online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Lou Dobbs
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Lou Dobbs
Posted: 11/16/2009 7:57:55 PM
For accurate and up to the minute news, watch Jon Stewart.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 132 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:48:43 PM
Abitnomadic


hanks. Perhaps if I had GOOGLED FIRST for my information I wouldn't have made that error.

Nothing like a little blind, uncritical devotion....eh?


- No. I didn't google the word. I have actually lived in Pakistan and to be specific, I lived in Peshwar which is the close to Afghanistan, so I know Urdu, which is the language spoken in Pakistan along with Pushtu. The word "Ulema" is commonly used in that part of the region and that's why I know what it REALLY means, so I don't need to do google searches that you might require to do. :)

And...................

Nothing like being on a horse that's blind folded with one perspective either.

 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 131 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 1:44:36 PM
Iamalways


Passionteman,I see you have a graduate degree,of what, I don't know,but do you really think its wise to debate so vigorously with a History Professor with a Doctorate that teaches this stuff.


- I have studied comparative religion in university and then traveled to Islamic countries and have spent time there studying about it. I don't claim to know it all either, but I have studied religion both from Western perspective as well as Islamic perspective and they are not ALWAYS the same.

- Being a professor doesn't necessarily equate to knowing everything.

- She is debating religion based on her own perspective and readings. Has she studied the religion in depth on her own by traveling in Islamic countries, spending time with Islamic scholars? I don't think so since she doesn't even know Arabic to be able to read the Koran.

- She doesn't even know the basic sources of Islam which were outlined to her 3 times in different posts. If she knew about Islam, she would have already known those facts.

- I keep telling her that the Primary source of Islam is the Koran only and she keeps saying that the primary source of Islam is Koran and Hadith. I bet right here that if you go and ask any Islamic scholar, they will tell you that the source are the four that I have mentioned and I challenge her on that.

- She is looking at things not from Islamic perspective rather than from other's perspective who are non-Muslim. When you do it that way, you had better know both sides to compare and contrast and she only knows one side of the story and not the Islamic perspective side of it and keeps on insisting on her side.

- She claimed in her earlier posts that she doesn't know about Islamic history and that she was teaching European history and now she claims that she teaches Islamic history all of a sudden.


Just so I know where you are coming from, because you state you also study extensively , the religions,I'm, wondering,is this your field ? Its just your just really calling her out on the finer points ,and ,well sure,if she was a grade school teacher,buts shes not.Are you a Theology major ? Just curious,you make some really good points but then she seems to be able to correct many of your points.


- She is not necessarily correcting points. She is looking at things from her own perspective which is not necessarily Islamic perspective. For instance, Islamic perspective holds that in Islam there is only Defensive War and she claimed in her earlier post that there is also Offensive war and when she copied and pasted verses, I put the verses back and explained them to her, but she thinks she is the one who is right and goes in circles about it.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 127 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 12:53:39 PM
Abit


I answered your questions, I just didn’t line them all up in order. You repeatedly asked about context, I provided it. Your are pretending a knowledge you don’t have, which is glaringly obvious—for example, in your rejection of the map I provided.


- No. You didn't answer the questions in the previous posts and Islam's foundation is the Koran as the primary source and the context that you have provided is based on what you have read and don't even know the Arabic language to read the Koran and understand, but I do read Arabic and understand and know it fully well.


- I believe it is you who pretends to know about Islam from reading other people's books who have no knowledge of the Koran and are simply people who have take verses out of context and put their own ideas behind. For instance, the ones you quoted regarding the stages, they were all inaccurate as I showed you all the verses in context and there was nothing about it as "offensive war". Everything was defensive.

- If you want to prove me wrong, provide verses in context and explain the history behind them rather than copying and pasting verses like you do before without context 'cause you read the verses and just literally translate them like anyone else. That's a joke.



ou really don’t know Islamic history, do you?

The map I provided was a quick find—I used it because it presents a picture I already know to be true….because I know it…..because it’s common knowledge to anyone who has ever read a book (or even a chapter in a freshman-level textbook) about the early umma.

But fine


- Nah. That would be you who doesn't know Islamic history and quote your source, which turn out to be someone's personal blogs. I thought high school students are thought not to quote from blogs.


There are Arabic names—not Islamic ones. The only Arabs I have mentioned are Muhammad and the first four caliphs following his death, all of whom were close associates of his. Please provide an EXAMPLE of me “running around in a maize of circle [wtf?] by looking at other people’s actions who have an “Islamic name” and whatever they say, you accept it.” Btw, is English your first language?


- I thought English was your problem because you couldn't read points while they were all formatted for you properly.


Thanks, but if you think that all there is to a religion is its sacred text—then you don’t know what you are talking about. PERIOD. Go tell a Pakistani ulama to ignore the hadith. And then tell him that he doesn’t understand Qur’an and you would prefer to debate with someone with a background in the subject.



- First of all "Ulama" is a plural noun and it doesn't put "a" with it. The singular form is "Alim".

- Second. All Muslim scholars agree that there are four source of Islam.

1. Primary source - Koran
2. Second source - Hadith
3. Third source - Ijma
4. Fourth source- Qayas

- That's why I prefer debating with someone who has prior knowledge and I am afraid you don't even know the basis sources of Islam.

