US occupation plans for Iraq?
- Thread starter jbtrader23
- Start date
About the mariage of the prophet with Aisha there is no proof that this is true... http://www.submission.org/women/Aisha.html
But of course people like you when they have no arguments use this as the pivot of their critics and forget about history and the proof that Muslim were much more civilized than many westeners and behaved in ways French and British should analyse deeply...
GOD does not enjoin you from befriending
those who do not fight you because of religion,
and do not evict you from your homes. You
may befriend them and be equitable towards
them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins
you only from befriending those who fight you
because of religion, evict you from your homes,
and band together with others to banish you.
You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend
them are the transgressors.[60:8-9]
The Kuran is clear... Do not aggres unless you are aggressed
But of course people like you when they have no arguments use this as the pivot of their critics and forget about history and the proof that Muslim were much more civilized than many westeners and behaved in ways French and British should analyse deeply...
GOD does not enjoin you from befriending
those who do not fight you because of religion,
and do not evict you from your homes. You
may befriend them and be equitable towards
them. GOD loves the equitable. GOD enjoins
you only from befriending those who fight you
because of religion, evict you from your homes,
and band together with others to banish you.
You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend
them are the transgressors.[60:8-9]
The Kuran is clear... Do not aggres unless you are aggressed
The first source you need to refer to is Kuran. Hadith come after.
But there are 2 sources of hadith the certified and none certified.
In the non certfied you find writtings about the life of the prophet etc... but some have been corrupted. this is why always refer to the kuran. according to the kuran you cannot force a woman to marry you if she does not want..
The fact the prophet married a girl aged 6 is simply a nonsense since he is not allowed to marry a girl that is not a woman and especially without her consent ...
this is the only point on which many people try to break islam... But as I said before refer at history and all you said about Muslim hating non muslim and being able to kill them is wrong
peace
But there are 2 sources of hadith the certified and none certified.
In the non certfied you find writtings about the life of the prophet etc... but some have been corrupted. this is why always refer to the kuran. according to the kuran you cannot force a woman to marry you if she does not want..
The fact the prophet married a girl aged 6 is simply a nonsense since he is not allowed to marry a girl that is not a woman and especially without her consent ...
this is the only point on which many people try to break islam... But as I said before refer at history and all you said about Muslim hating non muslim and being able to kill them is wrong
peace
candle what brain washing cult do you belong to? or are you a young guy, prob. college student, who gets introduced to a new idea and with no conviction of you rown become brainwashed, or feel the need to "challenge" everyone with your "different and daring ideas". save the crap we have all heard it before.
Originally posted by traderfut2000
These are european historians, not a fanatic Imam.
Now, apparently you did not answer my questions...
Have you read the articles I posted ... After the inquisition in Spain there were no muslim (or openly muslim in spain)...
Jews were killed momentarily and those who could escaped to North Africa a muslim region...
Do you want to negate that part of history that is known by everybody.. If as you said Islam says to kill the infidels... then why the jews escaped a christian country for a muslim country???? WHY...
Why the first synaguogue in europe was built only in the 12th centruy. Why till today you have Christians in arab countries???
Why muslim were chased from Christian countries and when they came back in the 1950's/1960's to rebuild europe they were treated like animals and put in ghettoes.. they did not even have the right to have their own appartment... because at that the french said that these animals needed to be educated to gain the right to live in a normal place...
i dont think you want to open that can of worms because there are plenty of examples of muslims and muslim nations persecuting and discriminating against chrisitans and treading christians like third rate citizens. get off your soap box.
ALLOW ME TO SET TH ERECORD STRAIGHT.
i am hearing alot fo anti-american sentiment on this board, media, elswhere and it bothers me. here is why.
1) many people have not come to terms with the 9/11 attacks, because of the brutality it is a psychological fact some people will feel guilty after being attacked because they think they must have done something wrong. similar to an abused child or spouse and you wonder why they dont leave the bastard? becuse they think it must be their fault, it can stem from a childhood, i.e. common in children of alchoholics
DO NOT FALL INTO THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAP; AMERICA DID NOTHING TO JUSTIFY 9/11 OR ANY OTHER TERRORIST ATTACK ON CIVILIANS.
FACT: americas record is not perfect no more than any other's nation's record, but i will stand up for our record and you should to because it is a good one. i.e. we lend more aid to foreign countries and the third world then any other nation. we have prob. also helped more people globaly attain freedoms and adamantly defend human rights.
2) do not fall into the media's trap, they love to talk up a "good war story". understand and analyze politics for what it is. DO NOT BELIEVE WAR WITH IRAQ IS IMMINENT. sadam knows the UN is a joke, he has been able to shrug them off for 10 years, and won a lot of playing politics with the UN. congress and bush and his advisors know the UN is a joke, and they know sadam knows UN is a joke. therefore the only way we can have any credibility with sadam and any hope he will negotiate in good faith is to have credibility, namely that the US will act militarily and unilaterally if need be. sorry, force is the only language thugs know.
now that we have congressional resolution you dont hear as much rhetoric or beating of the "war drum". also you didnt hear as much criticizing of america's policy lately from other nations b/c we prob. clued them in to this strategy. like bush's speech said, it was neccessary to avoid war. i am optimistic a war can now be averted.
i will end now to avoid a 3 page post. thanks for listening.
i am hearing alot fo anti-american sentiment on this board, media, elswhere and it bothers me. here is why.
