How have I misunderstood that quote? "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies..."? Translation: Gather your armies, every last man, horse, chariot, everything you can muster. "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace." Translation: After you've struck terror into the hearts of your enemies and forced them to surrender, then you can negotiate terms of the peace. Do you know what those terms are? Jizya. Here's part of the Wiki definition for you:

"Ibn Rushd explains that jizya is in fact... monies exacted in times of war – what is normally understood in English by the word ‘tribute’. "

So gather your armies, force your enemy to submission, and allow him to pay tribute- Jizya- in exchange for you not slaughtering all his people. Very peacable of you.

Ok, I'll explain away this one too.

The story starts off with the Jews not having proper food supplies because they wouldn't go into towns to purchase them- and they were humiliated because they would not accept the signs of Allah and killed his messengers. (( (2:61) And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.)) But they went into town anyway and got their food. The Muslims told them to remember the gift and maybe they would come to fear Allah (( (2:63) And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (The towering height) of Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah.")). But they didn't change religions to Islam- and if Allah wasn't so merciful, they'd all be dead. (( (2:64) But ye turned back thereafter: Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah to you, ye had surely been among the lost.))

Yes, excellent peace negotiations. Here, we'll feed you, but you should convert to Islam. You didn't convert? Oh, you're lucky Allah doesn't decree that you should be dead, or we'd have killed you.

Oh, sure, blind yourself some more, Trim. Don't look at the Khaleej Times. Excellent work.

Actually, Chris, Emperor Constantine was a pagan. But thats a completely different conversation :P Especially since at the time he was venerated as one of the greatest Christians ever. You're right, the Byzantine empire failing against the Muslims was no small thing, but to the rest of Europe, that was very far removed. Christianity was by no means the underdog- this was during the height of its power.

The Conquistadors weren't just lucky with the reception and the cosmology of the event, they enlisted other groups of natives to their cause to help take down the big powers, and then also delivered, essentially, a plague to the natives as well. Many factors contributed to their victory, but they were by no means the underdogs. It would be extreme, yes, but I'm making the case that Christian violence usually happens from a position of power, while the violence from Islam is the reverse.

I wouldn't really say it was during the height of Christian power... The Islamic nations were definitely far more of a force to be reckoned with in those days than they are now. Christianity is currently the largest religion. I would say it had more power during the colonial period of Europe than it did in the Middle Ages because during that time it was confined to Europe and it had no emerged from it's conflict with Islamic nations as victor yet.

Well, the conquistadors were lucky in that their hosts were far more hospitable and generous than they were. Of course there were many factors contributing to their victory, such as superior technology and the illnesses brought with them (but that wasn't planned so it doesn't exactly justify actions as far as being from a position of power). But numerically speaking, Incan, Mayan and Aztec forces were many orders of magnitudes higher than Spanish expeditionary forces, and they were hardly ragtag... the Mesoamerican civilizations were very much powerful. It was their ruthless and spectacular tactics that won them Mesoamerica, and they did it because they knew they were the underdog... They accomplished what I'm sure Islamic terrorists were hoping to accomplish with 9/11.

It only seems like they were in a position of power in hindsight, because we know that the Mesoamericans were devestated by illness and were crippled without their god-figures to lead them. The Spanish fully admitted to being the underdogs and their accounts back this, and the Mesoamericans probably considered the Spanish to be military extremists who didn't even show mercy to their victims and let them be sacrificed as per their understanding of the world.

Im confused marchosias, so let me get this straight , in a nutshell the Koran is a violent book of hate and we need to face that fact openly? however you don't hate islam and have muslim friends but their religion is the primary cause of terrorism in the world today ??

and you say you have muslim friends??

you can cherry pick the koran for choice sounding violent bits all you want.but the bible also has some great quotes about gods vengeance etc etc. is that what this debate is about? which ancient scroll has more gory bits?

that nonsense about "alah akbar". muslims i know(i taught at an Islamic university for 2 years in Indonesia) use that the same way we might use "oh my god" or "jesus Christ!"

you want to go for raw numbers? you gave 12000 Islamic terrorist attacks, so how about i raise you 600,000- 1m the number of iraqi's who have died since the American invasion.

"Actually, Chris, Emperor Constantine was a pagan. But thats a completely different conversation :P Especially since at the time he was venerated as one of the greatest Christians ever

"Actually, Chris, Emperor Constantine was a pagan. But thats a completely different conversation :P Especially since at the time he was venerated as one of the greatest Christians ever"

Well, I need to intercede again. Constantine was a pagan initially. But he was baptised on his deathbed and took serious steps to making Christianity the religion of rome.

Here's a raw number Marchosias. Number of good points you have made: 0

..and sorry for the double post

Marchosias, I genuinely do not understand your argument.