- No more debate with someone who has got no prior knowledge of Islam or the Koran and previously claimed that he never touched Islamic history and now claims that she is teaching it.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 125 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/13/2009 9:30:42 AM
Abitnomadic


Passionteman, your post is difficult to engage with because of your formatting problems. Plus, you are an apologist, and since I’m not and have no vested interest in this matter at all from a polemical or apologetic POV (pro-Muslim, anti-Muslim, or neither), I’m not sure how much point there is to any of this, especially since you insist on continuing to assign positions to me that I haven’t argued—as pointed out both by myself before and more recently by Mungojoe (and thanks for that MJ)


- I don't think it is difficult to engage in it. Every point I make starts with a (-). You are just avoiding the things you have been asked about since you haven't done the research on your own and have googled things. :)

- No. I am not an apologist. I have studied religions in depth and know fairly well about Islam.

- I didn't assign any positions to you. I asked you to clarify your position by asking you 2 questions and finally MJ was able to clarify it, but not you.


This whole discussion of Islam started because you insisted that Hasan could not have seen himself as participating in jihad when he killed those people at Ft Hood, because (you say) Islam doesn’t allow Moslems to do such things—it’s not Qur’anic. And yet, there is an element within Islam that sees things differently from you, and WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, those Muslims DO find justification for their actions IN the Qur’an AND in the actions of the Prophet during his lifetime.


- Actions of people don't represent Islam. Koran represents Islam. If you have done some reseach of your own and are able to show me in context how the the Koran has directed these individuals to go about killing people, I am willing to listen to you. Otherwise, you are running around in a maize of circle by looking at other people's actions who have an "Islamic name" and whatever they say, you accept it.

- You don't learn about a religion by listening to other people. You learn it from the primary source of that religion as well as its history and I am afraid you haven't done any research in that field.



YOU might disagree with their interpretation of Qur’an, and fine—MANY AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION. But YOUR adherence to your position doesn’t make those who see otherwise and THEIR interpretations disappear, which absolutely means that it is possible that by the time he killed those people, Hasan was influenced by an interpretation that does not conform to yours. And THAT is real—there really ARE very learned Muslims who interpret Qur’an in a way that you find WRONG and TWISTED.


- Koran doesn't have 20 million different versions and interpretations. There is only ONE Koran. The only way, you really know the interpretation of the Koran is to know the actual context as well as history of the verses and the situation the verses were revealed for.

- If others see it differently and interpret it differently, that's their problem and perhaps lack of language issue on their part and or lack of knowledge. That doesn't mean that the Koran instructs them to do so. They simply don't have the knowledge to learn it properly and do things on their own.

- I look at it this way. If someone goes around killing people in the name of Islam, they had better provide verses from the Koran in context where it has directed Muslims to kill people. If they can't do that, it has NO CONNECTION to Islam at all and it is simply their own reactions and actions.

- As for Hasan, I haven't seen any evidence where he has mentioned anything of whether he has used the Koranic verses to justify his killings, so religion has no connection to what he has done so far unless you are going to prove it otherwise and show me where he has mentioned anything regarding being directed by the Koran to go kill people.



SOME can interpret them to mean that pagans should be killed only if they violate a treaty with the Muslims. SOME can interpret them to mean that after the treaty expires the pagans are open season. Some can interpret them to mean that it’s great that the pagans now under attack can make a deal to get away. And SOME can interpret them to mean that since that DEAL involves promising to observe Salat (the Muslim prayers required as the Second Pillar) that this is a convert or die situation. (Seeking safe passage, btw, is NOT the same as finding refuge when you or your community is attacked—this is provided to those who ASK to come learn of Allah, which they are allowed to do and then go away again—coming and going=safe passage.)


- That's why I keep repeating the same thing over and over to you that in order to know Islam fully well and the Koran, you need to know the context of the verses.

- These verses don't talk about present, they talk about past and one specific situation where Muhammad had treaty with the pagans of the time, so it has no present use at all.

- Again, you read them without the actual context just like the rest of the people who do google searches and find verses without knowing the history. That's why, I prefer debating with someone who has got prior knowlege in the subject matter and knows the Islamic history and context of the verses, the time they were revealed etc.



Well sorry, but I don’t approach this as a believer. I don’t think that Muhammad got the messages forming Qur’an from Allah (via Gabriel), just as I don’t think Moses got the Ten Commandments from God or that Paul was filled with the spirit of Christ when he wrote his epistles. I have no doubt that Muhammad THOUGHT he was the final Prophet with a direct line to Allah, but such considerations do not inform MY position (and the text wasn’t fixed until after Muhammad’s death in any case). Thus, like ALL text, this one (Qur’an) was produced by men in a context in which their circumstances and agenda affected what they wrote.


- That's fine whatever your position is on that. I am talking about Islamic perspective here and not Tom, Bob and Harry's perspective.

- As for the compilation of the Koran, it was compiled and organized while Muhammad was alive. However, the publication part and putting things together as Muhammad had instructed was done after during Usman caliphate. Again, I am talking Islamic perspective here and you might have your own position. The Koran was compiled and preserved in two ways: First, through memorization, there were a number of early Muslims who would memorize each revelation as soon as it was revealed and thus had the whole Quran memorized at the time of the final revelation. The tradition of memorizing the entire Quran still continues, and a person who does so is called a Hafize Quran.
Second, the Quran was preserved through writing. Whenever any revelation took place, it was written at once on tablets, palm branches, shorn of leaves, or animal skin. This was done primarily by Zaid bin Thabit, who was the main scribe out of the 42 scribes of the revelation. Muhammad set the order of the chapters under the guidance of Gabriel and ordered his companions to maintain that order. Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, compiled the Quran, and Uthman, the third caliph, made numerous copies and sent one copy to each state capital.


