They may not actually be facts, and certainly aren't complete ones. It's obvious from the posts I've made, I have no love of Al Qaeda or their charter. But when you've demonstrated the style of debate you're going to engage in, I don't see a point in going after anything that person says whether I agree with it or not. You've provided ample examples to show your style. I'm not going to be a part of that.
Facts: You did not speak up against - someone promoting the Al Qaeda charter - someone saying Bush and Obama are on the same moral level as Bin Laden and Hitler. You did speak up against - someone criticizing Islam.
Mathloom, you can't equate the actions of the US and OBL. US methods of drone attacks, while unable to prevent collateral damage, is a much more ethical approach than using hijacked commuter planes to kill as many people as possible. It is the terrorists' burden if their actions (hiding behind civilian sandbags) end up causing the deaths of innocent civilians. The cost is way too high to let these high-ranking militants live just to save a handful of innocent civilians. Its funny how you criticize US counterterrorism tactics while completely ignoring or attempting to justify OBL's much more atrocious actions.
A. I am not a leftist B. I am not speaking up. I am merely questioning Mathloom on his clear misperceptions. And I don't think he is any more of a lunatic than you sir. C. I think FB is well within his right not to be forced to say anything. I am sure he doesn't believe OBL = Bush. If someone says the Cows will rule the earth in 5 years, just because you don't say that's crazy doesn't mean you believe in it as well. D. Please don't use me in any of your cases. I will not be used as a pawn in anyone's attempt to denigrate anyone else on this BBS.
E. Don't worry, I still think you are a tool. Again, compliments though for speaking up against the lunacy of equating Bush/Obama to Osama Bin Laden/Hitler. It was worth some rep, even.
Arguing with Mathloom or FranchiseBlade is like playing chess with a pidgeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pidgeon will knock over all the peices, crap on the board and strut around victorious! I am critical of the Islamic ideology that causes militants to want to kill innocents for not following allah. You tell me I'm wrong with out giving any specifics, tell me I'm quoting out of context, again without any explanation and then say you could write the same thing about Christianity, but don't. Also Christmas is not a biblical Christian practice, everyone knows that. Yes I am biased, but in reality, aren't we all? I just hope that I didn't offend anyone, that is never my intention. If I did, I give mu apologies.
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB) The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT) Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT) When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT) Yeah, I think in general taking any advice from 2nd century or earlier men is a bad idea.
There are a lot of reasons. I'm certainly no expert on Islam. The arguments against the kinds of things you are talking about have been discussed long ago on these boards (possibly before you were reading these boards). Look at the other verses from the bible that are insanely and unjustly violent without looking at the whole context and broader message. I don't think any of us are served by picking out verses without context and using them to try and deride an entire religion. It's pointless and doesn't help move forward any discussion. I agree that Christmas isn't a biblical Christian practice, because when the events in the bible were taking place there were no Christians. That came later. But that doesn't prove anything. Christmas, however is a mainstream Christian practice. But those things aren't important or worth arguing about, and don't hamper or change Jesus message which is the most important thing about the bible, IMHO.
At least you can admit you are biased. I think everyone is biased, that's true. The question is - what sort of person do you want to be. Bias is based on ignorance ultimate. Wise people judge people on character, not race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, geography...but rather the choices they make over time. To judge Christians or Muslims negatively as a group is short-sighted and reflects bias rooted in ignorance. I am an Atheist, and I can tell you, I see no difference between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. They all seem so similar in their message and preaching that you just edit one to look like the other. You can be biased against anyone you want. But from my experiences, again, such biases are nearly always based on fear or hate. And it's up to you to really ask yourself: Am I really hating people and taking it out in perverse ways useful? What does it accomplish? Maybe you more suspicious of taxi drives and convenient store operators. Islam isn't a voilent religion, its just that Muslims don;t like SAB very much.
1) I agree, all else constant, drones are more ethical than hijacked commuter planes. 2) I've heard this claim so many times in this thread. Can you please point to evidence that shows terrorists are shielding themselves 100% of the time with civilians? I get the feeling you have heard this has happened once or twice, and are assuming it justifies every single counter-terrorism attack. Moreover, the blood is on the hands of the person calling the hit. We know now that people around a drone target are labelled militants regardless of whether they are children, women, innocent, guilty, anything. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=use+of+word+militant+drone&meta= Almost every hit includes civilian casualties. You and I know absolutely nothing about their identity, and Obama has pushed to redefine the word militant so that he does not have to care about their identity. 3) Can not ignore or justify OBL's actions, he is a terrorist, and his actions were terrorist. You go ahead and keep saying I believe differently if it makes you feel better. I don't look at things as terrorist/nonterrorist because actions are not designed that way. There are huge massive terrorists which kill millions and there are little tiny terrorists that use batons and shields. But as I was saying, IF there were only two categories, I have a different opinion about which side people fall on, though we are in agreement that OBL and Hitler and all are terrorists.
For my own safety, I would never in my entire life, since the day I was born and till the day I die, promote the Al Qaeda charter as ATW has falsely claimed. This is just more ATW hysteria. I told people to verify the goals of Al Qaeda by looking at... their document which defines their goals and verifying it for themselves.
This quote clearly implies that in your crazy mind, reading the Al Qaeda charter > "biased propaganda from the media industry".
Thanks for quoting that. Now can you quote the part where I promoted it? In case you are not sure how, here is how you quote someone word for word:
For the record the United States isn't guilty of terrorism like Al Qaeda is. While the United States has shown an incredible lack of respect for innocent human life, both in the certainty that they are striking militants, and the way they define militants. However in the 1998 Fatwa Al Qaeda calls explicitly for strikes on civilians. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden That is far different than what any American President has done.
Again: You promote reading the Al Qaeda charter. If someone goes around and says "you would understand the Nazis better, and not believe the biased mainstream media if you actually read Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'", then that is promoting reading Nazi literature. You were doing the same.
I totally agree with everything, except for the use of the word "far". Paying someone to target civilians is not "far" better than targetting civilians, and sometimes it not better at all. For example: Entity A, in a relatively average action, pays a Rebel Army with cash and weapons and training to murder hundreds of thousands in pursuit of a military coup which would be friendly to the foreign interests of Entity A. Objective: military gain, not civilians. Hundred thousand casualties. Entity B, in its biggest action ever, plans an attack using commercial airliners which would kill all on board, as well as thousands at multiple planned locations such as central military command, the presdential office and two civilians-only towers. Objective: (according to you) civilians, not military gain. Several thousand casualties. As a human, I have to agree with you that the actions of Entity A is qualitatively different than Entity B, and I agree that Entity A has never copied the method of Entity B, but.. What are you (or others) trying to communicate with this message? Should this prompt people to take one side over other? Should this prompt people to ignore the other hundreds of forms of terrorism?
