Is the war in Iraq creating more terrorists?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Do you feel that as a result of the war in Iraq, more terrorists are being recruited? Is the threat to the United States ever growing ? According to the newly declassified National Intelligence Estitmate, the threat is ever growing. Should this be the case, are we not witnessing the opposite effect of what was intended by going there in the first place? A thing I hear frequently by those that support the war in Iraq is that "atleast we are fighting them there"...or "They are drawn to Iraq so we will be able to kill them all there"...or the notorious Dick Cheney statement whereby he stated that the terrorists' were "...in their last throves...", all things considered, do you view the war in Iraq as a fundamental strategic objective in the war on terrorism or do you view it as a liability in our ability to effieciently conduct the war on terrorism? Just curious where my peers stand on this issue...thoughts?

Here is a link to the newly declassified NIE:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

*efficiently

[houseofpaint]

if they invaded our country....don't you think we'd give em hell too?

i think the word "terrorist" is being overused and abused.

[houseofpaint]

i know this is a sensative subject, but what the hell is "war on terrorism"? who is really terrorizing who? this war is one of those never-ending wars. i think we are blinded by the media/government that changes our views on the real truth. but we'll never know the real truth i suppose. i just don't know if losing a bunch of our american lives over there is worth it.

[therky42]

if they invaded our country....don't you think we'd give em hell too?

i think the word "terrorist" is being overused and abused.
:nod:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

i know this is a sensative subject, but what the hell is "war on terrorism"? who is really terrorizing who? this war is one of those never-ending wars. i think we are blinded by the media/government that changes our views on the real truth. but we'll never know the real truth i suppose. i just don't know if losing a bunch of our american lives over there is worth it.

I'm right there with you but I'm tryin to be indifferent in my question asking so as to not present myself as having an agenda behind my question...which I don't, I'm genuinely curious what others think....but for the record, I strongly disagree/disagreed with going to Iraq in the first place and even more so now...Now as far as the war on terrorism, we were attacked...hence the reason we went to Afganistan...Terrorists terrorize...their intent is to achieve their political and other goals by means of "terrorising" those that oppose their views...in other words making people scared to oppose them for fear of attack...we need to fight this war but we need to do so honestly....and intelligently

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

*terrorizing

[MACK]

:mblah05: :dontknow: :icon_scra :idea1: :lurk: :pottytrai :occasion1 :bomb: :headbang: :downtown: :la: :icon_thum :icon_rabb :hello: That's how I feel about it.

[RACER X]

think the "new terrorist" already had it in there heads thats what they were gonna do/be.

[houseofpaint]

have you watched that 9/11 conspiracy theory documentary? that shit makes you think, true or false, we know what our government is capable of. did you know that the previous owner sold the twin towers to a new owner, and the new owner happened to buy an insurance policy on acts of terrorism? or how about george bush's brother was head of security for the twin towers? and why did that fbi/cia building next to the towers collapse as well without being hit by a plane? the empire state building had a 737 boeing crash into it some odd years ago, burned longer, but did not collapse? i think there's more to it then the eye can see.

i'm in NO WAY saying it wasn't those terrorist bastards, but what if it wasn't? we only know what the media tells us....

[TxVrod]

I think it's gotten worse. However, I think the security on the homefront has gotten way better - hence the lack of further attacks.

Now, agree or disagree with occupying Iraq - we are there and cannot just pull out at this point. BUT! A plan needs to be in action to finish. That's what's pissing me off the most. I soooo tired of the politically correct BS. We need to be using their tactics - torcher, beheading, whatever. I like the burying them with pigs idea. Do unto them what they're willing to do to us - only worse.

[Gigolo Jason]

Nope, there were lots of terrirists before the invasion in Iraq. They had targeted the US and US interests dozens of times before 9/11/01, and that was well before Iraq 2.

Iraq has given us a proving ground in their own back yard where we can accomodate their desire to meet Alla and get their virgins.

[bentgixxer]

think the "new terrorist" already had it in there heads thats what they were gonna do/be.




+18572858345

all these " new terrorists " are, is the kids that were raised by terrorist families, going on their own and doing what they were taught.

hence, we need to pull out our troops, and create the biggest glass field EVER.. :nod:

[houseofpaint]

We need to be using their tactics - torcher, beheading, whatever. I like the burying them with pigs idea. Do unto them what they're willing to do to us - only worse.

:notworthy

screw an eye for an eye.....an eye for an eye and a leg.

[TxVrod]

:notworthy

screw an eye for an eye.....an eye for an eye and a leg.

which is why I added "or worse"

[jrock]

Right^^ I think that we shouldnt let the soldiers defend themselves here with one arm tied behind their back. We need to have strong objectives. We need a clear solution for withdrawal. Use our superior weaponry and tactics so that lives arent lost while out on patrol.....I am sick of attending memorials here.

[Gigolo Jason]

We need to take the gloves off in Iraq and in other parts of the middle east.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

think the "new terrorist" already had it in there heads thats what they were gonna do/be.

I disagree...

I don't think you really think about what you type be fore you type it...

[RACER X]

the empire state building had a 737 boeing crash into it some odd years ago, burned longer, but did not collapse?


proof?

this is all i can find

"July 28, 1945 - a United States Army Air Forces B-25 bomber bound for Newark Airport crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building after the pilot became lost in a heavy fog bank situated over Manhattan. All three crewmen were killed as well as eleven office workers in the building. "

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I think it's gotten worse. However, I think the security on the homefront has gotten way better - hence the lack of further attacks.

Now, agree or disagree with occupying Iraq - we are there and cannot just pull out at this point. BUT! A plan needs to be in action to finish. That's what's pissing me off the most. I soooo tired of the politically correct BS. We need to be using their tactics - torcher, beheading, whatever. I like the burying them with pigs idea. Do unto them what they're willing to do to us - only worse.

Yea we dayum sure can't just leave now...that would be ignorant. But yes I agree, we need a plan...not sure about the other stuff, I have arguments for them but I'm tryin to stay on topic...

[RACER X]

I disagree...


thats fine. really it is.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Right^^ I think that we shouldnt let the soldiers defend themselves here with one arm tied behind their back. We need to have strong objectives. We need a clear solution for withdrawal. Use our superior weaponry and tactics so that lives arent lost while out on patrol.....I am sick of attending memorials here.

Same here...we had a memorial last tuesday for 15 soldiers...that is waaaay tooo many at one time. I definately think they should change the policies on when -soldiers- are allowed to fire on someone and when not to...I don't give a dayum who says we may be being brutal but we must be able to defend ourselves before we can defend others...

[jrock]

I viewed a good movie that was made by some soldiers here in 04. Real eye-opener for you people who get your political views from TV. I will find the title and see about posting it here. I'm sure it will change a lot of these anti-war on terrorism bunch. I try to stay away from TV over here cause all I see is a lot of the same BullShit that a lot of people here spew ...pure anti Bush propaganda!! Bullshit!! If you people could only see it first hand and stop that hear-say shit....

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

thats fine. really it is.

Just read the NIE...open your eyes this time k :icon_thum

[therky42]

Only one problem with "taking the gloves off in Iraq/MiddleEast" and "using the same tactics as they are" ........

You still have other countries that are capable to attack and damage the US. If we are to do something too drastic in Iraq(which I agree that we need to do something different) then you have to think what counrty(s) are you gonna scare? You have to think there are other countries just waiting for their chance to take us down a peg or two and are willing to give anything for the chance......Iraq could be better yes, but if we start fighting the way the terrorist do then we are not better than them and what happens when we piss off the rest of the world for doing it and we are fighting more than just "Terrorism" and fighting N. Korea and Iran, and Syria......etc.......


We do not have the man power anymore to handle this becasue less and less americans are willing to enlist to fight for this country....because they "do not believe in this war".......

Not trying to offend or argue with anyone....but this is a complicated mess! my $.02

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I viewed a good movie that was made by some soldiers here in 04. Real eye-opener for you people who get your political views from TV. I will find the title and see about posting it here. I'm sure it will change a lot of these anti-war on terrorism bunch. I try to stay away from TV over here cause all I see is a lot of the same BullShit that a lot of people here spew ...pure anti Bush propaganda!! Bullshit!! If you people could only see it first hand and stop that hear-say shit....

I'm anti-Bush, pro war on terror...read my posts....I seriously hope you don't tie the two together. I work for the military, have an above C clearance and happen to see alot of things others don't see...I don't spew propaganda...I present you with evidence and you are to come to your own conclusions...not sure whether you were referring to me specifically but I thought I'd address it....

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Only one problem with "taking the gloves off in Iraq/MiddleEast" and "using the same tactics as they are" ........

You still have other countries that are capable to attack and damage the US. If we are to do something too drastic in Iraq(which I agree that we need to do something different) then you have to think what counrty(s) are you gonna scare? You have to think there are other countries just waiting for their chance to take us down a peg or two and are willing to give anything for the chance......Iraq could be better yes, but if we start fighting the way the terrorist do then we are not better than them and what happens when we piss off the rest of the world for doing it and we are fighting more than just "Terrorism" and fighting N. Korea and Iran, and Syria......etc.......


We do not have the man power anymore to handle this becasue less and less americans are willing to enlist to fight for this country....because they "do not believe in this war".......

Not trying to offend or argue with anyone....but this is a complicated mess! my $.02

+1

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

not including the first post...

I'm right there with you but I'm tryin to be indifferent in my question asking so as to not present myself as having an agenda behind my question...which I don't, I'm genuinely curious what others think....but for the record, I strongly disagree/disagreed with going to Iraq in the first place and even more so now...Now as far as the war on terrorism, we were attacked...hence the reason we went to Afganistan...Terrorists terrorize...their intent is to achieve their political and other goals by means of "terrorising" those that oppose their views...in other words making people scared to oppose them for fear of attack...we need to fight this war but we need to do so honestly....and intelligently

Yea we dayum sure can't just leave now...that would be ignorant. But yes I agree, we need a plan...not sure about the other stuff, I have arguments for them but I'm tryin to stay on topic...

Same here...we had a memorial last tuesday for 15 soldiers...that is waaaay tooo many at one time. I definately think they should change the policies on when -soldiers- are allowed to fire on someone and when not to...I don't give a dayum who says we may be being brutal but we must be able to defend ourselves before we can defend others...

[bentgixxer]

i would enlist in a heartbeat, but medical conditions from youth prevent me from doing so unfortunately.

[TxVrod]

Rumsfeld needs to go.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Rumsfeld needs to go.

Best dayum post today...

[therky42]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaJuNsOuLjA
Same here...we had a memorial last tuesday for 15 soldiers...that is waaaay tooo many at one time. I definately think they should change the policies on when -soldiers- are allowed to fire on someone and when not to...I don't give a dayum who says we may be being brutal but we must be able to defend ourselves before we can defend others...

This part i agree is a problem...could not count how many times marines had to go infront of a board and explain why they had "shot up a car" or shot into a building, or anything else that resulted in a civilians death that was not considered an all out fire fight! A board is you with your (highest officer) on the scene, explaining to a group of Military lawyers what happened so they can determine if you were wrong or in the ROE's! They were not even out on the "battle field" with you!!!! Damn mess!

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

This part i agree is a problem...could not count how many times marines had to go infront of a board and explain why they had "shot up a car" or shot into a building, or anything else that resulted in a civilians death that was not considered an all out fire fight! A board is you with your (highest officer) on the scene, explaining to a group of Military lawyers what happened so they can determine if you were wrong or in the ROE's! They were not even out on the "battle field" with you!!!! Damn mess!

Yea I have several friends of mine that had been shot because they were required by their units rules of engagement not to fire even if the ****er directly in front of you has a gun...I'm sorry but I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 as the quote goes...I also think they should restrict certain routes for Military personnel only so as to limit casualties due to IED attacks because that shyt is out of hand...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

In addition to my other initial questions I pose this question: Do you think that absent the war in Iraq, we would better be able to conduct the war on terror ?

[Moody]

It is the war on verbs, adgetives and nouns.... oh my! (Repeat as nescessary until you giggle.)