Anyway, the CONTEXT in which Muhammad operated and the Qur’an was written was violent.


- Please provided evidence for what you claim on here. Otherwise, it is simply your own personal thoughts and opinion and has nothing to do with Islam at all. :)



Muhammad largely kept his messages to himself when he first received them.


- Please provided evidence for what you claim on here. Otherwise, it is simply your own personal thoughts and opinion and has nothing to do with Islam at all. :)



If you have a look here, everything in dark red and rust was united as the umma within Muhammad’s lifetime (the red) or within 29 years of his death (the death of the fourth caliph, Ali). ALL of the first caliphs, up to 661 (Muhammad died in 332) were CLOSE to him. Do you think, passionteman, that YOU know the Prophet’s intentions better than THESE GUYS?


- As if I am going to believe some bloggers on the internet. lol. Please provide some evidence from REAL sources rather than Tommy's website.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 113 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/12/2009 1:48:40 PM
Abitnomadic


<div class="quote"> Force WAS used to spread the UMMA--the community of Islam, which was both a political unit AND a religious community from the time of Muhammad.


- Historically, how was force used to spread the Umma? 1. Are you suggesting that Muhammad collected his so few followers and started fighting the pagans of the time head on from the beginning to spread the Umma by attacking them and using violence?

Or................

2. Are you suggesting that he used force when he was attacked by the pagans of the time and to defend himself and his followers, he used force?

- You need to make the point clear. There is only two options at the beginning. Either he used force and attacked them or he was attacked and he had to defend himself and save his followers and had to use force.

- I would be willing to listen to you if you have done some research on this and are able to provide evidence from the Koran, which is the ONLY primary source of Islam to back up your claims in either case.




<div class="quote"> There is nothing in what I SAID about forced conversion—so please don't put words into my mouth. Yes, as long as people submitted to the authority of the Prophet and then the caliphate they weren’t, as a rule, forced to convert. Nevertheless the umma WAS extended by force.

- Saying "submitting to the authority of prophet" could mean anything. You need to be very clear on here. 1. When he fought the pagans of the time and succeeded, did he actually force people to convert?

Or..............

2. Were the people left the way they were and whoever joined Islam, they did and whoever didn't, they didn't?

- Again, I am requesting that you provide evidence whichever stand you are taking. Otherwise, I am not willing to debate if there is no substantial evidence.

- As for the caliphate and force conversion, you had better provide the evidence and whether their decision of "forced conversion" was because the Koran had directed them to do so or was it simply their own doings.



<div class="quote"> second, not only have I not said that that these early Muslims were going around forcing people to convert, I have ALSO not said that the Qur'an teaches Muslims to do this: CONVERT (as opposed to impose rule over) others by force.

- You would need to provide some examples of "imposing rules over" to make it clear as part of backing up your claims. Again, debating without providing the historical context of it doesn't help me at all here. I have no idea who you are talking about and who imposed the rules and what kind of rules you are talking about etc.




<div class="quote"> Both the Qur'an and the Hadith DO however contain passages by which Muslims are instructed to use the sword against those who stand between themselves AND their umma, who PERSECUTE Muslims, and who resist the leadership of the Prophet AND the spread of the umma—as it functioned in early Islam BOTH as the Islamic state [as caliphate] AND as the religious community, with ONE earthly head in the Prophet and then the early caliphs).

- I have mentioned that before that force can be used to defend yourself and to eradicate injustice from society. We use the authority of the police in the western world today to make sure everyone is following the law and abide by the laws and we use the military to defend the country against others attacking us.

- The pagans of the time did persecute Muslims, so of course, you would see Muslims defending themselves, which any sane individual would defend himself/herself and his family members against persecutions.

- As for the resistance of Muhammad's leadership and using force against those individuals, you had better provide some evidence for that to back up your claims.



<div class="quote"> Now, I don't pretend to be an Islamic historian (I'm a specialist in the period of the Reformation in Europe—obviously, something quite different). Like other historians, I rely for my information on areas outside my research field on the scholarship of OTHER historians—experts in their fields. And my understanding is that there is something of a consensus among scholars of Islam (whether Muslim or not) that the Qur'an is internally contradictory (or, as some would say, “vague”) when it comes to the use of violence—as it is on other things (and as, too, is the Bible, for that matter, when it comes to many Christian teachings).

- Again, I am not going to comment on something where it hasn't been quoted as to what part of the Koran exactly we are talking about here. Again, you had better provide the evidence on here as to the "contradiction" you are talking about so that it could be debate. Otherwise, nothing to debate about here.



<div class="quote">There's more than one possible explanation for this, but the most reasonable one (it seems to me), and one widely accepted, is that as Muhammad adapted to the changing circumstances of his leadership of his growing community, so his teaching also underwent modification (and as a historian I don’t engage with the problem of whether or not this was a result of Gabriel’s messages to him from Allah—this, to me, is irrelevant).

