A word to the Radical terrorists from a Muslim
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Discription: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4209
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 08:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A word to the Radical terrorists from a Muslim
Posted By: eaglecap
Subject: A word to the Radical terrorists from a Muslim
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 15:50
This is very good and I was happy to see a moderate Muslim take a stance against the crazy radicals. I can respect this man as a fellow American. But, I am sure for some on this forum this is still propaganda.
Islam Print this page Email this page A Muslim Against Terror By Ibrahim Abdul Mu'min Front Page Magazine February 28, 2005 I am a Muslim. A patriotic, American-born, anti-terrorist, Muslim. I believe in Allah, his mercy, and his prophets. I believe in the mission of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)*. However… I care nothing for the phony fatwahs* of mad-mullahs. I denounce the scholars-for-petrol-dollars, the jihad ravings of insane, homicide bombers, and the Wahabbi House-of-Saud fraud. I will stand against all terrorist activities, completely, with no apologetic, leftist, misgivings.... see link http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=263292&attrib_id=7574 - http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topi cs_show.htm?doc_id=263292&attrib_id=7574 |
Replies:
Posted By: akıncı
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 17:32
|
what is this?it is nothing special.Most of the muslims think this way ------------- "I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!" |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 17:34
Brilliant answer! The best and the only one! ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 17:36
|
eaglecap What do you think about A-bombs? Or what do you think, innocent died at Iraq? what do you think USA support to saddam agains Iran? What about Israel nicely job on arabs? hmm? Why didnt moderate christians stop them? Why they let innocent die? Where are the moderate christians? Why are you supporting this crimes with their tax? If they support this crimes can we call them innocent?
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 18:22
|
The way you word your sentences makes it hard to understand your question. No offense but you need to work on your English skills.
If you look at compassion it was the Christians nations who sent in most of the aid for the tsunami victims and not the Muslim nations. What do you think about A-bombs- An evil I wish had not been invented. Or what do you think, innocent died at Iraq- please reword this so it makes sense??? no offense! what do you think USA support to saddam agains Iran- At the time he was the lesser evil. I think you will find this is a common tactic in history. The Byzantines used the same tactic quite often although it sickens me that we support any evil dictator. Why didnt moderate christians stop them- what is a moderate Christian??? The Christians do not blow themselves up in the name of Jesus otherwise I would critisize them as well. Why they let innocent die- You need to make sense but if this means what I think then how come the radical terrorists are blowing up innocent women and children, their own kind. What about the U.S. soldier who threw himself on a grenade to protect some children in Iraq? Where are the moderate christians- no such animal! How do you define a moderate Christian? Why are you supporting this crimes with their tax- whose taxes- ????? If they support this crimes can we call them innocent- ??? I am not sure what you mean so please explain this question better. Why do you turn this article into an attack on Islam? It says something positive about your faith. |
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 18:38
|
eaglecap Yes There is not moderate christian, and there is not moderate muslims too. I realy hate from this word. I am realy curious If you realy give any sh*t for Muslim Lifes. Lesser evil? Who is worse evil iran? Lie! A huge lie, and USA mostly loves huge lies. Iran is alive and she did nothing. Let me make it more clear, I mean what do you think innocents killed by USA in iraq. Sorry for my english, I know it is not good. Where are the moderate christians- no such animal! How do you define a moderate Christian? If I am not wrong, USA get some tax from his people and USA use that tax for his operations, For exp Iraq, or helping Iraq for killing Iranians, for exp, killing some japan with A-bomb. So will we accept Tax Payers as guilty? Just curious. I am against this article, because Christians have no right to accuse islam with such way. Just think Eaglecap, how many innocent die because of USA. and how many innocent die because of USAme. How many people killed by christian russia? or how many people killed by Serbs? British? Germans? France? Spain? Before you accuse Islam, you should make christianity a better religion. You killed 200 000 with A-Bomb, Tell me difference between A-bomb and What Usame did? I cant see any difference can you?
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2005 at 19:10
|
darn I lost my answer to you Murtaza. I have to run but I will answer two fast!!
I am realy curious If you realy give any sh*t for Muslim Lives? I tend to care for anyone human life and yes I would gladly stand by Seko and defend him against Muslim haters if that happened, after another 9/11. I believe in the fredom of religion and Muslims are no less human than me. When I meet Muslims, what few we have, I treat them with respect. The Iraq war- I tend to agree with Pat Buchanan on this topic. I will have to get back but it does stink of another Viet Nam!! I wish I had not lost the original response!! 