You believe that Islam is responsilbe for terror worldwide.

However, religion is not inherently violent.

The Quran is (responsible?) for this violence because it contains violent passages, more often then peaceful ones.

Now, the Bible does too, but the Quran has *more*. Thats are great point.

The militants are inspired by Islam, and have direct continuity with the conquering armies of Islamic nations in the Middle Ages?

And, there is still a war with Islam?

And these extremists want to kill every non-Muslim?

But they simultaneously want to convert us...

Which is bad, converting to Islam is wrong I guess?

But... you like muslims, and have Muslim friends. Hmm

Who... send you links to sites that argue Islam is wrong...

And that means... Islam is... bad?



I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop typing. My head is going to explode from the contradictions.

You can have friends among those with whom you vehemently disagree.

See homosexuality thread.

I disagree vehemently with Social Conservatism, and I am friends with Social Conservatives.

however

I think terrorism is wrong and inherently violent, and I doubt I could be friends with any terrorists.


And thats precisely what Marchiosis said about Islam. I think. Maybe not.
Do you see the difference?

Well... there are few scenarios I can imagine in which I would make friends with a terrorist, but there are still scenarios.

I allow that it is possible I could make friends with a terrorist, intentionally or not. Have you seen that movie with Don Cheadle called "Traitor"? At least I think it was called that.

My whole point, in the beginning of the previous thread, was that negotiation is necessary to end any conflict. Unless you can bomb the enemy into submission (like Japan in 1945).
Since radical islamists obviously cannot be bombed into submission, US will eventually have to negotiate with them. Or risk the state of perpetual warfare (like in Orwell 1984). Well, maybe that is what any US government really wants.... we'll see, in 20 or 30 years...

Sean: The Quran is a religious text that has an unusually high number of outright violent verses for any religious text in the world. The bible has more violent verses in it as a total number, but the Quran is smaller, and the verses make up a much higher percentage of the book. Another difference that you're missing completely is the violence in the Bible is very heavily set within the context of history. The Jews are attacking Ancient People A, who no longer exist. Ancient People B and C, both of whom no longer exist, are killing one another. Stuff like that.

In the Quran, its different. The vast majority of the time, the violent verses are very open ended. Muhammad wasn't very specific with his words. They may have historical context at the time when they were said, but none of that made it into the book. There are over 100 verses that EXPLICITLY call the Believers, the Faithful, into conflict with the Unbelievers, the Infidels. They are general commands. They don't say "If you will kill these Ancient People D, you will go to heaven." They say "If you fight the Jihad against the Unbelievers, you will go to heaven."

Yes, I have Muslim friends. Unlike most of you, they have the capacity to admit that their religion has a very distinct difference from all other world religions; namely, THEIR RELIGION SPAWNS VIOLENCE THE LIKE OF WHICH THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

You're only supporting my point, Sean, with the quoting of the casualty numbers since the US invasion. American troops don't intentionally kill civilians. It does happen, true, because war is hell, especially when your enemy doesn't have the ability to face you in open combat and must fight you from the shadows. We saw this in Vietnam. When any person you met could be an enemy, you tend to get a little trigger happy because its either their survival or your survival when you're staring at someone who may or may not be wrapped with explosives down the barrel of your gun.

Beyond all that, the VAST majority of Iraqi casualties have been from the Insurgents. Americans aren't blowing up schools to get the job done; terrorist Muslims are. 12/2/2008: Mosul, Iraq: 4 die and 12 are injured when Mujahideen place a bomb outside a school.

Centurian: Oh, sorry, so very sorry that I don't take a deathbed conversion into account when I say that someone lived their life pagan. Truly, very sorry.

Friendly: You're completely missing the boat. I'm not friends with terrorists. Neither are my Muslim friends. Again, I've never said that ALL of Islam is bad. I've never once said that "I hate Muslims" or anything of the sort. I hate Extremism. I hate the religious leaders who are lying to young men and, now, women and children to get them to kill themselves for the "greater glory of Allah".

Islam -can- be quite a good religion.

But as things stand, we're at war with a militant sect of Islam. And they have, in their religious book, direct and easy to follow instructions from their prophet that tells them they shall make war with the unbelievers.

Denzel: Your bias is as easy to see as mine. But while I'm biased against a small group of religious extremists, you're biased against an entire government.

....


This part is to everyone. While you've all been arguing with me over semantics and intent and other gray area bullcrap, there are facts that you cannot deny.

1) Terrorism exists in the world today, and 99% of it is perpetrated by militant Islamic radicals.
2) They have killed thousands upon thousands of -innocent- people worldwide.
3) Their stated goal is a Jihad against.. well... anyone. It depends on the country that you take quotes from.