1) many people have not come to terms with the 9/11 attacks, because of the brutality it is a psychological fact some people will feel guilty after being attacked because they think they must have done something wrong. similar to an abused child or spouse and you wonder why they dont leave the bastard? becuse they think it must be their fault, it can stem from a childhood, i.e. common in children of alchoholics
DO NOT FALL INTO THIS PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAP; AMERICA DID NOTHING TO JUSTIFY 9/11 OR ANY OTHER TERRORIST ATTACK ON CIVILIANS.
FACT: americas record is not perfect no more than any other's nation's record, but i will stand up for our record and you should to because it is a good one. i.e. we lend more aid to foreign countries and the third world then any other nation. we have prob. also helped more people globaly attain freedoms and adamantly defend human rights.
2) do not fall into the media's trap, they love to talk up a "good war story". understand and analyze politics for what it is. DO NOT BELIEVE WAR WITH IRAQ IS IMMINENT. sadam knows the UN is a joke, he has been able to shrug them off for 10 years, and won a lot of playing politics with the UN. congress and bush and his advisors know the UN is a joke, and they know sadam knows UN is a joke. therefore the only way we can have any credibility with sadam and any hope he will negotiate in good faith is to have credibility, namely that the US will act militarily and unilaterally if need be. sorry, force is the only language thugs know.
now that we have congressional resolution you dont hear as much rhetoric or beating of the "war drum". also you didnt hear as much criticizing of america's policy lately from other nations b/c we prob. clued them in to this strategy. like bush's speech said, it was neccessary to avoid war. i am optimistic a war can now be averted.
i will end now to avoid a 3 page post. thanks for listening.
Sorry Max...I saw your quote out of context. Good to know we actually agree on something
These were certainly absurd assertions. MLK was anything BUT a likely target for the government. The FBI had him by the nuts, and besides, his was a voice of restraint during a turbulent time. Malcome X was clearly taken out by his own people. They have admitted it. No mysteries in either case.
Johnson was, IMO a power hungry guy with a social conscience. Wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time re: Viet Nam. Scary that he took the advice of guys like McNamara and Westmorland and put us through a decade of futile killing and anguish because he listened to the wrong advice. At least he stepped away admitting shame and failure.
But indeed his follow through on Kennedy's attempts to achieve social justice in America were to be admired. And for those who hate anything "lefty", remember it was Eisenhower that gave the order to desegregate Ole Miss. It was not about Democrat vs. Republican. Or Liberal vs. Conservative. It was strictly about right and wrong. Justice vs. Injustice. And as you probably know, (but many here are too young to remember), the Democrats of the south in those days were the most reactionary of all politicians. Dixiecrats...they were Democrats only in their repulsion for Lincoln being a Republican. Hatred and bigotry dies hard.
So in our "arguments" Max....the stuff I read (not so much by you, but your confederates like Mondo and Dotslash and Smokey), yeah, I get a bit offended by the narrow minded generalities about "lefties" and "liberals"....the "L WORD" being a dirty word.
The fact is that I myself, accused of being a "pinko" etc., really do not see these issues as being so easily painted with such broad brush strokes. I said before, I have voted for candidates based on issues. Not on party affiliation. I have nothing against any one (real) party. I admire and am repulsed by members on both sides of the aisle. It just annoys me when people are categorized, as they have been, by others that know nothing of their positions other than what party they are affiliated with. Or if they support or oppose an unclear Iraqi policy (for example). I have met Bush Sr. I have spoken with him. Seems like a nice man and a reasonable guy. He made a speech that was very impressive when I met him. It was shortly after the 2000 election, and it was in Palm Beach. He joked about "chads" and the election. It amazes me that people on ET act as if the events of that time affected them more personally than Bush Sr. felt it affected him. Of course, he can well afford to be gracious and reasonable. I don't understand the anger and the bitterness expressed by those only affected peripherally.
All the talk of how bad things would have been after 9/11 if Gore was president. How do they know? Why are the assumptions made with such passion? (as for me, I think in all likelihood that GW may have been the better man at that moment...even though I did not vote for him). Politics is politics. Gore sickened me. GW seemed unqualified. Buchanan was just plain scary. So what do we do when we don't like any of the choices? Not vote? Not trust our system of checks and balances to bail us out? I think 200+ years have served us well. And I believe in America and Americans. It just seems to me that Mondo, and Smokey and Dotslash do not represent what America is about. It should be about thinking and speaking after LISTENING. This is why even though I have big differences of opinion with you, Max, at least I believe you actually think things through and listen to the arguments of others.
Now if you can just stop being so confrontational. I don't understand why you challenge those you disagree with in such an aggressive tone. Do you think it helps your cause to come across as angry? Read Smokey's responses to MarcD. It appears some of what he said has already been deleted by the moderators. Calling a guy's wife a "fat hag" and his daughters "whores". No surer way to lose credibility than to make offensive and baseless and vulgar statements. Using profanity to emphasize a point would work if the Pope did it. But not when every other word is an expletive. You seem to be a "leader" of this faction. Why not encourage them to use sense and reason and civility? I know they have your respect. Why not capitalize on this?
Peace (whenever possible)
Rs7
Ron - one of the victories of the current administration/media effort has to equate dissent and debate with anti-Americanism and treason.
analysis and criticism of political leaders and policies, and protesting with the goal of improving them, is highly patriotic and perfectly "American". The opposite of "patriotic" is not "anti-American," but "apathetic." Political representation and freedom of dissent and protest were fundamental motives behind the American Revolution, and a significant part of what has made America so great.
JMHO