|
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 15:03
Well the qu'ran says that if you kill one human being unjustly it is equal to killing the whole of humanity and if you save one soul it is equal to the saving of whole humanity. Therefore, with this and other aspects of Islam it is rather propaganda to use the term Islamic fundamentalist terrorist because a person who does these acts is not following Islam and is not a Muslim. Furthermore, do you see the IRA in northern Ireland be called fundementalist Christian terrorists when they are exactly such. It seems to me that the term Islamic terrorist is used very easily and you do not even understand the religion. Because otherwise you'd know better than to associate one deed to a religion. There are many Chiristians who commit terrorism but to me they are not neccesarily Christian terrorists becaue Christianity just like Islam does not teach such horrible acts. |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 15:08
|
It sounds to me that you are looking for an Uncle Tom type of muslim :yes there masser wat can i do fo u masser" You are very ignorant please take the time to througly study a topic in history before contiuing with your banter. Just like Palestine. Have you heard of the massacres at Jennin. U.S. manufactured M16s and tanks practically given away for almost nothing to the Isreal state? The fact that in 1919 there were perhaps 15000 orthodox jews living in the entire state and 800000 christian and muslim arabs, or that the orthodox jews and palestinians were in support of each other against zionists all the way until the emergence of hitler? it seems to me that you are a suburban white kid that watches the media too much and has no capability to make your own mind on something because you have been shelterd from it your whole life. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 19:01
|
Terrorist...Uhm, which ones? American invaders, Israeli massaccrers or Arab terrorist suicide bombers? They are no different than each other, all of them is the same for me. Cowardish chickie bastards who can only handle innocent civilians, who dont have honor, who dont care about pride. They believe they are masturbating when they kill, rape or torture civilians, because their only ability is enough to deal with those weak people. People who can respond their tankss with throwing stones. Damn, but their existance is necessary, if such people didnt exist, there would be no need for a place called "Hell". Eaglecap, havent you still realized it has nothing to do with Islam, Christianity etc.? Religions are weapons for policies and benefits, weapons to create massive sheeps to follow violent orders, just like the new weapon of USA, delivering democracy. I am an Alevi, but I am familiar with Sunnite terms. Jihad isnt done to convert others to Islam or kill nonMuslims. It is done for protecting Muslims and Islam, and their rights. So if there is a jihad goin' on in Iraq, the soldiers arent suicide bombers or the ones who are that cowardies to attack babies, but the ones who are ready to gpush themselves in front of an American tank with their stones, or who are desperate to piss on Saddam. American invaders and Saddam have no difference except their religious masks. Wow! Did you know your beloved foundation for the defence of democracies is the american version of your favourite Jihadwatch? No, it isnt, it is worse, at least Jihadwatch doesnt wear masks to its purposes. ------------- |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2005 at 23:10
| apparently not whenever a Christian does a terrorist act it is not labeled with the religion however whenever a muslim does it is labeled with Islam and Islam is somehow to blame for it. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2005 at 07:12
|
Azimuth ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2005 at 10:17
 ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2005 at 20:20
| Sorry about that azimuth, haha. |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2005 at 20:28
If you are referring to USSR as Russia, let it be know that they did not act by killing million in the name of God, as radical muslims claim they are acting. All these countries you name mainly did NOT kill in the name of God, but for other reasons. Anyway, these are countries, but radical muslims do not come from one country, but from many countries around the world. ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 02:06
Although I believe that throughout history the number of people killed by purely religious reasons, without there being other political, economical and social motives in the background, is probably rather small, if the Muslims wanted to equal the numbers of victims of those who claimed to fight in the name of Christianity, they would have a lot of catching up to do. In two millenia Christian religion has been used as a justification for so many crimes and atrocities, that they are too many to list here. But if you cite the two thousand year long persecution of the Jewish people alone, it will demonstrate that no other religion has inspired such a brutal and hateful attempt to wipe out an entire people. The Holocaust by the Nazis, although they never claimed to do it in the name of Christianity, would never have been possible, with out the Nazis being able to rely on Anti-Semitic feelings in a Christian society that had existed for two thousand years. Christian societies are in no position to accuse other religions to be inherent violent or murderous. In history they have proven to be the worst of the lot. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 03:08
|
There is no Christian society today, and there hardly ever was. |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 04:21
| Don't forget that in Srebrenica, the serbs sytematically murdered all boys 12 and up too, raped and abducet girls in that age range, i have a friend who survived srebrenica, he was taken on a bus with his mother and the bus stopped periodiclaly for serbians to take ppl off and murder them. Furthermore, they engaged in ethnic mass rape against muslims. But you never hear of this sh*t its always the muslims that are the terrorists when the Qu'ran bans such acts it say that if you kill one innocent person that it is like u've killed the whole of humanity. |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 04:22
| Oh i forgot the concentration camps that were in effect were muslim bosnians were put and starved. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 20:46
|
Let's just put it this way: In every religion it says that if you kill one person you won't see heaven. So, to put everything to rest: If you kill someone, you're not following your religion truly, because no religion (at least not the three major ones) support murder.
