Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[Talal]

Who's freedom of speech is being limited? Terrorism is not protected as free speech.

No excuses, no excusing.

Terrorism or these "radicals" had the same point of views back when they and US were best buds, only then it was more convienient to support these people now that they have served there purpose you turn on them. Now you remember that these people have extremist views ? you didnt know that when you used the same hardcore radicals to wage a war in Afghanistan ? Where was your sense of justice or liberalism then ? Lemme show you again where it was incase you missed the highlight before



US Senator Hamphery Garden US Senator Hamphery Garden at lunch with Mujahideen.


US Senator Charles Wilson
US Judge Webster – The CIA Chief

[ozymandias]

Terrorism or these "radicals" had the same point of views back when they and US were best buds, only then it was more convienient to support these people now that they have served there purpose you turn on them.

I have never, and will never support terrorism.

Now you remember that these people have extremist views ?

I was never in any doubt, about these terrorists, or any other terrorist group -- to become a terrorist, they pretty much by definition are extremist.

you didnt know that when you used the same hardcore radicals to wage a war in Afghanistan ?

Take a look at the goals, and the methods supported -- they supported the Taliban in an effort to bring stability to an area -- they selected a group that already has strong local political support and aided them.

Mistakes are made by everyone, everyday. No need to go all terrorist over it.

Where was your sense of justice or liberalism then ?

Same place it has always been -- working to provide for the safe practice of basic human rights for all people.

Lemme show you again where it was incase you missed the highlight before



US Senator Hamphery Garden US Senator Hamphery Garden at lunch with Mujahideen.


US Senator Charles Wilson
US Judge Webster – The CIA Chief

So what part of that were the people in the Twin Towers responsible for? The Danish Cartoonists? The South Park people?

[Talal]

I was never in any doubt, about these terrorists, or any other terrorist group -- to become a terrorist, they pretty much by definition are extremist.

Take a look at the goals, and the methods supported -- they supported the Taliban in an effort to bring stability to an area -- they selected a group that already has strong local political support and aided them.

Goals and methods ? The goal was to break down Russia, the method was to use hardline Islamic radicals and their beliefs to organise an armed force that will act as a deterrent towards the Russian influence..your point?..

Mistakes are made by everyone, everyday. No need to go all terrorist over it.

Its funny how you casually sum up the misery of over a million people in just one word "mistake"

Vietnam was a mistake

Iraq was a mistake

Taliban were a mistake

Tell me what has US done "right"


Same place it has always been -- working to provide for the safe practice of basic human rights for all people.

How can you say that even after knowing that it is the same law that turned a blind eye to the trangressions of dictators like saddam, which so shamelessly supported a barbaric regime..and when it thought them an inconvenience decided to pluck em out

So what part of that were the people in the Twin Towers responsible for? The Danish Cartoonists? The South Park people?


The very people YOUR government put in power

You reap what you sow, you sowed hatred and distrust in the hearts of these people and now your reaping the results

[ozymandias]

You reap what you sow, you sowed hatred and distrust in the hearts of these people and now your reaping the results

Again, two wrongs do not make a right -- and you do realize that not long ago people on this very forum were complaining about being 'demonized'? You should be telling them to reap what they sow.

I am also interested in what a Danish cartoonist has to do with granting power to a foreign regime.

You are also aware that the US is a democracy, right?

[Talal]

Again, two wrongs do not make a right -- and you do realize that not long ago people on this very forum were complaining about being 'demonized'? You should be telling them to reap what they sow.
I'm sorry am i demonizing the US ? no i am not .. Although i cant help the image that the facts paint, refute them if you can your more than welcome

I am also interested in what a Danish cartoonist has to do with granting power to a foreign regime.

??


You are also aware that the US is a democracy, right?

Yes i am, i can also locate it on the map..your point ?

This is probably the fourth time i am telling you this, its a simple concept really. Whatever these people say or the death threats they make, whatever views they have are a result of what US policies have done to these people, no muslim wakes and says i feel like making a death threat to US just cuz i want to..He looks around himself and sees the destruction and havoc your country has unleashed upon them..This is where he gets it all from

You keep saying two wrongs dont make a right, then stop the wrong and get the hell out of their countries

[ozymandias]

I'm sorry am i demonizing the US ? no i am not .. Although i cant help the image that the facts paint, refute them if you can your more than welcome

I am not saying you are. I am simply pointing out that they are reaping what they sow. They support or at least refuse to cast out terrorists, thus them being grouped with terrorists is their own fault.

??


Yes i am, i can also locate it on the map..your point ?

Not every American citizen is guilty of, or even supports the actions of the government going back to the 70s, yet terrorism indiscriminately attacks them all.