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

prepositions too...

Coulda swore I was gonna get more responses to this...craziness!

[Moody]

prepositions too...

Coulda swore I was gonna get more responses to this...craziness!
I for one am mentally tired of talking about it. :sad7:

[TxVrod]

In addition to my other initial questions I pose this question: Do you think that absent the war in Iraq, we would better be able to conduct the war on terror ?

I think that is going to be one of the great unknowns....

I'm too busy to delve into it but I understand that the report cited but the NY Times doesn't read like they reported? AS if someone wanted them to have egg on their face.... another crooked political ploy?

[Moody]

I think at this point we could almost be sure we could have done a better job without the invasion of Iraq. We could have focused on the borders and who is here and not here in the country. Of course we would have to worry about war on our soil at that point but, who really knows. Iraq, is simply a diversion it seems. The biggest scam of all time.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I for one am mentally tired of talking about it. :sad7:

I feel you...but I would just like more people to take interest so that we can force certain groups of people to have more accountability next time and we don't run into this same type of mistake again in the future. I would like to have the legislative and executive branchs of the govt have a public debate to see what mistakes we made where and to hold people accountable for their actions...

I think that is going to be one of the great unknowns....

I'm too busy to delve into it but I understand that the report cited but the NY Times doesn't read like they reported? AS if someone wanted them to have egg on their face.... another crooked political ploy?

Yea...the NY times and Washington Post are about as liberal as they come. But they are a necessary evil...

I think at this point we could almost be sure we could have done a better job without the invasion of Iraq. We could have focused on the borders and who is here and not here in the country. Of course we would have to worry about war on our soil at that point but, who really knows. Iraq, is simply a diversion it seems. The biggest scam of all time.

+1

[Moody]

Just heard more ships are being send to the Middle East to prepare for Iran. :eh:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Just heard more ships are being send to the Middle East to prepare for Iran. :eh:

Exactly...although I feel Iran is a bit different than Iraq in that Iran is a state sponsor of terror, they have called for the complete destruction of Israel and have been known to have lied about their nuclear program and how far along they were with it...they've already given hizbollah rockets and other arms...if they get a nuke, you call it a night in the middle east pimp...Israel will strike and they will toss one back...next thing you know Europe gets in the mix...world war 111

[jrock]

werd^

[jrock]

Its not a matter of if
Its a matter of when..

[jrock]

...if they get a nuke, you call it a night in the middle east pimp...Israel will strike and they will toss one back...next thing you know Europe gets in the mix...world war 111
__________________

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Its not a matter of if
Its a matter of when..

...not if we decide to use a few tactical nukes (which I will sponsor 100%)

[jrock]

And no, bro, that wasnt aimed at you. Post aforementioned

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I tell you what tho...the next big war that involves the U.S...I strongly believe China and Russia will be on the opposing side...

[jrock]

...not if we decide to use a few tactical nukes (which I will sponsor 100%)


Instigator!!!!!!:keke:

Seriously, if it comes to that, I would back it 100%

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

And no, bro, that wasnt aimed at you. Post aforementioned

Preciate your being specific...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Instigator!!!!!!:keke:

Seriously, if it comes to that, I would back it 100%

Hey they started it!!

**** EM..:keke:

[jrock]

Right!! hehehe

[Moody]

Ok here is an interesting thing... I am pretty passive and very much like what one would call a hippy at times. I was against ever going into Iraq from the get go because some things just did not make sense or add up but, once we are at war i am all about winning. So why the hell did we not drop a couple of nukes like we did on Japan and get on with whatever else makes us happy.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Ok here is an interesting thing... I am pretty passive and very much like what one would call a hippy at times. I was against ever going into Iraq from the get go because some things just did not make sense or add up but, once we are at war i am all about winning. So why the hell did we not drop a couple of nukes like we did on Japan and get on with whatever else makes us happy.

Collateral Damage is a very bad thing when it comes to a people that were already terrorized by their leader...no nukes in Iraq. Although tactical use of that resource may have been a better option...I say we should have got a sniper...gave him 16 bullets (or as many as necessary) to kill off Sadaam and 16 of his closest administration buddies....16-20 bullets are helluva lot cheaper than a war...

[Rick H.I.C.]

Collateral Damage is a very bad thing when it comes to a people that were already terrorized by their leader...no nukes in Iraq. Although tactical use of that resource may have been a better option...I say we should have got a sniper...gave him 16 bullets (or as many as necessary) to kill off Sadaam and 16 of his closest administration buddies....16-20 bullets are helluva lot cheaper than a war...
Look what happened when we were there and the looting began. Most of the ones creating all the problems over there have a third world village idiot theology.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Look what happened when we were there and the looting began. Most of the ones creating all the problems over there have a third world village idiot theology.

Nah, that is a given. The looting had more to do with poverty stricken people that saw a green light, for the lack of security, to loot stores w/o the threat of reprimand. The people there blowing up our soldiers and causing bodily harm to Iraqi citizens are either terrorists or sect specific death squads...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

....just think California '93 or New Orleans 2005

[Yamadude]

One thing I know for sure, torture prisoners and you will create some mad mfkers.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

One thing I know for sure, torture prisoners and you will create some mad mfkers.

yes indeed...

[AliceInChains02]

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2006/09/24/1159036415717.html

[Rick H.I.C.]

One thing I know for sure, torture prisoners and you will create some mad mfkers.
We could always just cut their heads off. Or is that only ok for others to do to Americans?

[2XTURBO]

Is Islam creating more terrorists?

[Rick H.I.C.]

No just making guys that can't get any action hungry for 72 virgins.

[Gigolo Jason]

Is Islam creating more terrorists?

Yes

[paniro187]

Yes
is bush creating more "terrorists"

[law750]

I find this question very loaded. I would say that it is impossible to answer. On the face of it, no, the WAR is not creating more terrorists. Wars don't create, they destroy - like we've destroyed zarqawi, hussein, Faruq and thousands of others. We've foiled thousands of terrorist attacks in the meantime as well. So, the question ought to be: Is the war on terror having a positive effect in terms of defeating the ideology that it set out to defeat? The answer has to be calculated in terms of how many important people have we taken down vs how many new ones have stepped up; but also, in what manner and to what extent have we hurt their infrastructure? I mean, maybe there are several more "terrorists", but Al Q. was a very complex and well oiled machine before, and it simply isn't anymore, because it has been under heavy attack. Its resources are spent trying to survive rather than to coordinate. Sure, new leaders step up, but do they know all the ins and outs like the ppl they're replacing? We can't tell.

We also don't know what would have happened had the war not started. What we do know is: Hussein would be raping, murdering, and tyrannizing; and Al Queada would have more of its original leaders. On the other hand, American troops are dead and dying daily, and if there was no war, that wouldn't be going on. Further, we went into a dictatorship, and successfully removed the scum sucking dictator (yay), but we left a wake of civil war and instability that seems hopeless. So, it's difficult to say. Like I said, I don't think there's a clean answer, but I definitely believe ISLAM is the primary source of terrorism the world over. Period. No question.

[Gigolo Jason]

is bush creating more "terrorists"

How can Bush create something that already exists?

[law750]

he can create more of something that already exists; or he could create another of something that already exists

he can't be creating more terrorists than radical islam though. It would be ludicrous to think. And thats just the type of thing that many do - put something that is obviously the fault of radical islam at the feet of Bush. . .one of the few in the world trying to fight it. Typical

[Gigolo Jason]

he can't be creating more terrorists than radical islam though. It would be ludicrous to think. And thats just the type of thing that many do - put something that is obviously the fault of radical islam at the feet of Bush. . .one of the few in the world trying to fight it. Typical

Exactly

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I find this question very loaded.

I asked and number of questions and none were loaded and I am having a bit of a hard time understanding how you could come to such a conclusion. Sure there was a statement that carried a little conviction, but it was not even posed as a question, rather presented as a statement. With that said I reassure you that that was not the intention of said question(s)...

I offer you my quote from before...
I'm right there with you but I'm tryin to be indifferent in my question asking so as to not present myself as having an agenda behind my question...which I don't, I'm genuinely curious what others think....but for the record, I strongly disagree/disagreed with going to Iraq in the first place and even more so now...Now as far as the war on terrorism, we were attacked...hence the reason we went to Afganistan...Terrorists terrorize...their intent is to achieve their political and other goals by means of "terrorising" those that oppose their views...in other words making people scared to oppose them for fear of attack...we need to fight this war but we need to do so honestly....and intelligently

...no, the WAR is not creating more terrorists. Wars don't create, they destroy - like we've destroyed zarqawi, hussein, Faruq and thousands of others.

You may be referring to the "poll" question but I posed the question in that way so as to shorten the question. The question as presented for discussion was this: Do you feel that as a result of the war in Iraq, more terrorists are being recruited? Considering the new wording, I'm not inferring that "the war" is "creating" more terrorists, but rather, as a result of A...can we conclude B? So now that you are aware of my reasoning for the use the word "create", we can gather that I'm not ignorant of the issues presented in the aforementioned quote. Now as for "destroying" said individuals...none of those listed coordinated the attacks on September 11, 2001.

...Is the war on terror having a positive effect in terms of defeating the ideology that it set out to defeat?

I am sure that the war is accomplishing some of those goals, and by that I mean that we are definately killing and/or capturing a great deal of terrorists. Are we however as you said before, creating a more positive situation for ourselves globally? That can be a bit tricky but the information within the Intelligence community would be where I would begin to look (NIE Report, Senate Intel Report post war in Iraq, etc...), definately not politicians. Another good question would be whether or not we are in all reality, making ourselves safer due to the course of actions we take?

Sure, we've foiled plenty of terrorist attacks, but it took a span 8 years for us to be attacked twice here in the US by terrorists ('93 WTC bombing where 16 people were killed, not including terrorists and 9.11.2001 over 3k killed)...it has since, only been 5 years. God forbid such a thing should happen, but we should not make the mistake of counting our eggs in the basket just yet. One could assume though, that we are not achieving our goals of minimizing the "terror risk" because that would entail minimizing the amount of terrorists, by my judgement, and according the new NIE from the Department of National Intelligence, the terror threat has actually "grown", despite our efforts. Take from that assessment what you will, but it-the theory that the terror threat has grown- is written explicitly.

The answer has to be calculated in terms of how many important people have we taken down vs how many new ones have stepped up; but also, in what manner and to what extent have we hurt their infrastructure?

We've hurt al-Queada's infrastructure but they are very much alive and equally as potent. Worse yet is the fact that the Taliban in Afganistan has had what can only be defined as a resurgence. Attacks are up and the are getting more and more effective. Considering the latter statements (which are fact and not opinion) along with the fact that we are seeing an upsurge of smaller groups -not connected to al-Queada- carrying out effective operations, one can only conclude that the "ideology" is spreading, and rather rapidly at that.

I mean, maybe there are several more "terrorists", but Al Q. was a very complex and well oiled machine before, and it simply isn't anymore, because it has been under heavy attack. Its resources are spent trying to survive rather than to coordinate. Sure, new leaders step up, but do they know all the ins and outs like the ppl they're replacing? We can't tell.

I believe "several" is hardly a suitable word for the statement you are making. The group al-Queada's operations span further than Iraq, so yes we are hurting them in Iraq, but what about back in Afganistan, you know?- the forgotten war (or several of the other countries they operate in). As far as them losing leaders and the question of their continued effectiveness. They are increasingly effective in their attacks in Iraq, partly due to outside influence and assistance (Iran/Syria). I know they are effective when they possess the ability to blow an M1 Abrams tank up! There should be no question as to how "effective" they are, atleast for the moment.

We also don't know what would have happened had the war not started. What we do know is: Hussein would be raping, murdering, and tyrannizing; and Al Queada would have more of its original leaders. On the other hand, American troops are dead and dying daily, and if there was no war, that wouldn't be going on.

