your version of the New Koran is aproved, perhaps. Not saying it is true but…I get that feeling. Even the comment you made regarding protecting muslims from internment had to include “if they swore to kill Jihadis”. Would you have asked a Jew in the holocaust to prove he was not a radical zionist before saving them from absurd ideological persecution ? Would you have problems with the Talmud that would interefere with your humanity? I really don’t think that would be the way to do it. I think that maybe has a tinge of bigotry. Not sure, there is something about you or perhaps something about me and the rest that has us picking up this view.

[NotCranky]

[quote=surveyor]Russell:

In your case, yes, it would be correct that it would not be the fault of the bible. However, what if the bible said “you must kill the abortion doctors.” Would it be okay to blame the bible then? Maybe not in a single instance. How about if it was done a 100 times? 1000? How about 2,980? Could we perhaps blame the bible then?

However, we do know that there is no such phrase in the bible.

How about the koran?

Yes it does say kill the unbelievers.

Qur’an (2:191-193) 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.

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

All major sects of Islam teach and agree with these phrases. And this is what is taught in many mosques.

So is it ok now to say that the core teachings of islamic are “fundamental” to the creation of a jihadist?

If the jihadists say that they are commanded to fight unbelievers because the koran says so, is it ok then to say that they are basing their beliefs on the koran?

I mean, don’t take my word for it. They can tell you.

[quote=Russell]If anything is to blame for the Jihad I don’t think it is a book.

Getting back to the proponents of Jihad, if you think these same people would quit fighting under the current circumstances because of a new and abridged, Surveyor approved Koran, that doesn’t make sense.You act like they have no reason to fight the U.S.[/quote]

No, I don’t think they’d quit fighting altogether, but it would certainly cut off a major portion of their recruiting angle.

Still, don’t you think we should consider the religion being a probable cause of the behavior of the jihadist instead of immediately dismissing it like you just did here? Because remember, that’s what Hasan’s superiors did. And 14 people are dead because of it.

I’m just saying.[/quote]
I didn’t immediately dismiss the idea of the Koran’s most war justifying passages being a part of Jihad preparation. I said it would not surprise me given the current situation that people would use it as a weapon. If I saw someone doing that,especially with all the other indications Hasan was giving yes that would be a red flag. You are drawing the conclusion that he was let be by the CIA because they also don’t get this, and you don’t know that.

Your energy on assuming that everyone is not as great of a profiler as you and doesn’t care about sabateurs is a bit frightening. Something still gives me the feeling that you are a bit paranoid and would not give the average muslim in the street a fair shake until your version of the New Koran is aproved, perhaps. Not saying it is true but…I get that feeling. Even the comment you made regarding protecting muslims from internment had to include “if they swore to kill Jihadis”. Would you have asked a Jew in the holocaust to prove he was not a radical zionist before saving them from absurd ideological persecution ? Would you have problems with the Talmud that would interefere with your humanity? I really don’t think that would be the way to do it. I think that maybe has a tinge of bigotry. Not sure, there is something about you or perhaps something about me and the rest that has us picking up this view.

[Arraya]

Don’t tell surveyor that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.

[Arraya]

Don’t tell surveyor that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.

[Arraya]

Don’t tell surveyor that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.

[Arraya]

Don’t tell surveyor that Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Koran.

[Author]

Posts