That is one of the problems with terrorism -- you are punishing *ALL* members of a society for the actions of some people.

This is probably the fourth time i am telling you this, its a simple concept really. Whatever these people say or the death threats they make, whatever views they have are a result of what US policies have done to these people,

And I have not once disagreed with that. What you fail to admit, though is that no matter the provocation terrorism is not justified.

no muslim wakes and says i feel like making a death threat to US just cuz i want to..

No, they typically find ways to use their religion to justify their desires.

He looks around himself and sees the destruction and havoc your country has unleashed upon them..This is where he gets it all from

Bogus. See South Park and the Danish Cartoons for counter examples -- neither of which is responsible for the actions of the government.

Besides, as I have stated before, that is not an excuse nor justification to resort to terrorism.

You keep saying two wrongs dont make a right, then stop the wrong and get the hell out of their countries

Combating terrorism, and supporting free speech is right.

The last news stories I have read, anyway, were discussing how an organized troop withdrawal is difficult at best, due to the instability it would cause, and the fear that terrorist cells would take advantage of that instability.

I agree that the US should withdraw, as soon as it is safe to do so for the civilians and the rights of humans on this planet as a whole.

[Talal]

No, they typically find ways to use their religion to justify their desires.

See this statement ? this is what represents your understanding of the issues faced by these people, its easy to call them radicals..how they became what they became, its easy to use religion as a scapegoat..because by using religion you can easily turn a blind eye to the actual causes. Ive said it before will keep saying it again, you expect justice then deliver justice admit your mistakes, realize the fault in your policies..but you cant because you dont even realise it, to you its "their religion thats brainwashing them"

[ozymandias]

See this statement ? this is what represents your understanding of the issues faced by these people, its easy to call them radicals..

It's also easy to call an apple an 'apple'. Funny that.

how they became what they became, its easy to use religion as a scapegoat..

Yes -- which is why they do it.

because by using religion you can easily turn a blind eye to the actual causes. Ive said it before will keep saying it again, you expect justice then deliver justice admit your mistakes, realize the fault in your policies..but you cant because you dont even realise it, to you its "their religion thats brainwashing them"

I'm glad you bolded that, so I don't have to. When did I say that? I said quite the opposite -- that they use the religion as an excuse, not that they are all doing it *for* their religion. Many are, but many more amoral people use religion as a tool to gain and obtain power, or justify their actions. Whether they twist their religion to suit their desires, or their religion twists them, the end result is the same -- horrible deeds done against innocent people.

I never said that they were brainwashed by their religion -- but I don't doubt that in many cases they are, or that the religion itself is used as a tool to cause brainwashing.

True justice does not allow for the excusing of terrible crimes just because someone's feelings are hurt. It is not a mistake to defend the universal human right to free speech. It is not a mistake to make a stand for what is right in the face of adversity. These are very specific actions of people making a deliberate action to make a stand -- that is not a mistake, nor, in this case, is it wrong. There is no fault in exercising a universal human right -- any fault falls on the amoral pigs that say it is wrong for you to exercise your rights -- in any circumstance. The fault falls to the terrorist swine, and the hog-farmers that justify their actions, and excuse what they do, and try and make a defense for them. By defending terrorists, by siding with them, you encourage them to do something evil -- by doing something evil yourself. That is the mistake, and appeasement is the flaw in policies.

[ozymandias]

can I still post my reply or should I let you 2 sort it out first?

post away.

[ozymandias]

LOL. Everytime our scholars have sat with them,They failed to prove any contradictions yet we have pointed out THOUSANDSSS.

The Christians, and atheists would disagree, from what I can tell.

Many of these 'flaws' in the bible come from one source -- the translations, and translating process, and it would most defiantly not be fair to compare the untranslated Koran to the translated versions of the bible. That's apples and oranges. Even ignoring that, I have personally seen time after time that flaws exist in Koran, but they tend to either be brushed off as 'flaws in the translation' or brushed off by twisting the meaning.

Well, you cant prove that God does not exist.

Right. I fully admit this -- and this is why I am technically an Agnostic Atheist.

But there is a slight chance for you to have a bad afterlife not to mention you will burn in hell. How about you give it the benefit of the doubt.

For one thing, that is a very unconvincing argument. Many religions hold that belief in the wrong god is worse than failure to believe in their god, and if they are right, Pascal's wager would leave you worse off.

Second of all, what sort of 'loving' god would punish you for their failures?