Sure we removed Sadaam, but people are still being raped, murdered, mutilated and tyrannized all over the world -Darfur in particular- so lets not use that as the rationale behind going to Iraq. Hell even in Iraq, people are being kidnapped, beheaded and tortured. If you think nothing of this, then you try telling that to someone in that situation (doubt any contrary arguements such as "but your country is moving toward democracy" will be warmly received). Even if you were to try to use that rationale, it is seperate of our goal of fighting terror -al-Queada in particular.

Further, we went into a dictatorship, and successfully removed the scum sucking dictator (yay), but we left a wake of civil war and instability that seems hopeless.

How about Kim Jong Ill, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Fidel or Raul Castro, this Venezuelan moron (whose name I refuse to use) or any other number of African leaders? All dictators...and yes we did make a bit of a mess over there, which is why we must see it through to a favorable tide.

So, it's difficult to say. Like I said, I don't think there's a clean answer, but I definitely believe ISLAM is the primary source of terrorism the world over. Period. No question.

True statement. Islam is the leading contributor of terrorists, however, we must not confuse that with Islam being a violent religion that endorses terrorism. All cars are automobiles but not all automobiles are cars....

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

...no, the WAR is not creating more terrorists. Wars don't create, they destroy - like we've destroyed zarqawi, hussein, Faruq and thousands of others.

One more thing...

War can in fact create...it has, in the past, created jobs. We need steel for our military vehicles and ships, Manufacturers would therefore need to hire workers to keep up with the demand because of what would be our increased output of those military apparatuses. So I'm sorry, your idea of wars only destroying and not creating proves false.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront-United_States-World_War_II

Quote from the section entitled "Labor":

"The unemployment problem ended in the United States with the beginning of World War II, as stepped up wartime production created millions of new jobs..."

[Moody]

Islam has always been a religion spread by the sword it seems.

[TxVrod]

Please don't confuse Islam with EXTREMIST Islam. There is a peaceful Islam under which MOST Muslims reside.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Please don't confuse Islam with EXTREMIST Islam. There is a peaceful Islam under which MOST Muslims reside.

+1...Thank you. There IS a difference...

[Moody]

Please don't confuse Islam with EXTREMIST Islam. There is a peaceful Islam under which MOST Muslims reside.
That does not change it's history and any muslim will tell you, they are still all muslims.

[paniro187]

Islam has always been a religion spread by the sword it seems.the same can be said about christianity.........

[Moody]

the same can be said about christianity.........
Maybe, although lets not confuse what is preached in the religion and how the religion has been used by Kings and Emperors. :hs:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

That does not change it's history and any muslim will tell you, they are still all muslims.

I'm sorry but not ALL terrorists are Islamic...that sir, is counterfactual....

[TxVrod]

That does not change it's history and any muslim will tell you, they are still all muslims.

You lost me there... what your point? And no, I'm not trying to be flippant here.

[Moody]

I'm sorry but not ALL terrorists are Islamic...that sir, is counterfactual....
Nowhere in my statement did it say that.... wow, leftfield.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Maybe, although lets not confuse what is preached in the religion and how the religion has been used by Kings and Emperors. :hs:

Look familiar?

"When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3
He shall say: 'Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. 4 For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.'"-Deut 20:1

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Nowhere in my statement did it say that.... wow, leftfield.

Hmm...that's curious...what did you mean by this then ?

...they are still all muslims.

[law750]

Paniro: the same can't be said of Christianity. I choose you. (haha to use southpark parlence). Cajun: I don't think we disagree as much as maybe you think. I'm sorry for taking you outa context with the "create" issue. I just wanted to push the debate a bit deeper and not give room for petty answers (I dont accuse you of giving such answers). I was against the war when it started, and am as ready as anyone for it to be over. I don't like how we changed rhetoric from, "W'sMD" to "for the freedom of the Iraqi ppl and to establish democracy." I swear I try to stay level headed with this stuff, I'm just sayin its more complicated than Bush is the devil and let's team up with the French to destroy the US. The one thing that keeps me from siding with someone like you all the way is this: You quoted the stats about terrorist attack frequency in the US as a way of saying we aren't necessarily safer cuz we'd have to make it at least 8 years without an attack to be even where we were before. I agree with that analysis and never claimed we were safer. However, the prob is that you have put yourself in the position of having a "little victory" the day this country gets nuked by some islamo-fascist. I can't put myself there. I am too American to align my opinions with the defeat of the greatest nation ever. Aside from this shade of difference, you and me can clink our beers together and be buddies for all I care -- Cheers

same to you Paniro . . . we disagree less than it sometimes seems on here. All three of us are the types to argue for fun, and push the intensity in a dialogue. No harm no foul. Jeez I sound like a hallmark card ova heah.

[WFO]

don't think we are creating more terrorists but we sure aren't making friends or winning the popularity contest ... you know the difference between friends and enemies?? ... enemies accumulate and we're doing a fine job of building up our reserves

[paniro187]

Paniro: the same can't be said of Christianity. I choose you. (haha to use southpark parlence). Cajun: I don't think we disagree as much as maybe you think. I'm sorry for taking you outa context with the "create" issue. I just wanted to push the debate a bit deeper and not give room for petty answers (I dont accuse you of giving such answers). I was against the war when it started, and am as ready as anyone for it to be over. I don't like how we changed rhetoric from, "W'sMD" to "for the freedom of the Iraqi ppl and to establish democracy." I swear I try to stay level headed with this stuff, I'm just sayin its more complicated than Bush is the devil and let's team up with the French to destroy the US. The one thing that keeps me from siding with someone like you all the way is this: You quoted the stats about terrorist attack frequency in the US as a way of saying we aren't necessarily safer cuz we'd have to make it at least 8 years without an attack to be even where we were before. I agree with that analysis and never claimed we were safer. However, the prob is that you have put yourself in the position of having a "little victory" the day this country gets nuked by some islamo-fascist. I can't put myself there. I am too American to align my opinions with the defeat of the greatest nation ever. Aside from this shade of difference, you and me can clink our beers together and be buddies for all I care -- Cheers

same to you Paniro . . . we disagree less than it sometimes seems on here. All three of us are the types to argue for fun, and push the intensity in a dialogue. No harm no foul. Jeez I sound like a hallmark card ova heah.starbucks meeting of the minds will call it the trifecta. with tx vrod the judge. :keke: alice in chains not invited. well he is invited but contact smoke might blow my UA.......:keke:

[TxVrod]

:laughing4

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Paniro: the same can't be said of Christianity. I choose you. (haha to use southpark parlence). Cajun: I don't think we disagree as much as maybe you think. I'm sorry for taking you outa context with the "create" issue. I just wanted to push the debate a bit deeper and not give room for petty answers (I dont accuse you of giving such answers). I was against the war when it started, and am as ready as anyone for it to be over. I don't like how we changed rhetoric from, "W'sMD" to "for the freedom of the Iraqi ppl and to establish democracy." I swear I try to stay level headed with this stuff, I'm just sayin its more complicated than Bush is the devil and let's team up with the French to destroy the US. The one thing that keeps me from siding with someone like you all the way is this: You quoted the stats about terrorist attack frequency in the US as a way of saying we aren't necessarily safer cuz we'd have to make it at least 8 years without an attack to be even where we were before. I agree with that analysis and never claimed we were safer. However, the prob is that you have put yourself in the position of having a "little victory" the day this country gets nuked by some islamo-fascist. I can't put myself there. I am too American to align my opinions with the defeat of the greatest nation ever. Aside from this shade of difference, you and me can clink our beers together and be buddies for all I care -- Cheers

same to you Paniro . . . we disagree less than it sometimes seems on here. All three of us are the types to argue for fun, and push the intensity in a dialogue. No harm no foul. Jeez I sound like a hallmark card ova heah.

Based on alot of your posts, I can say that I think we definately agree a majority of the time. Now as for having a defeatist attitude, could not be further from the truth, I apologize for perhaps not being clear on the issue of our being attacked, I was simply trying to nip in the bud those that would claim victory in that we haven't been attacked in 5 years. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't and I would just prefer us to stay diligent and avoid complacency...I know we as a nation can do whatever we put our minds to. My problem is that I feel that our current leadership is incapable of efficiency in this or most other endeavours, if anything, I lack confidence in our leadership. With that said, we as a country are definately capable of absolutely anything...I think of our going to the moon (1st), getting to mars (1st), defeating the supposed "Great Nazi Army" among other things. As I've said before, we can win this war and any other, but we must do so honestly and intelligently...no hard feelings, and I appreciate your input. You're a rarity here because you respond intelligently and from what I can tell, genuinely...please continue to do so...

Now...how bout them beers mane...?

Pan.- I believe your were referring to the Crusades of the medieval era when you said the same can be said of christianity right ?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

starbucks meeting of the minds will call it the trifecta. with tx vrod the judge. :keke: alice in chains not invited. well he is invited but contact smoke might blow my UA.......:keke:

LMAO...yea, he be on that cali bud I bet...

::based on some of the thangs he be sayin::

Am I on point AliceInChainz?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

don't think we are creating more terrorists but we sure aren't making friends or winning the popularity contest ... you know the difference between friends and enemies?? ... enemies accumulate and we're doing a fine job of building up our reserves

No one ever said anything about a popularity contest...

::folks need to read, DAYUM...gettin tired of these ol "half-assed" responses with these ol "generic" ass answers I hear from just about every other person...

[TxVrod]

I think he's referring to the inquisition.

Less than the amount of time since we've been attacked on the homefront, (and I don't have a list) but there have been many terror attacks thwarted because of the current war on terror. I would like the separate the war on terror with what's going on in Iraq until there is some sort of plan to actually stabilize their government and have them become self-sufficient and self-defending. Until that happens, it's going to continue to be the same cluster fork. Boot Rumsfeld and send in sufficient troops to get the job done then get out.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I think he's referring to the inquisition.

Less than the amount of time since we've been attacked on the homefront, (and I don't have a list) but there have been many terror attacks thwarted because of the current war on terror. I would like the separate the war on terror with what's going on in Iraq until there is some sort of plan to actually stabilize their government and have them become self-sufficient and self-defending. Until that happens, it's going to continue to be the same cluster fork. Boot Rumsfeld and send in sufficient troops to get the job done then get out.

Yea but both were fought in the "name of God" and many atrosities were undertaken by the "Crusaders" and "Muslims" alike...

Now as for the war on terror...yes, I believe we should definately seperate the war in Iraq from the War on Terror...although many terrorists are in Iraq, there is a difference. We need a plan, Rumsfield should have no parts in the process. Agreed, wholly.

[TxVrod]

BTW - with regard to your post #81 (and of couse, it depends on interpretation) God is there in spirit to be with me to fight spiritual battles. He's girding me with armour to do so. To me, that passage was meant figuratively.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

BTW - with regard to your post #81 (and of couse, it depends on interpretation) God is there in spirit to be with me to fight spiritual battles. He's girding me with armour to do so. To me, that passage was meant figuratively.

I know the verse is implying that he is with you in spirit but I was pointing out that there are times in the bible where the lord calls upon his people to "take up arms" against their enemies...some were implying that Islam was the only religion/belief system that is capable of violence (per the teachings).

Although the bible contains alot of figurative speech, this particular verse, by my judgement is not one of them. I think the part in red outlines the literal nature of the verse...

When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you. 2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. 3
He shall say: 'Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. 4 For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.'

[TxVrod]

Still, even with specificities such as horses and chariots, I think they can be construed as metaphor. As with physical warfare, there can be levels of severity with spiritual warfare. That passage could be meant as a way to describe an austere type of spiritual warfare.

I do believe that physical warfare is describe in detail in the Bible but more when talking about Jericho, and against the Amalekites for example.

That's niether here nor there, though... I think we have a common belief, for the most part - but were not going to always agree, obviously. That's what makes this country great! :icon_thum

I was intrigued when you mention you work at Ft. Hood, Soulja. Back in the very late '90's and in to the new millennium, That was one my my all-time favorite places to go off-road. I even hosted quite a large even there in 1998.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Really now...yea there's a great bit of land to offroad on. Wish I had an ATV. I usually hop on the bkrds though...what you know about 2484? Very nice roads. So are you ex-military, have/had family arnd here or just happened to be out this way ? Btw, yea I'm pretty sure we agree...can't be bickering over trivialities....