------------- |
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 06:06
|
Anyone who thinks that killings in the name of religion are actually killings in the name of religion, is totally mislead. Politics, my friends, politics! ------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 06:12
|
this is one of the worst things happened in modern history
------------- 
|
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 09:49
|
salam well yeah u can ask any joe blow american and they dont know what the hell you're talklin bout. plus it doesnt help that many serbs are so arrogant to actually admit that certain serbians actin on commands of the govt did this, which is worse because it increases tensions and they are to arrogant to realize that they are just continuing tensions by not acknowledging what happened. some complain that only five hundred graves were found etc etc but do you really need six million graves to realize there was a holocaust, furthermorel, the fact that some people were put on busses and killed on the road explains that there are scattered grave sites. |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 10:08
|
i think they know and all officials know and the Erupean powers know and the US Government's agencies knows its a matter of politics dont know whats the point. but so far the serbs did a good job killing and achieving their goals and the worlds major powers were watching. and done nothing for 3 years i think. there aren't much Bosnians in those governmets who have power to make things known to public. there are Jew who are doing great job by getting sympathy for them selfs.
-------------
|
it was like 10 years ago not 100 years ago, things like this wont be left unknown.Posted By: ramin
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 14:09
I detest spielberg!! 
------------- "I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon" 
|
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 19:26
why, what did he do?
------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 02:07
well they werent acting upon reports of ethnic cleansing or concentration camps. the western nations also had a arms ban on bonsia set up during a time when it was the dumbest choice one could make. they claim it was to stop the war because serbia was under the same ban. However, while bosnia had no arms, tanks, etc. the russians and greeks supplied serbia with enormous caches of weapons and tanks, etc. It was not until Iran and Saudi Arabia started selling weapons that the bosnians began to push back, and the west naturally frowned on them doing that when they were just evening out he odds. furthermore, most of the deaths on the bosnians side were civilian and occured in the first three years of the war. It wasnt either that the west intervened until saudi arabia thratened with a oil shortage unless the west acted to intervene. |
Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 13:55
|
the UN should of been disbanded after the fiasco of the Bosnian
war,that war showed how corrupt that organisation really is.There doing
the same thing right now,with whats happening in Darfur,were the
Government backed millita (the janjawid) are wiping out the Christian
population.The UN is applying political pressure to the government,but
that doesnt work they need to get european soldiers in country as soon
as possible!I say european because i dont think using African soldiers
works because if the tribal issues. Gavriel |
Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 14:02
|
But what i dont understand about the Yugoslav war is why the Muslim countrys didnt send troops to bosnia? Why didnt Turkey,Iran,Saudi,Jordan etc etc.. stop the Serbs?Why bother with the UN? Genocide should never ever be allowed to happen,no matter what religion the victims are,the worlds powers should send bombs ASAP onto the agresssors capital city.Civilians would die but maybe people will get the idea that Genocide is not acceptable! Gavriel |
Posted By: Fizzil
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 15:50
UAE sent troops there, not sure about other muslim countries, but we made our presence known. we unfortunately ended peace keeping in 2000 
|
Posted By: HulaguHan
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 16:43
|
Turkey? Get your facts again. Also one squadron Turkish Airforce served in Bosnia. THe same squadron also entered the Kosovo battle and only USAF and Turkish Ariforce fought in night missions. |
We sent 1000 armoured infantry units.Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 16:51
|
Ooh,sorry i didnt know,did the 1000 armoured infantry units go in with
the UN or did the Turks send the troops in whilst the Genocide was
happening? Did the American and Turkish air force fight against the Serbian Airforce or drop bombs? I dont know much about the war and im interested in the facts.thanks Gavriel |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 07:53
| Turkey send the units in during the war. Saudi Arabia and Iran provided Bosnia with arms after they realized that the ban isnt going to be enforced on the serbian side and that there had been two hundred thousand largely civilian deaths in a matter of months. |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 14:23
|
"I don’t care how large an ax you have to grind... There is never justification in targeting innocent civilians to make a point." ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 01:51
| well that didnt quite work out, did you not see the news, the sebs specifically targeted women and children and senior citizens walking on the streets in sarajevo during the siege. furthermore, did you not know that ther were greek units in the "scorpions" inside srebrenica when the ethnic cleansing was taking place or that greece was one of the staunchest allies of milosevic or main arms traders during the war. |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 02:00
|
That quote wasnt even directed to any one single person, but you single out a small amount of greeks that joined the serbs.. That war is over, but there is still a "jihad" on all Western nations for their " War on Islam Only Idiotic cowards blow themselves up to kill INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Is this quote now acceptible for u? ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
." Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 02:30
|
It does not matter. I believe that strapping a bomb to blow up civilians is a very cowardly action. Why don't the Islamic extremists try disrupt the MI-6 or blow up British military bases? Politically, I lean towards the left. I can understand the Muslim world's hatred towards the West, but terrorism can only escalate conflict. I have no qualms about resisting the United States and other Western influences, but I disapprove the method chosen by the Islamic extremists. Their method is base and condemnable. By bombing of London right after the city gained rights to the 2012 Olymipic Games, the Islamic extremists essentially declared that they are against all humanity. ------------- AAAAAAAAAA "The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.� ~ HG Wells |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 04:42
|
i think saying Terrorests is more correct than saying Islamic extermists. by the secound one you generalize more which is not correct, there are alot of extermists in Islam and not all of then are Terrorests.
