KingCheetah, Thanks for the second article there. That, combined with the fact that I have NEVER heard of an Arab man named (Al-Araby) as a last name (Al-Araby means literally "The Arab", so the name would be Abdullah the Arab...how convenient! ), should by itself be enough to dismiss this writer as fictional. They clearly didn't do their homework in making up a valid Arabic name, because no Arab calls his family name "the Arab", it just doesn't work that way. As for giddyup, you just stated that you heard a discussion about this on the "Laura Ingram" show...THAT right there my friend is enough to dismiss everything you've heard. Word of advice: always consider the source! Limbaugh or Savage or Ingram or Coulter will never have a 'fair' discussion about anything related to Islam or Muslims or even this war we are fighting, their political bias absolutely blinds them, they see things in black and white and condemn those who disagree. They are radical right-wingers no better than any radical leftie. The fact that you seem to be getting your information from these sources and defend them as the 'truth' tells me more about your overall political/religious views than anything else, IMO. But it's ok, you are entitled to listening to radicals, that's what this country is all about. The problem I am having with you giddyup is not based on your views, but rather based on the fact that you refuse to be direct in stating your real views and feelings about this topic. I think if you feel like we are at war with Islam itself, you should say so; if you feel like Al-Qaeda is merely a symptom of Islamic doctrine, then state so. Basically, be clear about what you think, instead of giving us all the run-around here and leaving us to guess as to what exactly YOU want to say. You created this thread, and now you to put forth the actual claim/argument you have in regards to the topic, because as long as we know nothing about where exactly do you stand on this issue (I probably do know, I can take a wild guess, but I would prefer you be more straightforward with your opinions about this or any other topic) then there is hardly anything to debate. Nothing PC about the D&D giddup, you should know that by now. We have discussed very controversial topics on here and everyone offered up their opinions, no matter how radical/silly/moderate/sensible their positions on issues were. So, please be more clear about what YOU want to say, because judging by many of those who already replied to your initial and subsequent posts, there seems to be lots of confusion about what exactly you want to say.
I once saw Hakeem Olajuwon lie to a referee about committing a foul. Can you imagine that? Only Muslims would do such a thing.
I think the point is that both Muslims and Christians lie, but the Muslim religion says it is ok, while the Christian religion would never condone such a thing.
<B>thacabbage So what is your purpose in attempting to find roots of this problem in Islamic teachings? They lied (allegedly) so it's a problem with Islam?</b> Well if you read what the article said (echoed by the experts I heard on the radio) it is a deliberate strategy that is taught in the Koran. You seem to think differently. Fine. <b> Is this a war against Islam, in your opinion?</b> No, but we are fighting radical Muslims and I think it helps us to understand our enemy. <b> Are there any roots based in Christianity for George W. Bush's lies? He declares that God speaks to him, how is that any different than your claims that Islam is the cause behind this war?</b> Did I say that Islam is the cause of this war or did I say that perversions of Islam are causing this war? <b> Would you not agree that the very reason Bush43 is still in office is due to the Christian Right and their homophobia and bullsh*t family values?</b> There are some gay people against gay marriage; are they homophobic too? <b>Using the same logic you are using, isn't Christianity then responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis?</b> We are not fighting in the name of CHristianity.
giddyup...man whats the point of this thread???....lets say the muslim religion does teach to lie at certain times....then what??...you think someone’s gonna change their religion from your post.....that is the weakest attempt to prove that the religion teaches to lie...i just think you have a problem....you don't seem to understand that there are different cultures across the world....learn to be more accepting of them ....your own culture and traditions are not the only thing living on this planet....people like you create problems in this world
so real enemy is the Koran and not the terrorists? the terrorists are brainwashed and used by the Koran? so we can't blame the terrorists.. just the Koran..