[TxVrod]

No, never was in the military. I went out of my way and so did many others to do a little 'froadin there. We occasionally would run into a tank or two and have even has some of the troops in their HMMWV's follow us around. It was closed to the public for off-road use in about 2000 - before 9-11.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

No, never was in the military. I went out of my way and so did many others to do a little 'froadin there. We occasionally would run into a tank or two and have even has some of the troops in their HMMWV's follow us around. It was closed to the public for off-road use in about 2000 - before 9-11.

yep...you can't get on the installation but I know that on the south side of 190 there is alot of land to roll around on. So you were actually ON Ft. Hood? I never knew they actually let you on the installation though.

[TxVrod]

Oh yeah... deep into The 'Hood. In fact, there was an obstical there named after Tim (ScooterTrash) called Kyle's Step. Apparently, some environmentalists got bent about us being out there - even though we never strayed from the existing tank trails and such. I guess the base commander didn't want any flack so he/she disallowed further access. Then 9-11 came around so that would have been the end of it, anyway.

Here's an article about one of the "Big Texas Outings". This was the second annual one. The first one and this one, incidentally, were hosted by Eddie Runner of River Oaks Car Audio at Spring Creek.

http://dodge.off-road.com/dodge/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=194175

Mine was the Red H1 with the slant-back.

[Paintbawler]

OK, this is a huge thread, and I dont feel like reading the entire thing because majority of these things are ignorant, but I'd have to say that I believe there will be hatred towards the USA no matter what we do. So do I think that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists, yes, but I also think that it is necessary to demonstrate we wont lie down and take it. now do I believe we've demonstrated that, I think we've demonstrated that over and over, now we just have to play the PC game and say no, we weren't over here to show that we dont take crap, we were over here to get rid of this wicked dictator and create this great democracy. IDK if there's any way that we could back out now, we're dedicated because of our actions to stay(IMO) and I think they should bring the soldiers home asap

[Buck Nasty]

its simple. you a 12 year old kid, your dad/brother/uncle/ sister whoever gets killed by collateral damage or even in a firefight. your reaction would be to.

A> shrug it off and continue doing what you do

B> get pissed enough to go seek revenge

[Buck Nasty]

you have to put youself in their shoes and see whats actualy going on over there before you can point at somone, people living here are real good at that, i highly doubt the media would actualy show both sides and "stir the public opinion" here on US soil. For example, i got the chance to see some footage of the recent hezbollah and israeli situation. things didnt/couldnt show on cnn and my jaw dropped. dont get me wrong, i try not too think about these things too much and keep a neutral stance in war

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

OK, this is a huge thread, and I dont feel like reading the entire thing because majority of these things are ignorant, but I'd have to say that I believe there will be hatred towards the USA no matter what we do. So do I think that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists, yes, but I also think that it is necessary to demonstrate we wont lie down and take it. now do I believe we've demonstrated that, I think we've demonstrated that over and over, now we just have to play the PC game and say no, we weren't over here to show that we dont take crap, we were over here to get rid of this wicked dictator and create this great democracy. IDK if there's any way that we could back out now, we're dedicated because of our actions to stay(IMO) and I think they should bring the soldiers home asap

Being that you didn't even read the thread-atleast according to what you said- how can you can conclude that the majority of the responses are "ignorant"?

TxVrod:
I bet that was fun as hell...so the last time you all were up here was around 2000?

[TxVrod]

It was '99 or 2000. I can't recall.

[law750]

I gotta chime in on the Islam vs Christianity thing: I am SICK of hearing these two compared. There is no comparison.

1) The Muslim crusades killed hundreds of thousands more people than the Christian crusades.

2) The Christian crusades were a RESPONSE to the Muslim TURKS taking over the Holy Land.

3) Islam has tried to conquer Rome what . . . 3 times? How often are Christians trying to take over Muslim capitals in the name of God? Not often.

4) IMPORTANT ONE HERE! Everybody loves to site these stupid Abortion clinic bombings as a way of saying that there are Christian terrorists. WRONG!

a) There have only been 4 abortion clinic bombings in the US and in them a TOTAL of 2 people died (slightly more than ten injured). Give me a friggin break. That does not compare to the Muslim onslaught that occurs everyday.

b) Those bombers were CONDEMNED by every local preacher, the pope, every bible totin Christian around. Muslims turn a blind eye. THEY GET MORE UPSET ABOUT SOME ACADEMIC COMMENT FROM THE POPE OR A DUTCH CARTOON. They'll blow you up if you say they're violent (IRONY INTENDED); they'll kill you if you don't convert (Nick Berg); They'll chop an innocent little Christian girls head off and stick on the doorway of a church; they'll fly planes into buildings in the name of the prophet; what are Christians doing in the name of Christ that's so bad????? NOTHING! For the love of Pete's Dragon, man, this gets me so pissed off. I'm tired of apologizing; I'm tired of being sensitive; I'm tired of dialogue; I'm tired of tolerance; I'm tired of strip searching granny when Abu Al- Sharif walks by; I'm tired of pretending that we're all equally corrupt when its friggin clear that there is an enemy who watns to kill my mom and sister whom I can clearly identify. What the hell? And, no, I'm not a Christian. So don't put that, "you're biased Baptist" crap on me. I'm not. I'm not Muslim either. I know there are "moderate" Muslims out there, but they sure aren't speaking out as loudly about the evil in their own religion as their evil twins speak about a flippin cartoon. people died over that! You call them violent and they blow you up: "Stop calling us violent, we're the religion of peace. We're tolerant." BAM (insert video of bomb blowing you up for daring to have an opinion).

[law750]

"The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire had been defeated, and this defeat led to the loss of all but the coastlands of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Although the East-West Schism was brewing between the Catholic Western church and the Greek Orthodox Eastern church, Alexius I expected some help from a fellow Christian. However, the response was much larger, and less helpful, than Alexius I desired, as the Pope called for a large invasion force to not merely defend the Byzantine Empire but also retake Jerusalem." - For speed's sake I ripped this from Wikipedia. I realize it's not necessarily the source to use on your disertation, but I'm at work - not doing my dissertation. Check it out for yourself if you doubt the Wik

[law750]

"Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades." - Ripped that from "the american thinker.com." Looking for the numbers. .. patience

[law750]

Also, important to note: Christians today almost to a man condemn the Christian crusades even though they were a response to the Muslim ones. Muslims do no such thing for theirs.

also, muhammed himself was involved in the Muslim crusades. Jesus was not involved in the Christian crusades. Jesus said, "turn the other cheek." muhammed's actions taught spreading his ideas by the sword.

[law750]

"630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians" - I can go all day folks. Cuz it's the truth. Christians, if I was one of you, I wouldn't tolerate the comparisons. It's like a bully comes and hits you in the face, then you hit back and ppl are like, "HEY YOU"RE A BULLY" Granted Christianity did take it a step further and start doing some crazy shit, like compelling conversions, the inquisition, torquamada, etc., but would any of this have happened without "THE PROPHET" killing hundreds of thousands of Christians and taking over the Holy land? NO

[law750]

Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus.

In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double-crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.

It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.

But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.

Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.

Muslim countries believe in something that is the polar opposite of Christianity. Example:

Muslim works to get to heaven vs Christian grace to get to heaven

Muslim conversion by man vs Christian conversion by spirit

Muslim "moon god" vs Christian "son god"

Muslim "allah's will" vs Christian "free choice"

Mohammed on the other hand - himself was a cruel man who committed numerous atrocities and created a religion based not on love, but cruelty to non-believers. And, that god will attract all that worship at the altar of depravity, cruelty, torture, and death to others.

Leaving aside the religious differences, Islam kills every society it comes in contact with. It instills fatalism, a virtual caste system because of its hereditary religious structure, and induces total paralysis because of its hatred of music, art and creativity.
- excerpt from a book I have called "Islamic Crusades and Imperialism." Good read.

[ScooterTrash]

BTW - with regard to your post #81 (and of couse, it depends on interpretation) God is there in spirit to be with me to fight spiritual battles. He's girding me with armour to do so. To me, that passage was meant figuratively.
yes, but he was also there in physical strength for those to whom he was speaking.:nod:

[ScooterTrash]

Oh yeah... deep into The 'Hood. In fact, there was an obstical there named after Tim (ScooterTrash) called Kyle's Step. Apparently, some environmentalists got bent about us being out there - even though we never strayed from the existing tank trails and such. I guess the base commander didn't want any flack so he/she disallowed further access. Then 9-11 came around so that would have been the end of it, anyway.

Here's an article about one of the "Big Texas Outings". This was the second annual one. The first one and this one, incidentally, were hosted by Eddie Runner of River Oaks Car Audio at Spring Creek.

http://dodge.off-road.com/dodge/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=194175

Mine was the Red H1 with the slant-back.
gosh, those were the days indeed so.http://www.muddyjeep.com/images/Kyle2.jpg

[paniro187]

my whole entire problem wit hthe republican party is bottom line they align themselves with the chrisitian religion yet they are doing far from christian things. that's it being hypocritical.

[law750]

Democrats are hypocritical with the environment: They blah blah about global warming and then fly around in jumbo jets. It's the way politicians are. Look at Al Gore going to black churches to get out the vote. I mean, both parties need Christians to win. Look at how Kerry hedged the abortion questions in the debates last time. Cuz he's "Catholic." Sure.

having said that (which was only intended to mean that both sides are hypocrites), I think the "religious right" as an institution is completely antithetical to conservative political theory. Check:

1) Conservatives are supposed to be for limited government

2) limited government ought to mean govt out of ppls lives

3) but then, the christian "conservatives" want to legislate morality . . .the definition of govt in your private biz. prayer in school, prayer before opening congress, no abortion, illegal drugs etc.

Thus, I think that a REAL CONSERVATIVE (like me) is against the Christian right insofar as it makes big government stronger, and that is not conservative by definition.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus.

In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double-crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.

It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.

But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.

Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.

Muslim countries believe in something that is the polar opposite of Christianity. Example:

Muslim works to get to heaven vs Christian grace to get to heaven

Muslim conversion by man vs Christian conversion by spirit

Muslim "moon god" vs Christian "son god"

Muslim "allah's will" vs Christian "free choice"

Mohammed on the other hand - himself was a cruel man who committed numerous atrocities and created a religion based not on love, but cruelty to non-believers. And, that god will attract all that worship at the altar of depravity, cruelty, torture, and death to others.

Leaving aside the religious differences, Islam kills every society it comes in contact with. It instills fatalism, a virtual caste system because of its hereditary religious structure, and induces total paralysis because of its hatred of music, art and creativity.
- excerpt from a book I have called "Islamic Crusades and Imperialism." Good read.

I agree with alot you've said. Christianity is, in my opinion, inherently more good than is the Islamic religion. For all of the reasons cited above and many others which weren't mentioned including some very strong contrasts in the teachings. That being said, and I am catholic, I believe that "religion" carries the capacity for evil given that it is man-made and man is inherently evil according to the teachings of the bible. This inherent evil embedded in man is the reason that Christ died, in order that all of man has the opportunity to be saved. Given this, it is not very far fetched that man (and you stated this before in your latter argument) committed atrosities in the name of our God although you stopped short of sayin "in the name of God". The only difference in opinion that we have is that you seem the think of those offenses as justified in that "the muslims did it first"...however, were we to respond to their actions on an equal or even grandeur scale...we would be no better than them, atleast as long as we are doing it for the sake of the Lord our God's will. Christianity, being the superior belief system that it is, teaches us to turn the other cheek. Although I will willingly admit, I fall short of this many a time. If the crusaders were to fight under the "colors of the cross", I just feel that we shouldn't have done some of the things we did in response. Hell, the church allowed for slavery because those that were taken from the African continent were considered to be heathens and animals. So all I'm saying is that we should recognize wrong doing whereever we may find it, even if it is right here in our backyard and NEVER turn a blind eye to it as my Catholic church has on numerous occasions....in the end, there is no God like that of the Hebrews...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Democrats are hypocritical with the environment: They blah blah about global warming and then fly around in jumbo jets. It's the way politicians are. Look at Al Gore going to black churches to get out the vote. I mean, both parties need Christians to win. Look at how Kerry hedged the abortion questions in the debates last time. Cuz he's "Catholic." Sure.

having said that (which was only intended to mean that both sides are hypocrites), I think the "religious right" as an institution is completely antithetical to conservative political theory. Check:

1) Conservatives are supposed to be for limited government

2) limited government ought to mean govt out of ppls lives

3) but then, the christian "conservatives" want to legislate morality . . .the definition of govt in your private biz. prayer in school, prayer before opening congress, no abortion, illegal drugs etc.