Third, belief is not an action of conscious choice. Either you find the weight of evidence convincing, or you do not. Even if you do not find the evidence convincing, but go through the motions, even if you fool yourself, what kind of god would be fooled? Pascals wager, much like the argument that all morals come from a god, is not a logical argument for a *god*, it is only an argument for *belief*, which is not a choice. Do you choose to believe in gravity? or were you presented with enough convincing evidence that you believe? Can you choose *not* to believe in gravity? If you say yes, contemplate that for a while, and decide if you are truly being honest with yourself. A little self inflection and you will have your answer.

I am not sure about Islam, but the bible actually states that it is wrong to go through the actions and not believe.

Finally, I am a skeptic. Either through nature, or nurture, I am a person that requires evidence and logical rational to believe things. To even attempt to do otherwise would be contrary to the person I have been shaped into -- but a god, or by nature. Would it really honor a god, if they exist, to turn my back on what they turned me into, and to be less than I can be? More important -- would I even want to believe in an unjust, petty god that asks me to be less than I was made to be?

[/quote]

Sir, The Qurans speaks about their book. It give respect to their book but it also says it is invalid and the thousands of bible contradiction speak for itself. The Quran is perfect.

[/quote]

And they say the same about the bible, or the tanakh, or the book of latter day saints, or the Principia Discordia. Simply stating your belief does not make it fact.

You see how wrong you are? How is Islam new?

In multiple ways -- it was founded well after the other major religions were established. It is also 'new' to many of the recent converts -- they only recently have been exposed to it.

Explain to me how its new?

In the 'western' world, many people have not had a major exposure until recently -- and thus it is 'new' to them. Any new concept always appeals to some. Look at the South Beach Diet or the Atkins Diet, and you see the same effect.

Islam is the oldest religion on earth. It has started since the day of Adam and Eve,

That's a tough argument to make. First you are going to have to prove that Adam and Eve actually existed, and then you are going to have to prove that they followed a religion that was not even created until 630 CE. Even more fun, you will have to prove that the Yawehistic tradition is not actually the conglomeration of polytheistic religions from the Mesopotamia region.

Jesus was a Muslim, Muhammad is the SEAL OF PROPHETHOOD IN ISLAM.

Feel free to believe that, but I believe that claim in particular is a case of retroactively applying a definition of a new term to an old concept. Pretty much all (non-Muslim) scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew, both as a ethnicity, and as a religion. I believe the Muslim scholars fall to the same flaws I am discussing now.

He is not "The god" or anything. Think before you post sir.

I'm not sure why you think I said that. I simply pointed out that he founded your religion. Prior to him, there is no record of your religion in it's current form.

Why are you using double standards?

What double standards? I am simply holding everyone to the standard of 'logic'. You simply cannot prove the non-existence of a being like that. It cannot be done, and it is a logical flaw to claim otherwise.

You cant prove he does not exist.

Right. That's how science and logic work.

I am asking you to give benefit of the doubt.

Again, that is not proof.

If I convert to what you believe in which is nothing. I will have a scare in my heart, that I already gave up and you could be wrong.

I would say that is because you do not truly understand the issue.

If you are a Muslim, and lets say for the sake of the argument I am wrong. I lost nothing. But if you are wrong, Oh boy, No virgins for you.

And I am fine with that. As long as I am able to be honest with myself, and true to my nature, I have no worries about the afterlife -- especially since I see no evidence to believe it even exists.

That's fine, You also seem fairly fluent in English as well.

Thank you. I try.

PF brothers for ever.

*nod*

As much as we may disagree, these discussions are very entertaining and enlightening. May they continue, and continue on good terms, and continue to illuminate the world for us.

[ozymandias]

I am against violence.
I think everything can be solved with peace.

I agree with Admin Khans post earlier, Althoug it is utterly disturbing to see our religion being clowned at, Violence will make things work.


So in simplified terms Ozymandias, our reaction is no to terrorism.

No offense, but it's that 'our' that is a problem -- and it may be that you are just over simplifying. I do understand your point, and want to hear more anti-violence people.

[tor_khan]

I think that the general consensus here is that violent reactions are not supported by PF members.

Is there anything else that can be added to this debate?

[ozymandias]

^can you elaborate on what you mean, it didnt make much sense to me.

While I like your response, and want to encourage your reaction -- some of the posters in this thread advocate and support violence as a response, as you admit, your reply is simplified a bit.

[ozymandias]

I think that the general consensus here is that violent reactions are not supported by PF members.

Add the word 'most' and I agree.

Is there anything else that can be added to this debate?

We have some side discussions that are entertaining in this thread.

[Master Khan]

Add the word 'most' and I agree.




We have some side discussions that are entertaining in this thread.

Nope No one here support terrorism, The End.
there is nothing to debate now brother.
We all are just simple people that wants to do well in life and be happy.
I got friends are non-religions, Chritains etc and we get alone well.