-------------
|
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 05:20
|
And there are terrorists who are not islamic at all, because terrorism
is a global phenomenon and not one that can be attributed to one
faction only.
------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 17:52
And they kill in the name of petrol, land, benefits. Is this a better reason? Also you cannot take lives in the name of God like that, according to Islam. So accusing Muslims or Islams for such behavior is silly, those people have their own religion they serve. Radical Christians also dont come from a single country. There are evangelists, etc. supporting Chrsitian violence in Balkans, Russia, middle East etc. everywhere. At least the radical Muslims dont hide their purposes of taking innocent lives like the shorter bearded Christian ones.
Tell it to western butchers, they are the ones who hide their purposes.
Yes, tell it to prisoners in Ebu Gharib, Guetanamo, Iraqis whose families are still starving, whose sons are still kidnapped, Chechens whose rights are still raped, Bosnians whose families are totally massacred. And tell it to the ones whose streets are divided by an Israeli guard wall. And there is still a "crusader" on all Eastern nations. Who still invades the holy lands? Have a look at the last 60 years' history.
And only idiotic cowards bomb babies in their cradles from their aircrafts. Is this quote acceptable for you too?
I agree Menippos, do you have to be that intelligent among others? Congrads ------------- |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 20:38
|
thats my point the west doesnt look at history they are so arrogant
that they arent able to even have unbiased history classes, last medieval history class i took the professor made it look as if the west learned everything they had on their own they do not emphasize the influcne of the islamic world on the west. |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 01:17
|
Radical Christians also dont come from a single country. There are evangelists, etc. supporting Chrsitian violence in Balkans, Russia, middle East etc. everywhere. At least the radical Muslims dont hide their purposes of taking innocent lives like the shorter bearded Christian ones. I don;t know too many radical chreistian terrorists who blow themselfs up in the name of God. In fact, i don't know many Christian terrostis who blow themselves up at all.
And only idiotic cowards bomb babies in their cradles from their aircrafts. Is this quote acceptable for you too? Get real, do you really think American bombers Purposely bomb innocent civilians on purpose? Why waste the bombs? They targets militants inside Iraq. You made it seem like my quote was wrong, like you were sticking up for these terrorists.. WHy is that Ouz? ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 03:10
|
No, there dont. They have more effective, more cowardish and less self dangerous methods, such as attacking to civilians with their tanks. So noone needs to sacrifice himself to kill civilians. More benefical one.
You get real, I hope Christian world isnt totally blinded about the clean job of Amercan crusaders. American bombers, lots of times, bombed civilian shelters, hospitals, Afghan villages on purpose, the main difference btw Americans/Israeli invaders and Americans is that one of them declares he kills civilians on purpose, the other hides his purpose. So didnt even the UN caused civilians to die, civilians to starve, civilians to suffer from deseases? Firstly they settled Jews on other country's lands, then because of a leader who tortured his own people, they used medical embargos on a nation which even didnt have aspirin for their kids, and now they watch Israelis torture Palestinians, build walls on their houses, kill their children. And USA supports that until the end. So? Who is the terrorist? The ones with taller beards or the ones with taller lies? Sticking up with terrorist? What an irony. You are the one who is supporting the actions of taller lied terrorists since the beginning, and now blame me with sticking up with them. Com'on... ------------- |
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 05:00
Come on, Oguzoglu, you generally show objectivity. Why do you get polarised now? You know, as most of us know, that neither terrorism nor invasions have anything really to do with religion. The first ones are spasmic retaliations and the latter are imperialistic assertions. Nothing to do with Islam or Christianity. ------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 05:09
|
Menippos Tell this to christians, they love to use Islamic Terror, but they forget to mention christianic terror. In reality, Western world should now wait much from Muslims, because when terrorism is against muslim countries, they just supported them. For exp PKK for Turkey. And now, they think they are innocent as angel, and love to use word "Islamic terror". Than say oh all Muslim is not terrorist and not support them. How BS.
|
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 05:12
|
Should Turkey attacked to Greece? Italy? Holland or another country for stoping their support to PKK? Than should we say, this christians support Terrorism in Turkey, Just lets kill half million of them.