Thus, I think that a REAL CONSERVATIVE (like me) is against the Christian right insofar as it makes big government stronger, and that is not conservative by definition.

Hence the reason I think we should fire nearly every one of the morons holding public office at the moment and start anew...both parties are full of shyt and all polititians lie for political gain. Nature of the beast but you should always be more "good" than "bad". As for conservatism and the intended function of the government, I absolutely agree that conservatives are typically for smaller govt and Dem's are for a large imposing govt. However, Repub's are, whether by intent or simply by nature, for big business...I just find it scary how we've given away alot our power to other countries (China for example) in the name of business and profit. We need to get back tyo addressing OUR own problems...how do you place water in someones elses bucket when your bucket is leaking as well ? You don't....you gotta patch your own cracks first, and we have plenty...

[law750]

agreed. I certainly don't mean the european crusades were justified. Just dont like people pretending christianity and islam are "both equally corrupt." The Christian crusades are a blight on human history and a disgrace to the teachings of Christ. Thus, they are rightfully CONDEMNED by the church and Christians everywhere .. . can the same be said for mulsims?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

agreed. I certainly don't mean the european crusades were justified. Just dont like people pretending christianity and islam are "both equally corrupt." The Christian crusades are a blight on human history and a disgrace to the teachings of Christ. Thus, they are rightfully CONDEMNED by the church and Christians everywhere

Whole-heartedly agreed...

.. . can the same be said for mulsims?

Nope, I continually see more and more Muslim nations less willing to condemn certain attacks...Pakistan has recently signed a peace agreement with tribals in their area, these tribals happen to be known to have pro-taliban sentiment...

Simply put...NOPE

[Moody]

Hmm...that's curious...what did you mean by this then ?
Hey sorry, I am going to try and catch back up on the talks in here... had to leave early yesterday. :icon_bigg

But, basically it goes like this from what I have gathered from speaking with Muslims that I work with and etc....

So lets state some facts. Islam is the largest religion in the world in numbers of people. Close to 2 billion I believe. Sources are cloudy at stating any exact numbers for this. So, if 1% of Islam is of Extremist you have an army/ opposition of 2 million but more realisticly the percent is probably fluctuating constantly upwards toward 10%. Leaving an army of anywhere from 2 million to 200 million. Which is a large opposition for a single country that has maybe 300 million in population. So, for my statement if the opposition were to sway the tides in favor of the Islam Extremist it is more likely that other Muslims would not stand in its way. Now this of course does not go for all Muslims but, with the sheer size of the Muslim population it would be enough to make things difficult for any other religous body or governed body regain ground.

All this was directed at.... Why the hell are we fighting a war like it is the 18th century or something. Drop some bombs, wipe out the enemy, end this war of the clash of cultures and lets go have some beers with the troops. It is rediculous that we continue to loose troops to car bombs and idiots strapped with bombs to their chests. When we can strap bombs to planes and end all the bull shit. :icon_thum

[Moody]

its simple. you a 12 year old kid, your dad/brother/uncle/ sister whoever gets killed by collateral damage or even in a firefight. your reaction would be to.

A> shrug it off and continue doing what you do

B> get pissed enough to go seek revenge

Kill or be killed in war. Sorry!

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Hey sorry, I am going to try and catch back up on the talks in here... had to leave early yesterday. :icon_bigg

But, basically it goes like this from what I have gathered from speaking with Muslims that I work with and etc....

So lets state some facts. Islam is the largest religion in the world in numbers of people. Close to 2 billion I believe. Sources are cloudy at stating any exact numbers for this. So, if 1% of Islam is of Extremist you have an army/ opposition of 2 million but more realisticly the percent is probably fluctuating constantly upwards toward 10%. Leaving an army of anywhere from 2 million to 200 million. Which is a large opposition for a single country that has maybe 300 million in population. So, for my statement if the opposition were to sway the tides in favor of the Islam Extremist it is more likely that other Muslims would not stand in its way. Now this of course does not go for all Muslims but, with the sheer size of the Muslim population it would be enough to make things difficult for any other religous body or governed body regain ground.

All this was directed at.... Why the hell are we fighting a war like it is the 18th century or something. Drop some bombs, wipe out the enemy, end this war of the clash of cultures and lets go have some beers with the troops. It is rediculous that we continue to loose troops to car bombs and idiots strapped with bombs to their chests. When we can strap bombs to planes and end all the bull shit. :icon_thum

Don't know about your figures but they may carry some validity. As per your last paragraph...I agree, we need to be more intelligent about how we fight this war and it does seem that tactical nukes would do us some good (YES...dammit Ima say it until I speak it into existence)...

[Moody]

Now, I got something to say that really pisses me off! Why the hell are our Marines on trial for murder during war times? Civilians are casualties that happen during war just as soldiers are and I be damned if we did not train these men and women to kill the enemy or be killed by the enemy. And, it is obvious the enemy can be a blurring thing in this kind of war.

[Moody]

Don't know about your figures but they may carry some validity. As per your last paragraph...I agree, we need to be more intelligent about how we fight this war and it does seem that tactical nukes would do us some good (YES...dammit Ima say it until I speak it into existence)...
The numbers are difficult to get exacts on but if you review it as this is what it could be at any given moment it is damn scary.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Now, I got something to say that really pisses me off! Why the hell are our Marines on trial for murder during war times? Civilians are casualties that happen during war just as soldiers are and I be damned if we did not train these men and women to kill the enemy or be killed by the enemy. And, it is obvious the enemy can be a blurring thing in this kind of war.

Well the Marines I know of that are on trial because they conspired to murder and rape an Iraqi family and their daughter respectively...that is worthy of their ass goin to jail...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

The numbers are difficult to get exacts on but if you review it as this is what it could be at any given moment it is damn scary.

Yea they are getting more and more anti-US but the reason this is a good thing is because they will be more united, that way, when we bomb their ass we can cite the fact that they were terrorists with the intent to harm us...:nod:

[AliceInChains02]

Well the Marines I know of that are on trial because they conspired to murder and rape an Iraqi family and their daughter respectively...that is worthy of their ass goin to jail...

+1, i heard about that a while back. i can't believe everyone wants to side with the marines...just because they're marines. i hope if they are guilty they get what they deserve just like anyone else. and it's not like they were even in a war-zone. i've never heard people defend a rapist so much since Wayne Williams

[law750]

The reason people defend them is because they were accused by the enemy, and they haven't had a trial yet. They were held in chains at Pendleton while hard core terrorists get Halal meals, soccer, card games, and Qarans at Gitmo and our other prisons. How is that fair?

I find it crazy that people like you constantly defend our enemies, while you're so ready to condemn the ppl that are defending you. Condemn them when they're found guilty. Give them due process. AND FOR GOD'S SAKE! DONT TREAT THEM WORSE THAN TERRORIST POW's! THEY ARE AMERICANS AND DESERVE DUE PROCESS. the same cant be said for our enemies. they do not have the rights americans do.

[Moody]

+1, i heard about that a while back. i can't believe everyone wants to side with the marines...just because they're marines. i hope if they are guilty they get what they deserve just like anyone else. and it's not like they were even in a war-zone. i've never heard people defend a rapist so much since Wayne Williams
The main problem I have with this is... Marines are trained to kill and nothing else. When you train someone to be a killer and unleash them into an inner city war as we have done. How do you exactly prosecute them for their actions? Their ideas of morality and civility have been completely dismantled and then they were molded to kill kill kill.

[Moody]

Are you aware that Marines are isolated on return to the US for 3 monthes to detox?

I could honestly can say that under those pressures and conditions I would probably snap. I do not see how I could have any morality left in me and then be asked to kill anything that comes into the line of fire. And, at that point who knows what other evils will begin to brew.

[Buck Nasty]

law your a prime example of someone whos been watching too much cnn. the world was a very different place when it was "spread by the sword" that shit doesnt fly anymore. peoples heads r getting cut off, people sniped and blown up because shit equaly crazy if not worse is happening right back with them. ultimatley its our fault for being there. you stick your finger in a ant pile u get bit, get it? we r occupying their country. they dont have the means to do something about it so they resort to guerella tactics, while the others just watch, the ones watching r the good ones the ones that r fed up and decide to do something about it r terrorists. like i said go live over there for a while and let ur sister get raped infront of u first or ur brother killed by a tank round then talk about it. muslims arnt just crazy folks out to kill everyone somethings triggering their actions, and the media or bush wont tell you the whole story why or what. honestly i think we needa worry more about looking up the loose ends on what happened on 9/11. and bring our troops home because you just cant win over there, not when everyone there is a potential threat. unless your willing to kill every last one of them.

[Moody]

law your a prime example of someone whos been watching too much cnn. the world was a very different place when it was "spread by the sword" that shit doesnt fly anymore. peoples heads r getting cut off, people sniped and blown up because shit equaly crazy if not worse is happening right back with them. ultimatley its our fault for being there. you stick your finger in a ant pile u get bit, get it? we r occupying their country. they dont have the means to do something about it so they resort to guerella tactics, while the others just watch, the ones watching r the good ones the ones that r fed up and decide to do something about it r terrorists. like i said go live over there for a while and let ur sister get raped infront of u first or ur brother killed by a tank round then talk about it. muslims arnt just crazy folks out to kill everyone somethings triggering their actions, and the media or bush wont tell you the whole story why or what. honestly i think we needa worry more about looking up the loose ends on what happened on 9/11. and bring our troops home because you just cant win over there, not when everyone there is a potential threat. unless your willing to kill every last one of them.

Unfortunately their is not much choice about being there or not anymore but, we do need to decide if we are going to win this thing or just let it drag on.

[Moody]

1) If they are suspected of a crime...they should be treated as such...

2) Let us not make any excuses....sure, Marines are trained to kill, but that does not excuse the fact that they are professionals and are required to conduct themselves as such...lets not try to come up with convenient excuses for them, as I said before they are professionals and professionals act as they must, not as they feel...

3) I mean these guys alledgedly conspired to kill the family and rape and kill the young girl of the family (14yrs), this is a very serious charge. If the allegations, have been independantly investigated by CID/NCIS and have been determined to have merit...they should be prosecuted, let justice do the rest. They have by the way, been investigated and they will be charged...one of their fellow troops is a witness to the prosecution (The investigation is still under way to determine the scope of said allegations).

4) Let us not assume that everyone at Guantanamo is guilty, everyone deserves due process. Not all of the people that were at Guantanamo were snatched off of the battlefield. Some were taken from airports and other transportation oriented venues as a result of either their names being on a watchlist (and just because their name was there doesn't make them guilty, alot of Muslim share the same names so it's not hard to maybe confuse one over the other) or some other form of identification.

5) As for the detainee's being allowed to play soccer, cards and whatever else...we cannot, etchically, just "render" people, lock them in solitude and hold them indefinately without having formally charged them. Everyone deserves due process and I think we can do a better job of charging these people. If they were taken off the battlefield...too easy...charge them...if they were snatched from an airport...make a case against them and CHARGE THEM. If you have no case then you shouldn't have taken them in the first place...continue to do this to innocent people and you may not have captured a terrorist but you dayum sure created one.

Very good points! :icon_thum

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Unfortunately their is not much choice about being there or not anymore but, we do need to decide if we are going to win this thing or just let it drag on.

Yep...