- Again, it depends on what period you are talking about as well as whether the teachings you are talking about are part of the Koran or Hadiths. You would have to provide evidence to back up this claim as well and then we will have a meaningful debate on it.



<div class="quote"> An easy (and much accepted) outline of this development is provided by R. Bailey (“Jihad: The Teaching of Islam from Its Primary Sources: The Quran and Hadith”). Here the movement in Muhammad’s (Qur’anic) teachings from completely non-aggressive tolerance to warfare is traced through four stages.

- First of all, I gotta make this clear that the primary source of Islam is ONLY the KORAN - Hadith is the secondary source of Islam and an Hadith had to be compatible with the Koran to be confirmed as "authentic Hadith.

- The following are the specific source of Islam.

1. Koran is the ONLY PRIMARY source of Islam and there is nothing else that is the primary source

2. Hadith is the secondary source of Islam and it has to be compatible with the Koran to be considered authentic

3. Ijma is the third source of Islam - which simply means gathering

4. Qayas is the fourth way as a source which simply means logical and analogical reasoning.




<div class="quote"> (I’m going to provide a small selection of the relevant Qur’anic verses here, as reflecting each stage, rather than copy them all in for you. If you are interested and want to dispute them, you can look them up for yourself (and even search out Bailey’s article, to this end). I myself am content to rely on the expertise of those who really ARE scholars in this subject—and here I should also admit my reliance on the religious historian Samuele Bachiocchi, although unlike him I’m not interested in doing a comparison of the Qur’an in this respect with Christian teachings).

- Let's go through these stages that you have mentioned and anaylze the verses that you have quoted.




<div class="quote"> Stage One: Muhammad teaches against Retaliatory violence—Sura 73: 10-11 & Sura 52: 45-48


- First of all, the verses are not the teachings of the Muhmmad, they are messages to Muhammad, which means Muhammmad is the first to learn them and then he conveys the message to other followers.

- What you may want to do is check the verses yourself first to make sure what the person is talking about. I am going to quote the actual verse on here for you so that we can find out what it really says. I am going to copy and paste the verses before the one you have quoted and the one after as well so that you can get idea of the actual context of the verse.


<div class="quote"> Quran 73:9 He Alone is) the Lord of the east and the west, (none has the right to be worshipped but He). So take Him Alone as (Disposer of your affairs).

Quran 73:10 And be patient (O Muhammad ) with what they say, and keep away from them in a good way.

Quran 73:11And leave Me Alone to deal with the beliers (those who deny My Verses, etc.), and those who are in possession of good things of life. And give them respite for a little while.

Quran 73:12 Verily, with Us are fetters (to bind them), and a raging Fire.

- These verses have nothing to do with being against retaliatory violence at all. It is specifically talking about God telling Muhammad that he is the only God worthy of worship and that Muhammad needs to be patient with those who are disbelievers in the verses and who don't listen to his message of inviting them to Islam and then God says that he will deal with those who don't believe on his own and talks about the idea of them going to hell where there is raging fire.


<div class="quote"> Stage Two: Muhammad allows for defensive fighting—Sura 22: 39-41; Sura 22: 58


<div class="quote"> [22:38] GOD defends those who believe. GOD does not love any betrayer, unappreciative.

[22:39] Permission is granted to those who are being persecuted, since injustice has befallen them, and GOD is certainly able to support them.

[22:40] They were evicted from their homes unjustly, for no reason other than saying, "Our Lord is GOD." If it were not for GOD's supporting of some people against others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and masjids - where the name of GOD is commemorated frequently - would have been destroyed. Absolutely, GOD supports those who support Him. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.

[22:41] They are those who, if we appointed them as rulers on earth, they would establish the Contact Prayers and the obligatory charity and would advocate righteousness and forbid evil. GOD is the ultimate ruler.

[22:42] If they reject you, the people of Noah, `Aad, and Thamoud have also disbelieved before them.

[22:43] Also the people of Abraham, and the people of Lot.

[22:44] And the dwellers of Midyan. Moses was also rejected. I led all those people on, then I called them to account; how (devastating) was My requital!

- Again, Muhammad doesn't allow for defensive fighthing. The verses direct Muhammad that God defends those people who are believers in him and has permitted them to defend themselves against persecution just like they were evicted from their homes etc.

- I have mentioned that before that Islam allows for defensive fighthing, which any country whether Muslim or non-Muslim has a military force that defends the people and nation, so it isn't a big surprise.


<div class="quote"> Stage Three: Muhammad commands defensive fighting and promises the rewards of Allah—Sura 2: 190; Sura 2: 216; Sura 8: 12-13; Sura 61: 4-13


<div class="quote"> [2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

- This verse again talks about self-defense and Muslims are allowed to defend themselves and not transgress the limits by carpet bombing cities. There are specific rules of war fare which are described in other parts of the Koran.


<div class="quote"> Stage Four: Muhammad commands offensive war—Sura 9: 5; Sura 5: 36-38

- There is no such thing as Offensive war in Islam. You can not attack other places and countries, killing innocent people and all. If some kind or emperor did it through history and had an Islamic name, that has nothing to do with the religion itself unless you are going to provide verses from the Koran w here it directs them to do so.

