McCain: Shouting 'Allahu Akhbar!' Same as Christians Shouting 'Thank God!'

No, but it is the same as say, a tanker yelling "Christ!" after firing a shell.

 

If he spent the entire time playing a game then that would be a problem. If he played a game during someone's speech that was a political stump speech then I have no problem with it.

 

Depends on the context, no? If Nidal Hasan was screaming it while firing his guns in Fort Hood, I guess he wasn't really focused on the universe...

 

You don't even know WHAT the point of your thread is.....

 

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one has really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.

 

Oh, so "Allahu Akbar" is now "an indefensible statement"?

 

I saw Palin chimed in on Syria with another one of her "Let Allah Sort It Out" quips.

does Sarah Palin not realize that approximately 10% of Syria (about 2.2 million people) are Christian?

 

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/CMU0YZlFX-I?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/CMU0YZlFX-I?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

And I already told you - it means greater than everything. Christians believe the same thing - that God is better and bigger and greater than disease, sin, money, hardship, etc.

The problem you're running into is trying to do a literal translation of a common phrase. It would be like someone from another culture trying to understand why we say "what's up" and not answer with whatever is above us. Or us saying "f*** off" and not meaning someone should go off and have sex.

 

Great post...

 

I understood your response.

 

She doesn't give a **** about Christians. This is all about politics and money and nothing about principle.

 

In everyday Arabic language of all dialects, saying Allahu Akbar is super common. It means "God is greater" but it means so from the perspective that God is great and we are insignificant in the grand scope of the universe.

Yes jihadists scream it in their moments of disgusting violence, but that's less than 0.00000000000001% of the situations it's used in.

McCain actually described it very well. In the very same instances where you would say "Thank God" in English, you would likely say "Allahu Akbar" if you were a Muslim speaking Arabic.

 

McCain is setting up justification for supporting Al-Qaeda if the US bombs and kills Assad. He is not trying to justify the religion of a billion people. Why would anyone think that?

The rebels Assad is fighting seem to largely be religious nutcases.

 

Probably because he has a long history of criticizing people who attack Islam, from town halls to not letting his campaign use that 'tactic' to smear Obama, and on. It's not like this is the only time he's attacked people for misrepresenting things about the religion.

 

That doesn't address the fact that he is setting up justification for supporting Al-Qaeda, as Cohete Rojo pointed out.

 

Except CR is arguing the *reason* behind McCain speaking up - not the end result. Which is more likely?

A. He's trying to support terrorists that he routinely rails against and has always been hawkish on when it comes to attacking.

B. He's continuing to defend a religion that he regularly defends when someone around him criticizes it.

McCain has plenty of negatives, but the one thing he's not been is one to unfairly use Islam or foreignness as a smear, and he's pretty actively attacked people who do so.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/john-mccain-michele-bachmann-muslim_n_1683277.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14479.html

 

I think he was right in the two links you posted. But that doesn't mean he can't still be wrong when he defends an ideology (or parts of it).