I'm with SunTzu on this one...address your enemy with overwhelming force. We can't be having our troops over there with barely enough numbers to contain the enemy but rather we should have so dayum many of them that the terrorist threat can be crushed at every confrontation...**** the niceties...OVERWHELM THEM

Very good points! :icon_thum

Preciate it

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

1) If they are suspected of a crime...they should be treated as such...

2) Let us not make any excuses....sure, Marines are trained to kill, but that does not excuse the fact that they are professionals and are required to conduct themselves as such...lets not try to come up with convenient excuses for them, as I said before they are professionals and professionals act as they must, not as they feel...

3) I mean these guys alledgedly conspired to kill the family and rape and kill the young girl of the family (14yrs), this is a very serious charge. If the allegations, have been independantly investigated by CID/NCIS and have been determined to have merit...they should be prosecuted, let justice do the rest. They have by the way, been investigated and they will be charged...one of their fellow troops is a witness to the prosecution (The investigation is still under way to determine the scope of said allegations).

4) Let us not assume that everyone at Guantanamo is guilty, everyone deserves due process. Not all of the people that were at Guantanamo were snatched off of the battlefield. Some were taken from airports and other transportation oriented venues as a result of either their names being on a watchlist (and just because their name was there doesn't make them guilty, alot of Muslims share the same names so it's not hard to maybe confuse one over the other) or some other form of identification.

5) As for the detainee's being allowed to play soccer, cards and whatever else...we cannot, etchically, just "render" people, lock them in solitude and hold them indefinately without having formally charged them. Everyone deserves due process and I think we can do a better job of charging these people. If they were taken off the battlefield...too easy...charge them...if they were snatched from an airport...make a case against them and CHARGE THEM. If you have no case then you shouldn't have taken them in the first place...continue to do this to innocent people and you may not have captured a terrorist but you dayum sure created one.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Had to put an "s" behind Muslim(s), it was killing me (yes, I'm anal retentive)...no other edits though...Moody's quote can vouch for me as he quoted my first quote....

[Buck Nasty]

Yep...

I'm with SunTzu on this one...address your enemy with overwhelming force. We can't be having our troops over there with barely enough numbers to contain the enemy but rather we should have so dayum many of them that the terrorist threat can be crushed at every confrontation...**** the niceties...OVERWHELM THEM



Preciate it



soooooo your saying, take over their land basicaly? no wonder they hate us

[RACER X]

japan loves us now.

[law750]

i don't know where you're getting the idea the everyone deserves due process. . . who says? Americans do . . .we have a consitution. In a war, I dont think enemies should get the same rights I, as a citizen, taxpayer, and social contract upholder do. Tie em to a wall, and hold em indefinitely.

It still doesn't justify chaining our guys at Pendleton.

and buck - you're an idiot. I never watch CNN. Muslims have been terrorizing WAYY WAY WAY WAY BEFORE this war ever started. Think bombing of the USS Cole. think about our embassies. Think about Israel. Think about any of the other attempts on the pentagon, world trade centers etc. Muslims have been in this business since . .. well, Islam began. And what the hell are you talking about they dont still make ppl convert at the sword????? Did you not see the kidnapped dude from fox converting with a gun to his head less than two weeks ago????? Get a clue -

[law750]

Both of the men were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, Centanni said.

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

Centanni's brother, Ken, spoke to FOX News directly after the news was released.

[law750]

haha: "law your a prime example of someone whos been watching too much cnn. the world was a very different place when it was "spread by the sword" that shit doesnt fly anymore." - Buck Nasty

[Moody]

soooooo your saying, take over their land basicaly? no wonder they hate us
I understand where you are coming from completely. I was totally against this racket we are calling a war but, we are there now. What can we do?

[Buck Nasty]

so your grouping the bombing on uss cole and embassy on your everyday "muslim?" huh? there are extremists out there for sure that dont have the right understanding for the religion. but guess what, we have terrorism here in the US too. a gang member does a drive by kills a few innocent people and another gang member, we dont call him a terrorist, we call him a gang member. And think about israel? you mean the country that has full us millitary backing against a country fighting with rocks and just recently a 12 inch rocket?. thats a sensitive subject i rather not get into.

[RACER X]

cuz you have no clue........lol

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

soooooo your saying, take over their land basicaly? no wonder they hate us

Don't infer what I was sayin, ask for further clarification....

No, don't take over their land. We do, however, have to impose stronger security measures, such as curfews and the like. I also believe we should restrict certain roads and pathways to military only so that these soldiers can discontinue being blown up on a daily basis...if you are caught on these roads, you are shot on the spot. If you are out after curfew, you are shot...we must first be able to secure ourselves before we can guarantee the security of others. We should definately mandate better rules of engagement. Too many soldiers fall victim to flawed rules of engagement.

You suggest we just leave, but what then? Then the country falls to warlords who use our exhibition of weakness and cowardess to recruit and train up more terrorists' to attack us...your argument is flawed...

[law750]

Gang members are not terrorists. They don't kill innocent ppl to advance a political agenda.

They instead, kill each other. I'm cool with it if Islamo-fascists want to kill each other like gang members.

Who's the last gang member who blew up a building? Who's the last gang member that beheaded someone on film for a political purpose?

You conveniently don't acknowledge that it's not me, but you who turned out to be wrong about Islam. You called me out and said it's not spread by the sword, which directly contradicts reality as evidenced by the VIDEOTAPED GUNPOINT CONVERSION OF STEVE CENTANNI.

You said everyday muslim not me. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't call me out when you have no idea what's going on in the world. Get a clue; be American; and be prepared to die for your country cuz it's under extreme threat.

[Buck Nasty]

Don't infer what I was sayin, ask for further clarification....

No, don't take over their land. We do, however, have to impose stronger security measures, such as curfews and the like. I also believe we should restrict certain roads and pathways to military only so that these soldiers can discontinue being blown up on a daily basis...if you are caught on these roads, you are shot on the spot. If you are out after curfew, you are shot...we must first be able to secure ourselves before we can guarantee the security of others. We should definately mandate better rules of engagement. Too many soldiers fall victim to flawed rules of engagement.

You suggest we just leave, but what then? Then the country falls to warlords who use our exhibition of weakness and cowardess to recruit and train up more terrorists' to attack us...your argument is flawed...

i was against going there in the first place, now that we stirred the pot we have to deal with the consequences.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

i don't know where you're getting the idea the everyone deserves due process. . . who says? Americans do . . .we have a consitution. In a war, I dont think enemies should get the same rights I, as a citizen, taxpayer, and social contract upholder do. Tie em to a wall, and hold em indefinitely.

As the country who stands as the quintessential design as a moral and ethical nation, I believe it would be unbecoming for us to simply arrest people without any legal grounds to do so. If you see no problem with rounding up people and holding them w/o having formally charged them then you are probably the same type of person that would have allowed for the Great Japanese Internment of the 40's to happen...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

i was against going there in the first place, now that we stirred the pot we have to deal with the consequences.

Then atleast you and I agree on that...

[law750]

Cajun, once again, me and you aren't as far apart as it appears: I think we need to have different rules for our enemies IN A WAR than for American citizens who pay taxes, and uphold the social contract. That doesn't mean we should necessarily intern whole races, but it does mean the code should be different. what the code should be explicitly . .. thats a great question. I dont think it should come from any other nation or from any international group. It should be OUR law that runs OUR country.

and yes, this makes me against us going into Iraq and imposing OUR law. I am against the war if you haven't noticed. good show

[Buck Nasty]

Gang members are not terrorists. They don't kill innocent ppl to advance a political agenda.

They instead, kill each other. I'm cool with it if Islamo-fascists want to kill each other like gang members.

Who's the last gang member who blew up a building? Who's the last gang member that beheaded someone on film for a political purpose?

You conveniently don't acknowledge that it's not me, but you who turned out to be wrong about Islam. You called me out and said it's not spread by the sword, which directly contradicts reality as evidenced by the VIDEOTAPED GUNPOINT CONVERSION OF STEVE CENTANNI.

You said everyday muslim not me. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't call me out when you have no idea what's going on in the world. Get a clue; be American; and be prepared to die for your country cuz it's under extreme threat.

so a few bad apples thought it was wise idea to video tape steve centanni with a gun to head trying to convert him. link that to all of islam why?

some bad apples also video taped some horrid shit in the iraq prison abuse, are all christians f*cked up?

Islam truely is a religion of peace, it takes a smart person to understand the meaning behind the few controvorsial parts.

[Buck Nasty]

i have read the quran and was very surprised at what i found, it wasnt at all what everyone cooked islam out to be. i suggest you read it also and ask about the parts you dont understand and then make your opinions about it

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Cajun, once again, me and you aren't as far apart as it appears: I think we need to have different rules for our enemies IN A WAR than for American citizens who pay taxes, and uphold the social contract. That doesn't mean we should necessarily intern whole races, but it does mean the code should be different. what the code should be explicitly . .. thats a great question. I dont think it should come from any other nation or from any international group. It should be OUR law that runs OUR country.

and yes, this makes me against us going into Iraq and imposing OUR law. I am against the war if you haven't noticed. good show

Oh no I realize we are in agreement about 97% of the time, it just seemed as though you may have had the Bush mindset in that we can beat the shyt out of terrorists because they aren't soldiers and can hardly be thought of as humans in the minds of some. I think they definately should not share those luxuries that we share in the US being that they are in fact foreign combatants, but we also should at the very least treat them as human beings or we risk coming that much closer to being just as evil as they are. This way we keep to the, morally, high ground.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

i have read the quran and was very surprised at what i found, it wasnt at all what everyone cooked islam out to be. i suggest you read it also and ask about the parts you dont understand and then make your opinions about it

Not that I am refuting or affirming anything you are saying but do you know the history of Mohammed?

Law I know you placed a link earlier...do you still have it, perhaps more need to read up on Mohammed to understand the reasons for the theory of Islam having a history of violence.

[law750]

First of all, your statements, Buck are wrong on so many levels. You keep getting more and more wrong. but what I thought was interesting is that it seems you're implying that I'm not a smart person. I'll take the Pepsi Challenge with you on brains any day my friend.

A few bad apples???? Even if 1% of the Muslim world are extreme that means 1,000,000 bad apples. Can you tell the difference between a few and a million? I knew you could!

Plus, estimates (as cited earlier in this thread) are saying that upwards of 10% of the Muslim world are extremists. Buck, that's a lot more than a few.

Second, Just today Zawahiri (the extremist egyptian leader) called for Muslims to declare Holy War on the UN PEACE KEEPERS in the Sudan. Nice religion of peace. Where are all the other muslims condemning this?

Who said those ppl in Gitmo were Christians?

Plus, are you seriously comparing stacking ppl naked in a pyramid to beheading someone on video with a rusty knife whilst yelling "Allah, Acbar?" Give me a break man! We didn't kill anyone in those prisons, and even if we did kill one person, they kill daily and call for more death.

Why do you side with them? WHy do you hate your country? Why can't you see what's in front of you every day????

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri called President Bush a "lying failure" for saying progress had been made in the war on terrorism, according to a video posted on the Internet on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Bush you are a lying failure and a charlatan. It has been three and-a-half years (since the arrests) ... What happened to us? We have gained more strength and we are more insistent on martyrdom," the Egyptian militant leader said.

Zawahri was referring to the arrest of al Qaeda figures such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

"Bush, O failure and liar, why don't you be courageous for once and confront your people and tell them the truth about your losses in Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

He also called Pope Benedict a "charlatan" because of his remarks on Islam.

"This charlatan accused Islam of being incompatible with rationality while forgetting that his own Christianity is unacceptable to a sensible mind," Zawahri said.

In a speech to a university in his native Germany on Sept 12, Pope Benedict quoted criticism of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who wrote that everything Mohammad brought was evil and inhuman.

The Pope said there was no room for violence in a religion based on reason.

Zawahri also urged Muslims in the same video to launch a holy war against proposed U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region.

"O Muslim nation, come to defend your lands from crusaders masked as United Nations (troops). Nothing will protect you except popular jihad (holy war)," Zawahri said.

