Terrorism

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
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.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
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.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.

I think that Asian Americans are still searching for identity in America.

I’m generalizing here, but to many Asians, liberal/Democratic means Blacks and Hispanics, so they’d rather go Republican and White. Plus Republican is more anti-communist so that’s less Maoist and Viet Cong.

In feudal society, you want to ingratiate yourself with the masters so that you may climb the social ladder.

If you go to Asian weddings, you’ll always see the richest invited guests seated at the elevated table.

Also a large portion of Asian immigrants have found their way to America via the Church. Koreans in America are predominately fervent Christians

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.

I think that Asian Americans are still searching for identity in America.

I’m generalizing here, but to many Asians, liberal/Democratic means Blacks and Hispanics, so they’d rather go Republican and White. Plus Republican is more anti-communist so that’s less Maoist and Viet Cong.

In feudal society, you want to ingratiate yourself with the masters so that you may climb the social ladder.

If you go to Asian weddings, you’ll always see the richest invited guests seated at the elevated table.

Also a large portion of Asian immigrants have found their way to America via the Church. Koreans in America are predominately fervent Christians

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.

I think that Asian Americans are still searching for identity in America.

I’m generalizing here, but to many Asians, liberal/Democratic means Blacks and Hispanics, so they’d rather go Republican and White. Plus Republican is more anti-communist so that’s less Maoist and Viet Cong.

In feudal society, you want to ingratiate yourself with the masters so that you may climb the social ladder.

If you go to Asian weddings, you’ll always see the richest invited guests seated at the elevated table.

Also a large portion of Asian immigrants have found their way to America via the Church. Koreans in America are predominately fervent Christians

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.

I think that Asian Americans are still searching for identity in America.

I’m generalizing here, but to many Asians, liberal/Democratic means Blacks and Hispanics, so they’d rather go Republican and White. Plus Republican is more anti-communist so that’s less Maoist and Viet Cong.

In feudal society, you want to ingratiate yourself with the masters so that you may climb the social ladder.

If you go to Asian weddings, you’ll always see the richest invited guests seated at the elevated table.

Also a large portion of Asian immigrants have found their way to America via the Church. Koreans in America are predominately fervent Christians

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

Liberal progressive ideals will always win out, sooner or later. Conservatives just retard progress.

I think that Asian Americans are still searching for identity in America.

I’m generalizing here, but to many Asians, liberal/Democratic means Blacks and Hispanics, so they’d rather go Republican and White. Plus Republican is more anti-communist so that’s less Maoist and Viet Cong.

In feudal society, you want to ingratiate yourself with the masters so that you may climb the social ladder.

If you go to Asian weddings, you’ll always see the richest invited guests seated at the elevated table.

Also a large portion of Asian immigrants have found their way to America via the Church. Koreans in America are predominately fervent Christians

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.[/quote]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.[/quote]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.

[quote=urbanrealtor]I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).[/quote]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. That is why I called you a name-caller. The name-calling argument is generally a weak argument. Instead of debating the facts, you try to label your opponent negatively.

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.

[quote=urbanrealtor]For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.[/quote]

See? Right there, you’re using the name-calling argument again. Instead of debating the facts, you’re arguing that because a “fringe-author” submitted evidence, you’re instantly dismissing him instead of debating the evidence itself.

Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.

[Arraya]

Pay attention everybody.

This is the central tenet of Surveyor’s insanity.

He sites that all muslims are required to fight according to the koran.

His proof for this are Koran verses. When confronted with other religious verses form other religions preaching violence and scholars preaching it. He dismisses it as a non-event

He says it is different because it IS.

He can only say that it is different by citing verses and what a few clerics said.

Does everybody see the circular logic.

This is surveyor’s “belief” and it is not based on evidence. Yet, he calls them “facts” haha

Which to him are koran verses, then you go back to verses of other religions books.

It it a never ending circle based on iron age violent poetry and surveyor’s “feeling” of how 1.5 billion people are supposed interpret this.

YOU CAN NOT MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT ANY 1000 YEAR OLD RELIGION AND CALL IT FACT. IT IS NOT A FACT, IT IS AN INTERPRETATION.

YOU WANT THE VIOLENT INTERPRETATION OF THE KORAN. BUT THAT IS ALL IT IS, YOUR INTERPRETATION AND WANT.