|
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 05:25
|
Bre akardas Muratza, we don't disagree, but let's throw away from this forum all the bullsh*t that propagandists from West and form East tell us. Muslims don't support terrorism, they go to mosques and pray (I don't know exactly how). Christians don't support terrorism, they go to church and pray while listening to priests singing. Terrorists from the East bomb cars, trains etc. Terrorists from the West bomb cities etc. That's all. Do we agree?  ------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 05:31
|
Yes, we are agree, Infact we were agree too. I just lost my sense. what you said is right. It is political, we aware it menispos. But I realy hate someone(Mostly americans) say, we know all muslim is not terrorist, or something like this and When they are trying to show themself champion of Humanism. By the way, This "bre" have a meaning? I love that word much.
|
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 05:56
|
I thought that "bre" was used in Turkey too In Greece we use "vre" or "re", when we talk to someone friendly. ------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 12:00
|
I am still objective and totally agreeing with you. Please dont get the impression that I become polarized. I just cant accept double standards. I dont support any sides, both are worthless for me, both are terrorists. And I am an Alevi, so I dont have any polarized or symphatic feelings to neither sides, but I am just telling what I witness. Purposed civilian massacres were attempted by both sides. But the question is who is causing all these problems to appear, if we are serios about solving the terror problem, we should get deeper to the roots of it, where we can find how all these violence occured, for what, and who started it. As I repeated lots of times before, I totally agree with you that none of those actions are related with religions, religion is just a mask, an excuse for their greed. So I share your sense with you here. And BTW, we dont use "vre, bre" etc., but Aegean people, especially southern Aegean use such terms. I think those terms have Greek origins, I dont know. And we dont say "akardas", we say "kardes/kardas" meaning brother/sister, and we say "arkadas" meaning friend...
------------- |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 15:16
|
No, there dont. They have more effective, more cowardish and less self dangerous methods, such as attacking to civilians with their tanks. So noone needs to sacrifice himself to kill civilians. More benefical one. Americans in Iraq attack civilians? Aren;t they trying to gain their cooperation by attacking them? I do not know too much about that.. You get real, I hope Christian world isnt totally blinded about the clean job of Amercan crusaders. American bombers, lots of times, bombed civilian shelters, hospitals, Afghan villages on purpose, the main difference btw Americans/Israeli invaders and Americans is that one of them declares he kills civilians on purpose, the other hides his purpose. American bombers attack terrorist locations and such. Tell me, why do they attack hospitals, shelters, and such? Will they go to heaven and get 70 virgins and fruit such as the suicide terorrists? They have no inentive, like the suicide terrorists. So didnt even the UN caused civilians to die, civilians to starve, civilians to suffer from deseases? Firstly they settled Jews on other country's lands, then because of a leader who tortured his own people, they used medical embargos on a nation which even didnt have aspirin for their kids, and now they watch Israelis torture Palestinians, build walls on their houses, kill their children. And USA supports that until the end. So? Who is the terrorist? The ones with taller beards or the ones with taller lies? its too late, the israelis are there, i dont exactly agree that they should be there, but now that they are, peace must be worked. If people keep strapping bombs on their backs, nothing can be achieved.. Sticking up with terrorist? What an irony. You are the one who is supporting the actions of taller lied terrorists since the beginning, and now blame me with sticking up with them. Com'on... Well i write a ligitament quote, and you argue back from it! Was my quote wrong? Was it neccesary to write a counter quote? [/QUOTE]------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2005 at 21:38
we use bre in bosnian too and ba |
Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 02:10
|
Why dont the Jews belong in israel? after what happened to them in
Europe during the 30,s and 40,s,they deserved a country to call there
own,why not israel/Palastine?its where they came from in the first
place. |
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 02:44
|
Gavriel Nonsense, If you realy care for this, give Natives to America or so on. History is history. Nothing more. It was english who put jews to Palastine.Now Jews have right to stay that land. But putting jews to that land is nonsense. If Brits realy cared for jews, they can give them a country in Britain. Giving anothers land for goodness is stupidness. But of course we know, this is not related with ethics.
|
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 04:29
I meant friend. In ancinet Greek, the vocative case started with a "O" (actually omega). So, when you addressed someone, you said, for example: "O, Oguzoglu" or "O, Mennipos" ot "O, Athenians". But I thought that we got the modern form of it from the Ottomans, who used "bre" or something like that. Of course I could be wrong, as you say that Turkish people do not use that or an equivalent. Perhaps it was indeed, as you say, from the south Mediterranean people. I'll ask. ------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 06:46
So we invade Greece then, UN settles Turks all around the world to Morean Greek region. And then we build a wall seperating northern Greece for Greeks. Then, some people come and say that they dont exactly agree with the existance of Turks there, but whatever, now they are there and lets make peace with them. Is this logic, or is this fair? Would you give the same reaction you have about the Israeli/American actions in middle East for your own country? I hope not.