- Now, the verses quoted here will be examine to see whether they as for offensive war or there is some context behind it.


<div class="quote"> 9:4 Except those of the pagans with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely God loves (the pious)

9:5), "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

9:6 And if anyone of the (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of God) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of God (the Quran), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.

9:7 How can there be a covenant with God and with His Messenger for the (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of God) except those with whom you made a covenant near Makkah). So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, God loves (the pious)

- These verses specifically talk about the time in history when Muhammad entered Mecca with all the other tribes that joined him and he took over without any fight and there was a treaty between the pagans of the time and the Muslims so that they could co-exist in the same community. So the first verse talks about the treaty and says that those who haven't failed the treaty, so you maintain your part of the bargain with them and don't breach that treaty with them, which means that you live peacefully with them as they deal with you peacefully.

- Then the second verse talks about those who breach the treaty after going under the treaty with you and still persecute Muslims and try to create problems, then you have the right to fight them and kill them, imprison them.

- The verse after says that if any of the pagans seeks your protection, then you could give them the security they need.

- The verses continue to say that as long as the other side kept its covenant and kept their promise and part of the bargain, you stay true to them.

So.....................

- I don't see any offensive war on here. This will be the last time I went ahead and explained the context of the verses for you. Next time, you provide evidence, you are supposed to be explaining all of t his in context to me.

- From what I see on here, all of these are "DEFENSIVE" rather than "Offensive".
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 110 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/11/2009 1:35:04 PM
Abitnomadic


passionteman--with regard to the part of your post directed at me.....

How does what I said I've heard on US news conflict with the BBC report? That's exactly what I heard reported on CNN, ABC, and MSNBC.


This is what you have said in the earlier post.


t IS on all the major American news sources that the army knew that Hasan had made contact with an individual known to be linked with Al Qaeda months ago, and did nothing about it. Of course, if this turns out to have damning legs, it's HUGELY embarrassing for the army authorities in question.


- You have mentioned the fact that he had contact with an invididual who is linked to Al Qaeda. However, the BBC site specifically states that " An FBI-led task force monitoring the e-mail of Yemen-based Anwar al-Awlaki said he had communicated with Maj Hasan - a US-born Muslim and army psychiatrist - on 10 to 20 occasions.
However, it was decided that further investigation was not needed, as the content of the messages did not advocate or threaten violence. .................

- According to them, there is no further need for investigation as the communication didn't have anything to do with any sort of violence and or threat and that's something that you didn't mention at all. You said that he was communicating with a man who is linked to Al Qaeda and you left it at that. :)



Now, btw, I'm reading (from the Wall Street Journal) that the pentagon is saying that the army was NOT informed that emails between al-Awlaki and Hasan had been intercepted by US Intelligence agencies. So clearly what we're getting about this is still very confused.


- That's why I wouldn't jump into conclusion by linking him to Al Qaeda or any other organization or his religion being part of it or his background since there is no evidence as of yet and he hasn't even spoken yet to tell us why he did that.



I'm no advocate of automatically accusing this guy of some kind of jihad (and jihad CAN mean a violent struggle even though it doesn't necessarily).


- No. Jihad doesn't mean "violent struggle at all" if you study the actual rood of that word in Arabic which comes from "jehd", which simply means try or struggle without any violent side to it.

However.........................

- It is automatically translated as "violent" according to all the news networks and that's why they translate it as "holy war" - which is not even a bit close to the actual meaning of the word.

- According to Islamic theology and the Koran, FORCE can only be used for two purposes:

1. To defend onself when attacked

2. To eradicate injustice from society when you fight crime.


So...................

By "violent struggle" if you meant that Muslims are required to fight and kill people and attack, Koran never dicatates that and if you got some verses where it says that, then you could provide the evidence IN CONTEXT since I will be asking for the history, meaning behind the verses, why they were revealed, Islamic history in context. etc.


Otherwise..................

There is no such thing as "violent struggle" unless it is used for the above-mentioned purposes to eradicate injustice in society and fight crime and or defend yourself when attacked.


But it's pretty clear that he had become increasingly devout in his faith recently, according to those who know him including his own imam. So I for one DO want to know if he was on some kind of spiral that took him to a place where he felt compelled to act as part of the larger jihadist movement, and I hope we find out.


- If you become very devout to the faith, that means you know the Koran very well, read it, understand it in context and all and you would be somewhat close in knowledge to that of the Imam. So how come all the Imams in the United States haven't been involved in shooting and killing people all over the place?

- If you have become devout to your faith, then you know the religion and the purpose of the religion and there is nowhere in the Koran where it asks you to go kill innocent people unless he could provide us the verses in context where it says so.





BTW, while I sympathise with your goal of defending the religion of Islam from ignorant assumptions that it is a religion of violence,


- You don't have to sympathise with my goal here. I have studied the religion in depth and know about it as I have taken comparative religion courses and have travelled overseas to know it well enough, so I am on here correcting people who make false assumptions who haven't studied it in context nor know about it.




it's no good pretending that there is no Qur'anic basis for using violence against those opposed to Islam or its spread.


- Please provide me a verse from the Koran where it says that Muslims are required to spread Islam using violence. Then I would believe you and make sure you are not doing the same mistake as the rest of the people on here doing google searches and copying and pasting since I will be asking you for the actual context of the verses, history, time it was revealed, the purpose behind the verses. etc. etc.