I didn't ask anybody to change their religion. The point is that we need to be wary of what we believe the enemy is saying about us because they have provision for lying--- not just the BIG LIE -- but the little ones as well. Boy, now I'm guilty of creating problems in the world... shut up.
so the whole picture is you have a problem with the principle of "Al-Takeyya" or "al-Taqiyya" which literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation." I think thats practical.. if some terrrorist asks me something and if I tell the truth, I'm going to die.. I think its okay to lie.. I don't need a Koran or Bible to tell me that.. but I would prefer someone to tell me thats its okay to do that better than someone who tells me not.. what do you think.. so do you disagree with that principle? If you do so you think that one should NOT Conceal or disguise one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.
you are a very naive person if up to now you think an enemy whether he be follows the Koran, Bible or nothing will always tell you the truth and will never lie..
Why? I threw this out there for discussion and spent so much time parrying personal attacks that there is no discussion. I heard two eminent terrorist experts discussing this on the radio... but the experts on this BBS dismiss it out of hand as poppycock. Why is how I feel about it of importance? I do a google search on the topic and this article is #3 or 4 on the results page and is in fact referenced on several of the other pages, so it would seem to be legitimate. But people who don't like what it says are happy just to check it off as illegitimate and be done with it. I was and still am willing to learn something from either side here, but the paranoia of those who can't or won't tolerate something negative even being suggested about Islam or Muslims is overwhelming. I read plenty of disregard for Christians here. I posted it and said "DISCUSS" and all I get is a deluge of criticsm for my viewpoint which I had not even expressed. I asked some followup questions to stimulate discussion and I get more of the same. All postings should be done with a little more humility; there's way too much in your face crap that goes on here. I haven't ventured in here much over the last month and, frankly, I didn't miss it as much as I thought I would. Maybe I'll retreat again... for a while.
thats what you said.. but now you say thats not what you thought? that is either a lame excuse or a lie.. so what do you think about enemies in general? can you always trust them to tell the truth all the time or do you expect them to lie.. at least we know where they stand so we can safeguard from their lies.. our own president and adminstration lies to us..
Giddy it is one thing for either side to discuss something negative about their side, but there is a problem here. 1. We don't have to be on different sides. There is no reason why Muslim and Christian can't and shouldn't be on the same side. 2. When discussing something negative it helps if it is objective, and from a reliable source or has legitimate evidence. An article that starts with the premise of taking quotes out of context and trying to use those to label a religion as something that is not, isn't objective, nor is it worthy of discussing seriously, unless that discussion starts and stops with people pointing out the gimmiks used by the author. A topic worth discussing is Islamic law where people who shop lift have their hands cut off, or women are not allowed to vote, get educations drive, etc. That discussion would probably come down to practice of the religion more than if that is proper application of Islam's principles. But I will concede fully that those are things are negative about the way that some people practice Islam.
We responded to it. Are you not the one defending it? I think your feeling would be of some importance... Did you not read the very first reply in this thread? Let's put this in simpler terms. Would you give any credibility to a scouting report on Yao Ming from Dick Vitale, someone who has hated him from the start? Stop being so sensitive. No one is stopping you from posting the article and noone is stopping you from defending it. I admittedly know very little regarding the specifics of global warming. This is the same circumstance as if I had posted an article specifying a viewpoint regarding global warming. It is then proven to come from a bias source and I admit I have no knowledge regarding the contents of the article. I can let it go or continue to defend it even though admittedly I am completely unfamiliar with the topic. You chose the latter. And you're surprised at the response this has garnered?
Maybe I am missing something. I do not see what there is to discuss from the article you posted. Apparently you are the only one who is seeing discussion material in that article. That article proves nothing. That article says nothing. If that article is intended to prove something or to make a point, then it is one of the worst pieces of persuasive prose I have ever seen. In my opinion, it is one step above me typing a page of random letters. Since this is your thread, point us in the right direction. Tell us what you see in the article and we can all go from there to have discussion.
Yes. It's pretty ironic to me how giddy will bend over backwards to defend articles seeking to denigrate an entire religious faith, the right of right-wing rockers to use racist slurs and various, repeatedly debunked, far-right chain emails and then respond to peaceful demonstrators against a war by saying there's such a thing as too much free speech. I also love how he continually posts articles displaying plain bias bordering on hate speech and then acts the victim, saying he only wanted to encourage "discussion."