[law750]

I own three copies of the Quran, and have read it cover to cover. I have been to a mosque, spoken with Muslims from over 5 different countries. Please stop projecting views onto me. You have no idea who you're talking to or what I'm about. You VASTLY underestimate me.

[law750]

agreed cajun . . . we oughta start a political party . .. itd be nice and balanced

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

agreed cajun . . . we oughta start a political party . .. itd be nice and balanced

You know...considering the current climate of things in the nation....that wouldn't be a bad dayum idea....

[Buck Nasty]

listen man you seem to be the only one here getting pissed off, calling me an idiot and such when you dont know me, why dont you relax im sitting here with a cup of coffee enjoying this. I dont hate my country, and im not siding with the f*cking terrorists do dont even try it. Im against the war, not the US. Theres more then what the media is telling you was my point in this thread.

[law750]

I'd honestly sooner vote for someone with your views than for those I've heard coming from the ppl allegedly running in 08

[law750]

Buck Nasty: "peoples heads r getting cut off, people sniped and blown up because shit equaly crazy if not worse is happening right back with them. ultimatley its our fault for being there. you stick your finger in a ant pile u get bit, get it? we r occupying their country. they dont have the means to do something about it so they resort to guerella tactics, while the others just watch, the ones watching r the good ones the ones that r fed up and decide to do something about it r terrorists. like i said go live over there for a while and let ur sister get raped infront of u first or ur brother killed by a tank round then talk about it."

Sounds like siding with terroristst to me. I'm enjoying a coca cola myself ;)

[law750]

Buck Nasty: "peoples heads r getting cut off, people sniped and blown up because shit equaly crazy if not worse is happening right back with them. ultimatley its our fault for being there. you stick your finger in a ant pile u get bit, get it? we r occupying their country. they dont have the means to do something about it so they resort to guerella tactics, while the others just watch, the ones watching r the good ones the ones that r fed up and decide to do something about it r terrorists. like i said go live over there for a while and let ur sister get raped infront of u first or ur brother killed by a tank round then talk about it."

Sounds like siding with terroristst to me. I'm enjoying a coca cola myself ;)

[Moody]

Well let's all pray for a peaceful utopia of man. Otherwise, Mother Nature has a cure for all our disputes.

[Moody]

I am having water.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I'd honestly sooner vote for someone with your views than for those I've heard coming from the ppl allegedly running in 08

Thank you for the vote of confidence...

I tell you what though, I'm not even sure who the hell I'm voting for...I don't see any good gubernatorial candidates or congressional candiadates. I'm dayum lost for the '08 race because I don't see anyone with the nutts to do what they say they will and at the same time be able to share my views...Hilary= HELL NO, McCain=**** NO, Frist=HEL MUH****IN NAW, and the list goes onn and onn and onnnnnnnnnnn

[Moody]

yep, candidates are sucking big time!

[Buck Nasty]

did you miss the part where i said things just as bad are happening to them? to women and kids as well.

fact- as long as we r there the snipings and such will most likely continue, so ya like i said we did stir the pot, asked for trouble and got it.

and yes go live there for a while and see things first hand, the media here censors the stuff you should be seeing. as friend of mine visted the area recently and he shakin, told about the stuff he saw happening to small kids, small babies dead in the streets with their heads crushed, so on.

[Moody]

did you miss the part where i said things just as bad are happening to them? to women and kids as well.

fact- as long as we r there the snipings and such will most likely continue, so ya like i said we did stir the pot, asked for trouble and got it.

and yes go live there for a while and see things first hand, the media here censors the stuff you should be seeing. as friend of mine visted the area recently and he shakin, told about the stuff he saw happening to small kids, small babies dead in the streets with their heads crushed, so on.
And do what then?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Yep, the Democrat's are either fickle ass hell or they whine about every got dayum thing without presenting a feasible alternative...Republican's seemingly have a knack for "blindly" following their leaders...hence the reason we have the "rubberstamp" congress that we do...we need new options....

Law and I are running for office...who's willing to be in the administration dammit...Pan is gonna be my dayum SecDef

[Moody]

Vote Libertarian

[Buck Nasty]

And do what then?

get an understanding for whats going on in both sides and why its happening

[Moody]

get an understanding for whats going on in both sides and why its happening
I know why it is happening. We invaded a country, up rooted it's goverment and have left it in a state of civil war with us standing in the firing line. Not what I was looking for... What should we do now?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

As in...were you the president, what would your course of action be at this point?

[law750]

once again, assuming things about me. I have been "over there." Ive been to Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and several other places.

You seem to think all this started when we went to Iraq. We weren't in Iraq when planes hit our buildings on Sept. 11. Well, explain these:

Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology




First U.S. Aircraft Hijacked, May 1, 1961: Puerto Rican born Antuilo Ramierez Ortiz forced at gunpoint a National Airlines plane to fly to Havana, Cuba, where he was given asylum.

Ambassador to Guatemala Assassinated, August 28, 1968: U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala John Gordon Mein was murdered by a rebel faction when gunmen forced his official car off the road in Guatemala City and raked the vehicle with gunfire.

Ambassador to Japan Attacked, July 30, 1969: U.S. Ambassador to Japan A.H. Meyer was attacked by a knife-wielding Japanese citizen.

Ambassador to Brazil Kidnapped, September 3, 1969: U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Charles Burke Elbrick was kidnapped by the Marxist revolutionary group MR-8.

Attack on the Munich Airport, February 10, 1970: Three terrorists attacked El Al passengers in a bus at the Munich Airport with guns and grenades. One passenger was killed and 11 were injured. All three terrorists were captured by airport police. The Action Organization for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.

U.S. Agency for International Development Adviser Kidnapped, July 31, 1970: In Montevideo, Uruguay, the Tupamaros terrorist group kidnapped AID Police adviser Dan Mitrione; his body was found on August 10.

"Bloody Friday," July 21, 1972: An Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb attacks killed eleven people and injure 130 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Ten days later, three IRA car bomb attacks in the village of Claudy left six dead.

Munich Olympic Massacre, September 5, 1972: Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized eleven Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany. In a bungled rescue attempt by West German authorities, nine of the hostages and five terrorists were killed.


Ambassador to Sudan Assassinated, March 2, 1973: U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Cleo A. Noel and other diplomats were assassinated at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum by members of the Black September organization.

Consul General in Mexico Kidnapped, May 4, 1973: U.S. Consul General in Guadalajara Terrence Leonhardy was kidnapped by members of the People’s Revolutionary Armed Forces.

Attack and Hijacking at the Rome Airport, December 17, 1973: Five terrorists pulled weapons from their luggage in the terminal lounge at the Rome airport, killing two persons. They then attacked a Pan American 707 bound for Beirut and Tehran, destroying it with incendiary grenades and killing 29 persons, including 4 senior Moroccan officials and 14 American employees of ARAMCO. They then herded 5 Italian hostages into a Lufthansa airliner and killed an Italian customs agent as he tried to escape, after which they forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. After Lebanese authorities refused to let the plane land, it landed in Athens, where the terrorists demanded the release of 2 Arab terrorists. In order to make Greek authorities comply with their demands, the terrorists killed a hostage and threw his body onto the tarmac. The plane then flew to Damascus, where it stopped for two hours to obtain fuel and food. It then flew to Kuwait, where the terrorists released their hostages in return for passage to an unknown destination. The Palestine Liberation Organization disavowed the attack, and no group claimed responsibility for it.

Ambassador to Cyprus Assassinated, August 19, 1974: U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus Rodger P. Davies and his Greek Cypriot secretary were shot and killed by snipers during a demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia.

Domestic Terrorism, January 27-29, 1975: Puerto Rican nationalists bombed a Wall Street bar, killing four and injuring 60; two days later, the Weather Underground claims responsibility for an explosion in a bathroom at the U.S. Department of State in Washington.

Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976: Members of the Baader-Meinhof Group and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) seized an Air France airliner and its 258 passengers. They forced the plane to land in Uganda. On July 3 Israeli commandos successfully rescued the passengers.

Assassination of Former Chilean Diplomat, September 21, 1976: Exiled Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier was killed by a car-bomb in Washington.

Kidnapping of Italian Prime Minister, March 16, 1978: Premier Aldo Moro was seized by the Red Brigade and assassinated 55 days later.

Ambassador to Afghanistan Assassinated, February 14, 1979: Four Afghans kidnapped U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul and demanded the release of various "religious figures." Dubs was killed, along with four alleged terrorists, when Afghan police stormed the hotel room where he was being held.

Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981.

Grand Mosque Seizure, November 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.

That's just to 1990. Do you need more? How was our finger in the pile then? Installing the Shah? Creation of Israel? How far back do you wanna go? If you wanna go all the way back, I will . . . MUHAMMED STARTED THE FIRST ISLAMIC CRUSADE IN 630 a.d.. .. he fought in it himself before he died of a fever two years later. . . . keep talkin man

[Moody]

Well, I think at this point we have to shut the place down. What do I mean? Well, since we are not dropping bombs... which if we targetted the enemy and did this it would probably save some time, lives and headaches.... we need to military strong hold the country. Maybe we should just call it USA #2 now and send all the Muslims there. :laughing6 (Had to get a joke in.)

But, really Cajuns idea of an unrelenting style of military presence and mildly allow a goverment and bussiness to be reformed. Besides, we are going to need a good military base in the region soon.

[Buck Nasty]

once again, assuming things about me. I have been "over there." Ive been to Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and several other places.

You seem to think all this started when we went to Iraq. We weren't in Iraq when planes hit our buildings on Sept. 11. Well, explain these:

Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology




First U.S. Aircraft Hijacked, May 1, 1961: Puerto Rican born Antuilo Ramierez Ortiz forced at gunpoint a National Airlines plane to fly to Havana, Cuba, where he was given asylum.

Ambassador to Guatemala Assassinated, August 28, 1968: U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala John Gordon Mein was murdered by a rebel faction when gunmen forced his official car off the road in Guatemala City and raked the vehicle with gunfire.

Ambassador to Japan Attacked, July 30, 1969: U.S. Ambassador to Japan A.H. Meyer was attacked by a knife-wielding Japanese citizen.

Ambassador to Brazil Kidnapped, September 3, 1969: U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Charles Burke Elbrick was kidnapped by the Marxist revolutionary group MR-8.

Attack on the Munich Airport, February 10, 1970: Three terrorists attacked El Al passengers in a bus at the Munich Airport with guns and grenades. One passenger was killed and 11 were injured. All three terrorists were captured by airport police. The Action Organization for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack.

U.S. Agency for International Development Adviser Kidnapped, July 31, 1970: In Montevideo, Uruguay, the Tupamaros terrorist group kidnapped AID Police adviser Dan Mitrione; his body was found on August 10.

"Bloody Friday," July 21, 1972: An Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb attacks killed eleven people and injure 130 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Ten days later, three IRA car bomb attacks in the village of Claudy left six dead.

Munich Olympic Massacre, September 5, 1972: Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized eleven Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany. In a bungled rescue attempt by West German authorities, nine of the hostages and five terrorists were killed.


Ambassador to Sudan Assassinated, March 2, 1973: U.S. Ambassador to Sudan Cleo A. Noel and other diplomats were assassinated at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum by members of the Black September organization.

Consul General in Mexico Kidnapped, May 4, 1973: U.S. Consul General in Guadalajara Terrence Leonhardy was kidnapped by members of the People’s Revolutionary Armed Forces.

Attack and Hijacking at the Rome Airport, December 17, 1973: Five terrorists pulled weapons from their luggage in the terminal lounge at the Rome airport, killing two persons. They then attacked a Pan American 707 bound for Beirut and Tehran, destroying it with incendiary grenades and killing 29 persons, including 4 senior Moroccan officials and 14 American employees of ARAMCO. They then herded 5 Italian hostages into a Lufthansa airliner and killed an Italian customs agent as he tried to escape, after which they forced the pilot to fly to Beirut. After Lebanese authorities refused to let the plane land, it landed in Athens, where the terrorists demanded the release of 2 Arab terrorists. In order to make Greek authorities comply with their demands, the terrorists killed a hostage and threw his body onto the tarmac. The plane then flew to Damascus, where it stopped for two hours to obtain fuel and food. It then flew to Kuwait, where the terrorists released their hostages in return for passage to an unknown destination. The Palestine Liberation Organization disavowed the attack, and no group claimed responsibility for it.