- Here is some verses to counter yours.


2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clear from the wrong way........................




16:82 But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you).



- These verses specifically talk about no forcing someone into religion and or forcing or spreading it by force and the job Muhammad had as a deliverer of the message and not forcing people to convert to Islam.

- Now, if you look at history and there are some Muslim kings who have gone around killing people and buiding their empire, that has nothing to do with Islam. Unless, you are going to provide us the verse from the Koran where it has directed the King to do so.



Taking the sword to create and then extend the umma is exactly what Muhammad himself and the caliphs following him did, and both the Qur'an and the Hadith teach that a Moslem must be prepared to use violence in defense of persecuted Muslims and the umma.


- Nah. I thought you knew your history. I recommend reading the books "The Preaching of Islam" by Sir Thomas W. Arnold, "The Venture of Islam" by Marshall G. Hodgson as well as "History of Islamic Societies" by Ira Lapidus

- In addition, this is what historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8) says:



"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping
through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered
races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever
repeated."


- Hmmmm. I think I might accept a historian words over anybody else's. Don't you think?

- Now, if you could provide us some verses from the Koran where God has asked Muhammad to take a sword and start converting people by force, I would be happy to read it.

- As for using force to defend yourself, that's exactly all democratic societies use today to defend themselves from other nations and their enemies by building up strong military and making sure their borders are safe and all. So defending yourself and your people is the duty of any proper government system.

So.....................


- If you think that when Muslims used force to defend those who attacked them and kill them is wrong, then you must be living out of this planet. I guess you would be sitting on your ass doing nothing if someone keeps on slapping you while haven't said anything to him/her, right?


And since these texts provide much of the primary teaching of Islam (the first being the teachings of Allah through his prophet), it's not weird or bizarre that it follows, for some, that these are teachings TOWARDS salvation, even though the call to violence forms a very SMALL part of a religious literature much more concerned with peace and social ethics.


- Actually the PRIMARY source of Islam is the Koran alone. That takes precedence over everything else. If there is Hadith that conflicts with Koran, then the word of Koran takes priority. The Hadith comes as secondary source since it wasn't collected when Muhammad was alive and thus are not the words of God rather collection of things that people might have passed on from one generation to another until it was compiled and written down.



[quote[ But whatever these texts say (or however they CAN be interpreted), it's VERY CLEAR that there is a significant and very politicized Islamicist movement that DOES believe and teach that violent jihad is the duty of a "good" Muslim. The fact that most Muslims (and most non-Muslims) see this as a twisted **stardization of Islam doesn't change that.

- Koran represents Islam. People don't represent Islam. If someone has an Islamic name and kills others, then the only way he could be linked to religion if you could find specific verses from the Koran where it has dictated its followers to go about killing innocent people, if there is, then that's your evidence and if you can't find it, then what he did is simply his own reaction or revenge because he might have lost someone when we bombarded his house and killed his parents, children and all and now he is turning against us.

- That's exactly what creates the resistance both in Iraq and Afghanistan. People get hurt and they want to revenge and they turn to one group and another and arm themselves because they have nothing else in their life anymore.

So..............

That has nothing to do with the religion, but rather the individual's own reactions.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 106 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/10/2009 9:33:57 PM
Etour


Have you not read any of the information regarding the Terrorist Hasan.....
he was in fact a practicing Muslim...



- Did you follow him to the mosque every day to make sure he was praying? No

- Did you ever discuss with him about his religious belief? No

- Do you know him personally and know that he is a practicing Muslim? No

- Did you hear it from Fox news and CNN? Yes

- Did they show him praying and all? No

- Even if he was a practicing Muslim as per your baseless claims, he hasn't said anything that he has done this based on his religious beliefs and practice or as directed by the Koran, which is the primary source of Islam.

Thus......................

- There is no evidence of his religion playing any role as of yet.




McVeigh was labeled a Terrorist...do you read anything?


A terrorist yeah, but nobody called him a Christian terrorist like you keep calling this guy a "Muslim terrorist" and keep on assuming things because he has got an Islamic name.



f he was motivated by his belief that he would go to Heaven for killing Infidels then it would most definitely be linked to his Religion....


- There is no such thing in the entire Koran regarding killing someone and going to heaven. If you got a verse that you could find where it says that, please present it here for us.

- If he says something and does things on his own and there is no such proof of that in Islam, it has nothing to do with his religion, but rather his own personal reaction and action to events and not connected to religion at all.

- He never claimed any of that and hasn't even spoken yet as to what the motive was and why he did it, so stop talking about his religion if you got no proof unless you are his partner in crime and he has given you a letter and you could provide it as evidence for us here.

- If he was a practicing Muslim as you so claim, the he has must have read these verses too from the Koran.



............ if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole humanity..... Quran 5:32


- This verse clearly states that killing one person is just like you have killed the whole humanity and if you saved one person, that's like saving the whole humanity.

- Now, let's see if you could provide us some evidence from his religion. And don't try to copy and paste verses from google searches 'cause I will be asking you to explain the verses in context, history of Islam, Islamic theory, why the verse was revealed, the purpose behind it etc.