I dont know why do they attack those shelters etc, maybe they want to get rid of the ones who oppose their existance there, for example some Iraqi sunnites. Greed for petrol is much more powerful than Greed for 70 virgins. Our world witness that.
Well, if westerners really loved and respected Jews' rights and concerned for their future, why didnt them give some parts of their own countries to them instead of stealing others' lands for their bros? For example England has some empty areas in the north, what about building a larger Israel there? And USA has an excessive settlement area, there could be formed a ten times larger, greater Israel in American lands for them. And it would be much more fair, right?
------------- |
Posted By: Gavriel
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 11:02
|
Because Israels where they came from,please forgive me if im wrong but
i thought Jerusalem was over 2000years old!the jews were living there
before anyone else was. And a lot of Jews did settle in Britain and America after the war,even though the British Government at the time did STOP a lot more from entering. G |
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 11:40
|
Gavriel You are right jew lived at that land 2000 years ago, should all of us return 2000 years ago? Do you realy thinking world can go this way? Absurd.
|
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 14:37
prove that biologically theyre from there thats where the fiath originated but there were other tribal groups in eastern europe and the caucases that converted to judaism. besides that was two millenia ago, and at the time of the first zoinist movment to isreal or paliestine there were 15 000 jews living there and 700 000 arab christians and muslims. so there was a huge displacement of people from their property and homes. how would you like that about twenty million people who claim celtic descent move into britain and displace twenty million people for their property and homes? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 14:50
|
But the inhabitants of the region was Arabs for the last 1000 years, and when the Jews were settled there. So because most of Russia occupies parts of the Turkic, Mongolic and Tunguzic ancestoral homelands, lets just give the region from Altays to Baikal to Turkish rule and eastern of Lake Baykal to Mongols. The same logic. And what about giving America back to natives?
------------- |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 19:38
I dont recall a turkic nation in current Russia? Jerusalem actually had a stable "state", while the turkic tribes were just nomadic tribes.. And also, the land today known as Israel did belong to the British Empire, so thery technically gave up their lands to give to form Israel.
------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 00:31
I think what you are saying is that historical claims to any land does not matter we should look at the current occupants in control. Look at Israel with your logic now. Who is in control of that land? Jews. Then what is the difference if the historical claim is based on 100, 500 or 2000s year old history
|
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 02:27
|
what post are you replaying on? or you are starting a new one? anyway tell me in what rules did it say people who suffered by whoever deserve a country to call there own? the thing is that Europe got tired of them and just wanted them to be somewhere else. and that was Palistine
well there were peope living there before the jews.
-------------
|
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 02:44
yea they are in control NOW. actully not full control dont think they will keep that control forever though. as soon as certain states get bord of them and leave them alone i think it is a big possibilty that this control would change position.
-------------
|
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 03:23
|
Things have always changed, but rarely have gone back to what they were before
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 04:30
Jews were also nomads. They have just settled in the region around the city of Jarusalem, they dont originally belong there. Do you know what Jarusalem means? An ancient Arab god Salem, a city build for her. And Turks homelands are under Russian occupation now, Altays in southern Siberia. Yes, it was a stable region, you dont have to have cities to have your homeland. Why dont we just settle Turks all over Balkans, Europe, middle East (without countries) in southern Russia and build a new state there? That would be fair wouldnt it?
So lets just invade a country, settle your population there, and 50 years later you claim your rights there because you occupy the land. What kind of logic is that? We arent living in medieval ages.
It didnt belong to the British Empire. The region was just an ex British one. So with the same logic, the region belonged to Ottomans in the last 500 years. Why not settle Turks there, or let the chance to Turks, to choose whom to settle there? ------------- |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 05:52
| well i guess fifty years and two thousand years is the same thing when you talk about your family owning a plot of land or a house in the forties and in the forites bc when your family tree probalbly does not even extent that long |
Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 17:41
They did settle turkls there, but in the populatio exchanges between greece and turkey, they were shipped back to Turkey. Also, I knoiw this one FYROMian who claims turkish heritage, so i guess turks did settle their ------------- http://theforgotten.org/intro.html |
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 18:34
|
Christianity has just as dark of a past as Islam does. I would say that CHristianity is responsible for more crimes in history than islam is. The Crusades, the inquisition, etc...But thats all deep in the past. Time to move on and let the past be the past. There are Islamic terrorists and there are Christian terrorists. What do you think abortion clinic bombers are? I call them Christian terrorists. I hold no grudge against some group that may have committed a crime long before I was ever born. This is just another reason why religion is the true evil. On another thought. Why not just get rid of the term "Islamic terrorists" and "Christian terrorists"?? Lets just call them all "Religious terrorists" Because thats what they are. No need to categorize them. They are all the same This all just goes to show that the governments of the world need to become as secular as humanly possible. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 19:19
|
Christianity has just as dark of a past as Islam does. I would say that CHristianity is responsible for more crimes in history than islam is. The Crusades, the inquisition, etc...But thats all deep in the past. Time to move on and let the past be the past.