So what do you do about that? Do you roll over and die? Do you fight back? Do you try and negotiate with people who have stated, in their own words, that they want to kill you, and who have shown themselves to not be trustworthy? (Before you try and debate that one, would you really trust a known terrorist?...)

I think I'll sum up with the words of a widely respected Islamic leader.

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.'”

The Ayatollah Khomeini

First of all, Khomeini was a fanatic in every sense of the word. He introduced Sharia law to the Iranian public, executed at least thousands of political enemies and opposition to his party, and played a large part in the creation and oversight of the major terrorist group Hezbollah. He introduced laws in Iran to favour those who were Muslim and not of other faiths and to encourage those who were not Muslims to convert so they could reap the benefits. What I am saying is that you should really pick a truly respected and non-fanatical Muslim leader to quote in making your point, otherwise people will not take you seriously.

I once took a two hour train ride seated beside a Muslim gentleman, and we struck up a conversation about what was going on in the Middle East and the fanatics who were advocating the violence there. And during that entire conversation, he kept on coming back to the fact that although there are open-ended statements that are vague about the use of violence to "protect the faith," it expressly states that to take another person's life is simply not acceptable (sort of like the "thou shalt not kill" part of the Ten Commandments, except in the Muslim version).

As for the calls for Jihad you keep referring to in the Qur'an, you seem to be leaving out the fact that pokes holes in all of your arguments. By definition in the Qur'an, the Jihad is a DEFENSIVE WAR ONLY! The scriptures decree that only when the faith is being threatened with forceful and violent persecution should there be a Jihad to defend the faithful.

Your earlier statement that the context of the passages in the Qur'an does not matter is a crock, quite frankly. The extremists believe in their twisted minds that they are in a Jihad because they interpret the West as being threatening to their faith in a violent way, when in fact that is anything but the case. They think that they need to defend themselves from the west and so all these psychos who are in the utmost minority of people from their faith are ruining the image of their religion just because of the way they are fatally misinterpreting their religious scriptures to call for a Jihad against the Western world.

It's those sorts of people that ruin everything for the vast majority of good Muslim people who deserve respect. It is because of them that there are ignorant people like you who see Islam as nothing but a violent faith because all you want to see is the information to further your claims that Islam is a horrendous religion that harbours violent terrorism and promotes senseless violence.

You sir, need to get your facts straight...

thankyou general for making the point i was trying to make just in a far better way than i could

"1) Terrorism exists in the world today, and 99% of it is perpetrated by militant Islamic radicals.
2) They have killed thousands upon thousands of -innocent- people worldwide.
3) Their stated goal is a Jihad against.. well... anyone. It depends on the country that you take quotes from."

Ok. You are stating facts (not so sure about 99%...), but you are twisting them in such a way to paint a dangerous picture. First of all, what is the point of mentioning most of the militant radicals are Islamic? You've stated that you don't believe that religion is inherently violent, you say that you have Muslim friends who are not violent and disagree with militant extremism, but you still keep coming back to the violence in the Koran and the fact that most militants are also Muslim. You say you don't believe we should act in a blanket manner toward Islamic peoples, but you keep emphasizing the Islamic aspect! Why?!! What are you saying?! What are you saying we should do?!

They aren't attacking us because they are Islamic and we aren't. They might use that as justification, but they are attacking us because they're the underdogs and it's the only way they can get attention. They have ends, they want prosperity for themselves, their families, and their people. They're not getting much help though, their countries are targets of economic hitmen and they watch the Western world greedily reap the benefit of their resources. We can all say that they are violent extremists but that's because we've been lucky enough to simply have been born in a Western country. It's not like we inherently deserved our better life, and as a result are better people... if we were dropped into their situation there's a good chance we would be quite violent.

That's not to say that their actions are condoned or that we shouldn't defend ourselves. I just think it's ridiculous that you're passing this off on Islam. I personally find all religion ludicrous, but sometimes I feel like I have more tolerance for it than many religious people...

We aren't fighting Islamic militants, we're fighting militants. It is a side story that they are mostly Islamic, mostly men, and mostly have beards. We're not debating facts, because facts are facts, what we debate are the interpretations and value judgements based upon those facts. Your arguments have been convoluted and conflicting with all the concessions you've been making. Such that, I have no idea what you are actually arguing for anymore. What are you justifying? What actions are you proposing we take? What are you trying to convince us of?

"We aren't fighting Islamic militants, we're fighting militants. It is a side story that they are mostly Islamic, mostly men, and mostly have beards."

I'm not quite supporting Marchosias' argument, but you can't deny the fact that we are fighting these people because of what they believe. It's not what most Muslims believe, but it's moronic to stick your head in the ground to say we are just fighting militants. That's almost like saying we were just fighting against Russians in the Cold War, not Communists.