Iamalwaysmiling



hat guy really seemed to be motivated by his religious beliefs


- Got any proof that he has spoken yet and said so? NO

- Were you his buddy and he shared that with you? No

- Stop assuming things unless you could provide some evidence. If he was motivated by his religion, then back up your claims so that we will know you are right.



,he was praised by the enemy as a hero,but they make it sound as if he was a one man show,time will tell.


- Got any proof of that? Any video recordings so that we will watch it as part of your backing up your claim?




If I could bet on this,I'd say to shooter was following that terrorist Jihad code,even if he was a one man show.


You don't really know what Jihad means, do you? You heard it on CNN and Fox as "holly war" and you keep using it in the same meaning on here. lol.


A bit Nomadic


It IS on all the major American news sources that the army knew that Hasan had made contact with an individual known to be linked with Al Qaeda months ago, and did nothing about it


Not according to BBC.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8353248.stm


..................................An FBI-led task force monitoring the e-mail of Yemen-based Anwar al-Awlaki said he had communicated with Maj Hasan - a US-born Muslim and army psychiatrist - on 10 to 20 occasions.
However, it was decided that further investigation was not needed, as the content of the messages did not advocate or threaten violence. .................
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 102 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/10/2009 8:26:50 PM
Etour



I got my info from the UK Telegraph ,The China daily and other foreign sources ,,,,don't really trust American news sources.....He will not be labeled a Terrorist by the authorities whether he really is or not, they are motivated by Politics not truth


1. How come the individuals who blow up the abortion clinics are not labelled as "terrorist" when they kill innocent people?

2. How come Timothy Mcveigh was not labelled as a terrorist and a bomber?

3. How come the student who went to Virginia tech on a rampage wasn't labelled as terrorist?

And....................

I guess you are the only one who knows the truth and will call him a "terrorist" and all the other instances mentioned above are not terrorism in your eyes, right?





..Notice that the" Authorities" are already trying to downplay the religious factor and they haven't even really started an in depth investigation..



- There is no religious factor involved at all unless he says that he was doing it because of his religion and belief. Making assumptions at this poing either by the authorities or anybody else is simply ASSSSUMPTIONS. :62:


Even if he says that he did it because of religion.....................

- It would be his own personal reaction and action and not linked to the religion unless he is able to explain what verses from the Koran had asked him to go kill innocent people and of course he would have to explain those verses in context.




.how can they say what his motives were and they have yet to talk to him, but they sure are offering their "opinions" about it not being an act of Terrorism? How can they know? ...they should have said no comment ...their statements so early in the investigation are a good sign that the investigation wont really go anywhere...and in the end it will probably be just another Government cover up....


- Whether it is cover up or not, that's their problem. However, labelling him as "Muslim" terrorist and or mentioning about his religion or belief without evidence is inappropriate both on the media part and the public. Just because someone has an Islamic name doesn't mean he is practicing the religion and really knows about it.

And..................

There has been no proof of his religion involved at all, but the US media is quick to make their $$$$ and bring the name of Al-Qaida all over the news and Osama and all the great stuff that makes news worthy. :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 93 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/10/2009 1:55:46 PM
eeee04u


'd love to hear this trial and don't know but my idea of his defense is something like this:

"They were picking on me because I'm a Muslim (had a bumper sticker with Allah on it and was reported going to a radical mosque in Wash, DC area...) and have a mideastern name. Therefore I got angry they associated with terrorists. I decided to prove them wrong by committing an act they would suspect me of plotting!"


- Nowhere has he claimed so far that what he did was because of his religious belief and or having a Middle Eastern name or because of the bumper stick in his car, and don't think you could make a great lawyer with that as your defense.


Just2beme


Let me guess, you really do live in a cave with no TV or radio reception, no newspapers or internet, nor any other way to actually gather information way out in LA-LA land somewhere right ??


1. Nah. I don't live in a cave with no TV or radio, but I am also no slave of CNN and Fox news to get my ideas from. They are joke. :)

Besides....................

They haven't showed a bit of evidence on tv for people to see as part of evidence. They keep claiming one thing and another without any solid proof.

2. He hasn't been even officially charged by the US government yet, and named as "terrorist" but you already know that information. I am all impressed with your "commonse sense". hahaha.

3. He hasn't even spoken yet to say that it was because of his religion an you sir already know that information. Very great "common sense". hahaha.

4. He hasn't even spoken to say that he did it for his beliefs and all and you already know that information.

Hmmmmmm.....


You see. I am seeing a pattern here whether it is being delusional or some psychic powers you got that we normal human beings don't have.




Cause I can’t think of any other reason you could make the above statements and actually think there are people in the world stupid enough to buy them



- Please try to answer my previous post instead of avoiding the questions there and stop making false claims without any proof to back up your claims.



nd no. I’m not physic, but I am blessed with common sense


- Common sense, eh? The US government doesn't have that common sense as of yet to put that guy in jail and label him as terrorist or claim that what he did was because of his religious belief, but you sir impressed everyone here with your psychic powers. You should work for the FBI. That way, judgement could be served faster without any evidence in sight


And................

Stop quoting articles from CNN and FOX that keep on coming up with their own 20 different versions of stories every 5 minutes.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 86 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/10/2009 12:02:51 PM
Just2beme


Actually I think the Ft Hood incident highlights the danger of "not" having Muslim control


- You got no proof that it has to do with his religion and nor does the media or FBI either.