Ambassador to Cyprus Assassinated, August 19, 1974: U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus Rodger P. Davies and his Greek Cypriot secretary were shot and killed by snipers during a demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia.

Domestic Terrorism, January 27-29, 1975: Puerto Rican nationalists bombed a Wall Street bar, killing four and injuring 60; two days later, the Weather Underground claims responsibility for an explosion in a bathroom at the U.S. Department of State in Washington.

Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976: Members of the Baader-Meinhof Group and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) seized an Air France airliner and its 258 passengers. They forced the plane to land in Uganda. On July 3 Israeli commandos successfully rescued the passengers.

Assassination of Former Chilean Diplomat, September 21, 1976: Exiled Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier was killed by a car-bomb in Washington.

Kidnapping of Italian Prime Minister, March 16, 1978: Premier Aldo Moro was seized by the Red Brigade and assassinated 55 days later.

Ambassador to Afghanistan Assassinated, February 14, 1979: Four Afghans kidnapped U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul and demanded the release of various "religious figures." Dubs was killed, along with four alleged terrorists, when Afghan police stormed the hotel room where he was being held.

Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981.

Grand Mosque Seizure, November 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.

That's just to 1990. Do you need more? How was our finger in the pile then? Installing the Shah? Creation of Israel? How far back do you wanna go? If you wanna go all the way back, I will . . . MUHAMMED STARTED THE FIRST ISLAMIC CRUSADE IN 630 a.d.. .. he fought in it himself before he died of a fever two years later. . . . keep talkin man

i believe most of these the palesitians were behind?

and this is really a question im asking how long has the US been backign israel?

[Moody]

i believe most of these the palesitians were behind?

and this is really a question im asking how long has the US been backign israel?
Since the 70s?

[Buck Nasty]

what else was going on in 630 a.d?

[Moody]

what else was going on in 630 a.d?
The crusades were begining. Now this is an interesting direction. :icon_bigg

[Buck Nasty]

i argued with you over some of your views on islam, cuz it pretty much looks like your attacking the religion on here.. not cool

[paniro187]

i argued with you over some of your views on islam, cuz it pretty much looks like your attacking the religion on here.. not coolnasty showing his intellectual side. if he applied this to track riding he would be a threat. :icon_bigg

[Moody]

I attack all religion. It is the work of evil minds to control idle minds. I am your lord. Now march for me into the firing lines and conquer in my name. Blah Blah Blah

[Buck Nasty]

-shrug- no ones really gonna change anyone on here.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

To further suppliment Law's recent post...here is a complete chronology and history of terrorism as offered by wikipedia (one of the best resources of info outside of an encyclopedia).

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

[Buck Nasty]

ah paniro, my biggest fan. funny how you even bing my track riding into a politics thread. :icon_bigg :icon_bigg

[Moody]

Let's face it! It is a holy war and I want our side to win. Why? because I can choose who I worship or not worship with out having my head severed.

[paniro187]

ah paniro, my biggest fan. funny how you even bing my track riding into a politics thread. :icon_bigg :icon_biggyou gyus are too smart for me to add anything so i'll jsut snipe from the rooftops. alice n chains isn't here so you'll do. :nod:

[Moody]

Charles is on the roof again. :laughing6

[Buck Nasty]

Let's face it! It is a holy war and I want our side to win. Why? because I can choose who I worship or not worship with out having my head severed.


well , i guess you just called this a jihad. :eh: and you know what, it pretty much is. the weird thing is, over there they call us the terrorist :confused2

[Buck Nasty]

Charles is on the roof again. :laughing6


charles cant shoot, his contacts would dry out lol :keke:

[paniro187]

charles cant shoot, his contacts would dry out lol :keke:if this was war buck would lose because he would get one battle victory and claim he won the war. :laughing6 even though after a victory a couple secons later he pulled a pin on a grenade and held it too long. :keke: :keke:

[paniro187]

interesteing reading...........


The book of Revelation speaks of a critical period in history during which a symbolic horseman would "take peace away from the earth." (Revelation 6:4) This picture of unremitting warfare is part of a composite sign that indicates that we are now living in a time described in the Bible as "the last days."* (2 Timothy 3:1) God's Word assures us, however, that these last days are a prelude to peace.

The Bible explains at Psalm 46:9 that real peace requires an end of war, not in just one region of the globe, but in all the earth. Furthermore, this same psalm specifically mentions the destruction of the weapons of Bible times—the bow and the spear. The weapons that proliferate nowadays must likewise be destroyed if mankind is ever to live in peace.

Ultimately, though, it is hatred and greed rather than bullets and rifles that fuel the flames of war. Covetousness, or greediness, is a fundamental cause of war, and hatred frequently leads to violence. To uproot these destructive feelings, people need to change the way they think. They need to be educated in the ways of peace. Thus, the ancient prophet Isaiah realistically states that war will cease only when people 'do not learn war anymore.'—Isaiah 2:4.

However, at present we live in a world that teaches adults and children, not the value of peace, but the glory of war. Sadly, even children are being trained to kill.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Yep, so how do you all think we should handle this Iranian situation ? Being that they have now been proven to supply terrorist organizations, namely hizbollah, with weapons; What do we do to be sure they are not nearly capable of giving nuclear technology/apparatus to terrorists. They have been known to lie about their nuclear program and it's status...also they've been known to be further along than was previously thought...

[Buck Nasty]

if this was war buck would lose because he would get one battle victory and claim he won the war. :laughing6 even though after a victory a couple secons later he pulled a pin on a grenade and held it too long. :keke: :keke:


ah shit see now i want to keep my bike :sad7:

the wars gonna have to wait till early next year when i get another bike.

[paniro187]

Yep, so how do you all think we should handle this Iranian situation ? Being that they have now been proven to supply terrorist organizations, namely hizbollah, with weapons; What do we do to be sure they are not nearly capable of giving nuclear technology/apparatus to terrorists. They have been known to lie about their nuclear program and it's status...also they've been known to be further along than was previously thought...funny thing is they are doing EVERYTHING we went to war with iraq over yet we want to talk to them........wonder why :eh:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

interesteing reading...........


The book of Revelation speaks of a critical period in history during which a symbolic horseman would "take peace away from the earth." (Revelation 6:4) This picture of unremitting warfare is part of a composite sign that indicates that we are now living in a time described in the Bible as "the last days."* (2 Timothy 3:1) God's Word assures us, however, that these last days are a prelude to peace.

The Bible explains at Psalm 46:9 that real peace requires an end of war, not in just one region of the globe, but in all the earth. Furthermore, this same psalm specifically mentions the destruction of the weapons of Bible times—the bow and the spear. The weapons that proliferate nowadays must likewise be destroyed if mankind is ever to live in peace.

Ultimately, though, it is hatred and greed rather than bullets and rifles that fuel the flames of war. Covetousness, or greediness, is a fundamental cause of war, and hatred frequently leads to violence. To uproot these destructive feelings, people need to change the way they think. They need to be educated in the ways of peace. Thus, the ancient prophet Isaiah realistically states that war will cease only when people 'do not learn war anymore.'—Isaiah 2:4.

However, at present we live in a world that teaches adults and children, not the value of peace, but the glory of war. Sadly, even children are being trained to kill.

Very...very nice!:icon_thum

Pan I like this lil phase you goin through brotha...keep at it. Just learned me somethin today...

[paniro187]

ah shit see now i want to keep my biker :sad7:

the wars gonna have to wait till early next year when i get another bike.i mgiht recruit you in a race team young skywalker. keep honing your skills and make some more money and we'll talk.

[law750]

I have no problem attacking a religion that won't condemn terrorists within with the same fury that it attacks and kills ppl over cartoons. It is childish, immature, irrational, backward, and riddled with evil. I have no qualms about putting that right out there. So what?

Everyone wants evenhandedness when it comes to condemning our marines, but don't you dare say anything about the religion of peace? WHy? cuz they'll bomb me. . . . no doubt. I'll go down with my free speech speaking the truth and not ignoring the facts.

It's true not even close to 3 in 10 Muslims is an extremist, but nor does even close to 3 in 10 take active public steps to a)condemn what's going on in their religion b) give it a better face in the world c) work to promote American interests and fight against injustice . .. so, yeah, they may not all be terrorists, but they don't have my respect until those steps are taken.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

funny thing is they are doing EVERYTHING we went to war with iraq over yet we want to talk to them........wonder why :eh:

Yea I find that pretty ****in ironic...yet I never see anyone else bring it up and I must admit that that shyt is pretty frustrating...

[paniro187]

I have no problem attacking a religion that won't condemn terrorists within with the same fury that it attacks and kills ppl over cartoons. It is childish, immature, irrational, backward, and riddled with evil. I have no qualms about putting that right out there. So what?

Everyone wants evenhandedness when it comes to condemning our marines, but don't you dare say anything about the religion of peace? WHy? cuz they'll bomb me. . . . no doubt. I'll go down with my free speech speaking the truth and not ignoring the facts.

It's true not even close to 3 in 10 Muslims is an extremist, but nor does even close to 3 in 10 take active public steps to a)condemn what's going on in their religion b) give it a better face in the world c) work to promote American interests and fight against injustice . .. so, yeah, they may not all be terrorists, but they don't have my respect until those steps are taken.a relgion condemning people wouldn't that be passing judgment which is something a religious person shouldn't do as it's a sin.......

[paniro187]

Yea I find that pretty ****in ironic...yet I never see anyone else bring it up and I must admit that that shyt is pretty frustrating...seriously that's what's got me so suspect to what's going on. we went to war over intelligence in iraq. yet the whole world knows what iran has including us yet we do't do the same with them.

[law750]

I don't care if it's a sin. I probably don't ascribe to your religion. I pass judgement all the time; just like you just did to me just now and ppl do everyday. (which is the real funny part). I say what I think; feel like it's justified; apologize when I'm wrong.

[Buck Nasty]

im not sure how many -horse men- there will be, but i believe one will bring destruction through disease, one through famin, one through bloodshed, one through natural distaster cant remember the rest, but i think all those have already arrived?

[paniro187]

I don't care if it's a sin. I probably don't ascribe to your religion. I pass judgement all the time; just like you just did to me just now and ppl do everyday. (which is the real funny part). I say what I think; feel like it's justified; apologize when I'm wrong.so you follow what you choose to follow. I like this you're one of those right wingers I kind of despise because of the two faceness. quick to say you're religious put do a wholelot of things that even though you think what you're doing is right is wrong spritually.

[paniro187]

religion is not a pick and choose sort of thing either you're in or out. right??? I'm not speaking as if i go to church or anything. But hyprcrites fire me up to no end.

[law750]

I agree it's not pick and choose. I'm OUT. Thus, I don't have a moral problem with a rational and justifiable judgement.

[paniro187]

I agree it's not pick and choose. I'm OUT. Thus, I don't have a moral problem with a rational and justifiable judgement.then there's no arguement with you then.......kill 'em all!!!!

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

seriously that's what's got me so suspect to what's going on. we went to war over intelligence in iraq. yet the whole world knows what iran has including us yet we do't do the same with them.

Yep, Absolutely amazing...further reason to think Bush was full of shyt about going to Iraq to fight terror or for WMD...Iraq had neither, we engage them...Iran endorses and partakes in one and is actively working on the other yet now we want a to implement a "diplomatic" stategy now. An interesting difference is...Sadaam had plans to kill Bush Sr....Iran ironically did not...hmm?:happy3:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

*correction....

Unless you classify the chemical weapons as WMD..

[paniro187]

when bush said this is the guy who tired to kill my father. that should have sent red flags up in everyones minds.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

when bush said this is the guy who tired to kill my father. that should have sent red flags up in everyones minds.

Further evidence to affirm my theory Republican's blindly following their leaders...