What it is, he really really wants it to be so. So he has created it in his head, that it is so. Surveyor’s interpretation is the correct on everybody. hahaha

You sound like a bible thumper saying your interpretation of the bible is correct, because it is.

Surveyor, leave us out of your madness. Thanks, buddy

[Arraya]

Pay attention everybody.

This is the central tenet of Surveyor’s insanity.

He sites that all muslims are required to fight according to the koran.

His proof for this are Koran verses. When confronted with other religious verses form other religions preaching violence and scholars preaching it. He dismisses it as a non-event

He says it is different because it IS.

He can only say that it is different by citing verses and what a few clerics said.

Does everybody see the circular logic.

This is surveyor’s “belief” and it is not based on evidence. Yet, he calls them “facts” haha

Which to him are koran verses, then you go back to verses of other religions books.

It it a never ending circle based on iron age violent poetry and surveyor’s “feeling” of how 1.5 billion people are supposed interpret this.

YOU CAN NOT MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT ANY 1000 YEAR OLD RELIGION AND CALL IT FACT. IT IS NOT A FACT, IT IS AN INTERPRETATION.

YOU WANT THE VIOLENT INTERPRETATION OF THE KORAN. BUT THAT IS ALL IT IS, YOUR INTERPRETATION AND WANT.

What it is, he really really wants it to be so. So he has created it in his head, that it is so. Surveyor’s interpretation is the correct on everybody. hahaha

You sound like a bible thumper saying your interpretation of the bible is correct, because it is.

Surveyor, leave us out of your madness. Thanks, buddy

[Arraya]

Pay attention everybody.

This is the central tenet of Surveyor’s insanity.

He sites that all muslims are required to fight according to the koran.

His proof for this are Koran verses. When confronted with other religious verses form other religions preaching violence and scholars preaching it. He dismisses it as a non-event

He says it is different because it IS.

He can only say that it is different by citing verses and what a few clerics said.

Does everybody see the circular logic.

This is surveyor’s “belief” and it is not based on evidence. Yet, he calls them “facts” haha

Which to him are koran verses, then you go back to verses of other religions books.

It it a never ending circle based on iron age violent poetry and surveyor’s “feeling” of how 1.5 billion people are supposed interpret this.

YOU CAN NOT MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT ANY 1000 YEAR OLD RELIGION AND CALL IT FACT. IT IS NOT A FACT, IT IS AN INTERPRETATION.

YOU WANT THE VIOLENT INTERPRETATION OF THE KORAN. BUT THAT IS ALL IT IS, YOUR INTERPRETATION AND WANT.

What it is, he really really wants it to be so. So he has created it in his head, that it is so. Surveyor’s interpretation is the correct on everybody. hahaha

You sound like a bible thumper saying your interpretation of the bible is correct, because it is.

Surveyor, leave us out of your madness. Thanks, buddy

[Arraya]

Pay attention everybody.

This is the central tenet of Surveyor’s insanity.

He sites that all muslims are required to fight according to the koran.

His proof for this are Koran verses. When confronted with other religious verses form other religions preaching violence and scholars preaching it. He dismisses it as a non-event

He says it is different because it IS.

He can only say that it is different by citing verses and what a few clerics said.

Does everybody see the circular logic.

This is surveyor’s “belief” and it is not based on evidence. Yet, he calls them “facts” haha

Which to him are koran verses, then you go back to verses of other religions books.

It it a never ending circle based on iron age violent poetry and surveyor’s “feeling” of how 1.5 billion people are supposed interpret this.

YOU CAN NOT MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT ABOUT ANY 1000 YEAR OLD RELIGION AND CALL IT FACT. IT IS NOT A FACT, IT IS AN INTERPRETATION.

YOU WANT THE VIOLENT INTERPRETATION OF THE KORAN. BUT THAT IS ALL IT IS, YOUR INTERPRETATION AND WANT.

What it is, he really really wants it to be so. So he has created it in his head, that it is so. Surveyor’s interpretation is the correct on everybody. hahaha

You sound like a bible thumper saying your interpretation of the bible is correct, because it is.

Surveyor, leave us out of your madness. Thanks, buddy

[Author]

Posts