If it weren't for the doctrines of radical Islam there wouldn't be an issue. When terrorists start coming from Latin America or Europe or Asia then I'll agree with you, but we can't fight an enemy when we partially deny he exists.

And I suppose Communists want nothing more than to kill Capitalists...

We are fighting them because historically we've wronged them and they have the short end of the stick. It just happens that Islam is their justification of choice. They could easily be Christian or Jewish or anything. Religion plays the part of justification, but they only feel the motivation to fight, kill, and terrorize because they're getting shafted.

Almost. It could just as easily be another religion, but it is Islam. Terrorists aren't terrorists BECAUSE they're Muslims, but they use it as their justification.

They're heretics.

I don't believe that they're getting shafted. How can they be with all the money we pump in there for oil? They should blame their own governments for being corrupt, not America.

And just because they have the motivation doesn't make them right.

"When terrorists start coming from Latin America or Europe or Asia then I'll agree with you"

Plenty of terrorists in Europe - France, Britain, Ireland... lots of "home grown" terrorists here.

Really? By "home-grown" do you mean immigrants who cloister themselves in inner city neighborhoods and radicalize? Apart from Ireland, of course.

I just meant We shouldn't pretend that a lot of terrorists base their ideology on Islam. They're wrong, but they're doing it. It doesn't degrade Islam to say that some people are doing it wrong, and it's lunacy to pretend they're not.

Latin America has had and still has its massive share of terrorists too. Look up the Sentero Luminoso, the FARC, the Barbudos...

As for Asia, I'll point out that Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq, Israel and palestine are all in Asia. But even further, I think you should look up the killings in Mumbai last week. For a historical perspective, read up on the Japanese Red Army, terrifyingly weird little bastards that they were. Not to mention the Tamil Tigers (Hindu terrorists with a Navy), the Thailand Muslim movements or the Bali bombings, not to mention the Kanak terrorists of the 80s.

I've never said they were right. In fact, I've been stating that I find military extremism to be disgusting... My exact point was that terrorists aren't terrorists BECAUSE they're Muslims, but that because they feel they are being threatened and bullied by the more powerful Western world. I think we're just agreeing very aggressively at each other at this point.

They absolutely do blame their own governments for being corrupt. That doesn't mean they shouldn't feel America and the Western world isn't partly responsible. The fact is that the Western world is the most successful in great part because of the immense exploitation of other countries through imperialism. It's not as though the American people are naturally born or instilled via living in America an unquenchable thirst for progress and the betterment of the world and couldn't stoop to military extremism simply because they aren't Muslim or aren't Communist... it's because they have it good. Many people around the world feel that much has been taken from them by the Western world and not much has been given back... the fact is that America definitely has the power to improve the condition of many countries but it spends it's money on it's "defense" program and the continuing exploitation of the resources of other countries.

And even in Europe it's not just immigrants: you've got regional independentists in Corsica, Basque Country, etc., you've got far left Red Brigades, you've got far-right neo-nazi synagogue bombers, the whole f-ed up mess of them.

"By "home-grown" do you mean immigrants who cloister themselves in inner city neighborhoods and radicalize?"

No, these are British citizens bombing British citizens. Look at the July bombings of 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4354858.stm

So, we don't really disagree. I just thought you all were saying we shouldn't acknowledge that these terrorists are what they are because of the kooky kind of Islam they follow, that mentioning or even thinking about Islam in connection with their actions wasn't OK.

Yeah, America's not perfect. We're not demons either, and I think a lot of the hatred is from rabble rousing politicians around the world who blame America to stay in power. *Cough* Chavez, *cough* Ahmadenajiadnrghav in Iran.

It true that not all terrorists are Muslims, but a lot are and we shouldn't ignore that. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Hell, Canada had terrorists in Quebec who radically support Quebec separatism... Why did they resort to violent means? Oh, well because they tried the political route and were shut down, and every other route they tried they found themselves overpowered. The violent route didn't work either... but they didn't do it because they were Muslim, and it shouldn't have made a difference if they were...

It's lunacy to focus the spotlight on the Islamic aspect and pull the curtain on the conditions and motivations of the militants. Militants can't be fought with bombs and guns, because with every innocent casualty only more anti-American sentiment is produced and the families of the innocent only become more incensed and more likely to engage in the violence that they had once condemned. That's not to say we should stoop to their demands, because that would only validate their methods, but it is saying that we should not simplify things to irrational belief because there is usually an underlying pragmatic motive.

I don't think the rabble rousing politicians create the anti-American sentiment, they just manipulate it. You guys are just too easy to scape-goat everything on :P

Economic Crisis - your fault. Terrorism - your fault. Imperialism - your fault. Cold War - your fault. Nuclear weapons - your fault. Global Warming - your fault. Did I miss any of my other problems that I could blame on you guys?