I can agree that Christianity and all religions have their dark side but as for more atrocities I do not agree with that. read; The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert Spencer There are Islamic terrorists and there are Christian terrorists. What do you think abortion clinic bombers are? I call them Christian terrorists. There is no comparison between the two and what few Christian terrorists there are it is condemned by the church and it is of localized and not on a global scale like Islam. The Bible(New Testement) does not ask its followers to kill non- believers. And, both Jews and Christians today no longer take the Torah to the degree the early Hebrews did. Why aren't very many moderate Muslims condemning the actions of the radicals? There are a few voices but most are quiet or indirect in their apology-double talk. I hold no grudge against some group that may have committed a crime long before I was ever born. This is just another reason why religion is the true evil. We are on the same side and what you say is true but religion is not the only problem, the Communist killed millions of the people as well-Stalin. In some way the Communist Chinese government could be the bigger threat to America than the radical Muslims. On another thought. Why not just get rid of the term "Islamic terrorists" and "Christian terrorists"?? Lets just call them all "Religious terrorists" Because thats what they are. No need to categorize them. They are all the same- not all terrorist are religious. Any kind of terrorism is evil and yes there are Christian terrorist but they are small compared to the span of terrorism brought on by radical Islam. This all just goes to show that the governments of the world need to become as secular as humanly possible. Christianity has reformed over the years to allow our current seperation of church and state, but currently true Islam cannot be based on seperation of church and state like you have in former Christian nations. Turkey is the only exception and even then it has its problems with true freedom of religion. Islam would have to go through a reformation much like Christianity has but I wonder if this is possible. If you look at the core of the Haddith and the Koran is this is ever possible, I hope it is. Name one of our founding fathers who was a Muslim. I am currently reading: Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer |
Posted By: The Guardian
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 19:36
|
it has its problems with true freedom of religion
could you be mores oecific and clear?Like what? ------------- It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up. &nb |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 19:58
you sound very racist and ignorant Islam not being a religon of peace? First of all I don't think that you have the credentials to state such a claim in the first place. http://www.islamicfoundationvp.org/RECIPEFORWORLDPEACE.pdf - http://www.islamicfoundationvp.org/RECIPEFORWORLDPEACE.pdf surah 1 - ayat 135 : "Believers! Be upholders of justice, and bearers of witness to truth for the sake of Allah, even though it may either be against yourselves or agaisnt your parents and kinsmen, or the rich or the poor: for Allah is more concerned with their well-being than you are. Do not, then, follow your own desires lest you keep away from justice. If you twist or turn away from (the truth), know that Allah is well aware of all that you do." surah 5 - ayat 32: "Whoesoever kills a human bieng unless it be (in punishment( for murder or for spreading mischief on earth, it shall be as if he had slain all manking; and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given lfie to all mankind..." I.E. do not associate a terrorist who "claims" affiliation to Islam as an Isalmic terrorist just like the west never lables timothy mcveigh and the IRA as Christian terroists, they are all in the same pot to me and neither religion condoes such behavior therefore if either one of them does such a deed he is out of the ranks of believers of either religion. that is one bias that keeps coming up in the west and that is much more to do with the villizantion of Islam and the Islamic world for the past 1500 years than it has to do with the religon itself. surah 6 - ayat 151: "do not kill a person, which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law." --Sunnah--- Propeht Muhammads sayings " Among all the sins, the greatest sins are to associate someone or something with God and to kill human beings." more proof on my behalf From the Quran and Shariah Surah 6 " If some non-Muslim state opresses its Muslim citizens, it is not premissible for any Islamic state anywhere in the world to retaliate agaisnt its own non-Muslim subjects; even if all the Muslims living in a non-Muslim state are massacred, no Muslim state canunjustly shed the blood of a single non-Muslim citizen, in retalitation, living within its boundaries because it is agaisnt Islamic Law." Surah 5 - Ayat 2 "Cooperate with each one another for virtue and piety and do not cooperate with one another for the purpose of evil and agression." In other words do not form a organization to destroy human lives, etc, because you are not part of the Ummah as of that time. I.E. the community of Muslims. and you are not to be called a muslim if you do such. Islamic armies conquer Damascus, Hams and the remaining towns of Syria and according to the terms of the treaty they realize some amount of tax for the protection of the life and property of the citizens and the defense of the country (634 A.D., within two years after Prophet Muhammad SAW). But later the Muslim leaders received news that Heraclius had brought a big army which he was anxious to bring against the Muslims. Therefore they decided to bring together their own scattered armies in various conquered towns to concentrate at one point to face the hordes of Heraclius with joint effort. So in keeping with this decision our armies started leaving the towns of Hams, Damascus and other towns. Khalid in Hams, Abu Ubaidah in Damascus and other generals in other towns addressed the citizens thus: "The money or monies we had realized from you was meant for the protection of your lives and properties, and also to defend your lands from outside aggression. But we are sorry to inform you that we are parting with you and since we would not be able to protect and defend you, we are returning the amounts of taxes collected from you." To this the citizens said in reply: "God be with you and bring you back victorious. Your governance and your justice and equity have enamored us, since the Romans in spite of being our coreligionists, we have bitter experience of their oppression and tyranny. By God! If they had been in your position they would not have returned a copper out of the taxes collected from us. Rather, they would have taken away everything they could from here belonging to us." Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah Liberated Jews and Christians When the Tartars made a sudden assault on Syria and took countless men from Muslims, Jews and Christians as prisoners, Sheikh-al-Islam Ibn-e-Taimiyah talked to the Tartar Chief about the release of the prisoners. The Chief gave his assent for the release of the Muslim prisoners but refused to do so in the case of the Jews and the Christians. But Sheikh-al-Islam did not agree and insisted on the release of the Jews and the Christians, who, he told him, were the Zimmis (Dhimmis) of the Islamic state and were bound to them. They could not let even one individual remain in captivity whether he belonged to their own community or from those living with them under a covenant. In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition. Surah 2 - Ayat 256 "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. meaning to be a true muslim you cannot convert someone forcibly you can invite him to accept your relgion and that is up to him if he is willing to adhere to it. Sure there has been forceful conversions sometimes by some muslim generals but then again there has been Christian states I.E. colonial spain and portugal converting Native Americans enmasse and Germany converting Saxons and slaughtering reverts under Charlemagne. But im not trying to say that that is the way of the Qu'ran or the Bible im defending the religion not the people who claim that they do something behidn the veil of religion because that is not what the Qu'ran obviously teaches it tells you if you do act in this fashion your Iman(faith) will be nonexistent and you cannot be a faithful muslim. You become a Kafir a Kafir is not the follower of any relgion it is the muslim and any other who does not belive in god or god's plan for humanity. In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. An English translation of that document is presented below. This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world). Surah 5 - Ayat 69 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. but im sure many here will dismiss this and still belive that Islam is a violent religon and when compared to Christianity it tolerates other much more. It is Christianty that dooms anyone who does not belive in Jesus as the saviour. Islam claims that all that belive in god wheter muslim christian jew or none but belive in god will have their chance to enter heaven I am merely stating facts to your misinformed claim that comes more from a millenia old villification of Islam than real facts. I am merely trying to say that a muslim terrorist is not a real muslim and should be called simply terrorist because that is not what the religion teaches it teaches peace among humanity. and im saying the same about a christian terrorist he is no more a christian to me either beacause both books condem such acts. |
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 20:00
|
watching fox and reading purely western titles that adhere to the
centuries old villification will do that to your average whitey living
in the suburbs i've realized living here in america did you watch 30days on fx if not maybe you should d/l the episode or something |
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 23:40
Good or bad it was your logic not mine. I just pointed out the contradiction. Read what you said before again
|
Posted By: ill_teknique
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 02:27
|
emperor the united states was a western country how would you have gotten a muslim there as a founding father when Kuta Kinte was one of the first Muslims brougth here as a slave. Thats right the slave trade while deemed immoral by the pope was banned on "heathens" aka native americans whom he wanted to convert but since they thought that all africans were muslims he was happy to tell them to enslave blacks because they thought they were all muslims. |
Posted By: Menippos
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 03:57
|
That's a bit off, ill_teknique. They didn't think of them as muslims,
they thought of them as animals. And animals, as they thought back
then, not only they didn't have a religion, but they also didn't have
rights on their existence, hence slavery material.
------------- CARRY NOTHING |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 04:20
|
I think that there was a time when christians too were like the muslim extremists. during the crusades when they killed a lot muslims thinking that they'd go to heaven and have indulgence for sins. But since the protestant movements and stuff, There was a balance. The Roman Catholic church no longer had that much power over the people except maybe in Spain and Italy etc. and people had become more open minded and has since moved on. with the protestant movement, liberal thinking was fostered and roman catholic tradionalism was countered. I think Jihad and crusades are just the same except christians right now think that a crusade would be crazy and even if the pope would call for one people won't give a rats ass. So how come in Islam some people still believe in the jihad? Was there no split in Islam, and which is more liberal the sunni or the shiite?
|
Posted By: Murtaza
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 04:32
|
Makros jihad, is something defensive, not agressive. But It was used for agressive aims too. And Jihad is not something like crusaders, there is not a whole islamic attack against christians, but They were mostly politic attack. For exp: Attack of Ottomans(Not attack of Muslims)
|