In addition................

You also don't know whether he is Muslim or not. Someone's name doesn't indicate his religion.

Unless...............

You have some sort of psychic powers who could ASSSSume people's religions by their names. You could make lots of money that way.

And............

Don't forget the Christian bombing of the abortion clinics. Hmmmmm. Wrong idea to put little "John", "Peter" , "James" and all the other biblically named individuals in charge, right? :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 58 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 7:23:36 AM
Etourdi


Nope, only the ones that go around America shooting and killing Americans


- So if someone goes around killing Americans, he is labeled as "terrorist" but invading other countries, killing their innocent children, men, women, destroying their infrastructure with carpet bombs and drones are not considered terrorism, right?

And...................

- When James, Peter, John takes a gun to school and shoots all the classmates and himself, that's definitely not an act of terrorism and he is not labeled as "Christian terrorist" either although his name is very Biblical, right?

Also....................

Neither you nor the media have provided any sort of evidence where he explicitly claimed that he killed people because of his religious belief, so labeling as "Muslim terrorist" all over the news network is totally wrong and shows how biased these news corporations are despite the fact that we claim that we are "democratic" and that newspapers are "free and independent".


.....there is a big difference between criticizing the War and Killing people because of your beliefs.......


- Of course there is a difference. However, you haven't provided any evidence on here to suggest that this person actually did it because of his religion and neither have the rest of the media provided any evidence to that fact either, so as of now labeling him as a "Muslim" terrorist is totally inaccurate and incorrect and bringing about his Palestinian background all over the news network is totally wrong as well.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma buildings, nobody labeled him as "Christian" terrorist. How come? He has got a Christian name. That's because the media is smart and they know that the man may not be practicing his religion, but when someone has a Muslim name, they are quick to put his/her religion first as if they know from the inside head of that person that he is a devout Muslim.


But.....................

Even if it turns out that he has done it because of religion, then evidence should be provided as to where does it say in the Koran anywhere to go around killing people. There is no such concept in Islam as to killing or hurting people.

Unless.................

You are in a situation where you defend yourself WHEN attacked first. And that is common sense. I am pretty sure you would not be sitting on your ass doing nothing if a bunch of people attacked you and try to beat you up. Police will not be there for you for the next 5 minutes while you get beaten.

Thus.....................

Until the investigation is done and it is found out whether he was a lunatic or suffered from some sort of depression, stop making false claims unless you are his partner and he told you all the things and you have some recorded video of his suicide mission that you could provide as evidence here for us.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 54 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/7/2009 8:02:22 PM
Etourdi


Got to love how people have sympathy for a man who just killed 13 Americans in America, a man who was charged with the psychological welfare or American soldiers....


- You might have love for people who have sympathy for killers, but I don't. Besides, I never said in any of my posts that I had sympathy for anyone.

But.................

-I smell reading comprehension problems.

- I am glad to see that a few posts ago you were referring to the same man as a "Muslim" just like CNN and fox without actually knowing if he was a practicing Muslim or in his heart had any faith at all, but now start to refer to him as a "man" and not Muslim anymore. I give you kudos for that.


I am not a scholar but Jihad of the sword would apply depending on Hasan......


- If you aren't a scholar, then you shouldn't follow CNN and fox's using of the word "jihad" uselessly when they mean it as the "holy war" 'cause it doesn't mean that at all.

And...........

- There is no such thing as "jihad of the sword". That might be a new phrase that you have coined unless you could provide some evidence to support that as well.


Its nice how you don't really have a valid argument so you put your anti war anti American spin on everything....


- Nah. It is rather how you don't see killing of innocent people, children, men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq as not an act of terrorism, but you are quickly to label this as an act of terrorism.


Like I said he allegedly posted on those sites I am sure the info will never come to light much like the tape of Obama at at the Rashid Kalide speech never came to light....


- If there is no evidence, it is all invalid and everything CNN and the rest of the media claim is totally false unless they are able to show it and they haven't done so and you haven't done so either.

Till then................

- That can't be used as evidence to support the false claims.


For some reason many Americans have a real issue with confronting reality....I found one source that said the postings were on scribd website but of course they are not available....


- That's what happens when you got no time to search things on your own and the only source providing you information is the biased news corporations that you people listen to on regular basis.


I agree, but when there are witnesses who state that the person in question has made statements about how the muslims should attack the aggressors


- I haven't seen or heard of any witnesses that have mentioned anything like that. Got a source for that?



and that American is in the wrong for the wars etc.....it doesnt take much to put two and two together....


- There are countless number of people in the United States and around the world who oppose the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and have publicly criticized the invasion of both countries.

So..................

I am assuming all these countless number of people are terrorists in your eyes, right?

 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/7/2009 5:15:32 PM
etourdi


Nope they are different issues..


- In your eyes, it might be different issues, but killing innocent people whether in the United States or anywhere else in the world is terroristic act.


we have a Muslim who may have posted on extremist web sites and made anti american anti war statements who shot over 40 people killing 13.


- First of all, let's make this clear. Someone with a Muslim name doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is Muslims. You sound exactly like CNN and Fox that keep labelling people as "Muslims" without knowing whether they REALLY practice the religion and it is impossible to know from someone's inside what they believe in, but I guess the news networks are pretty great at making ASSSSSUMPTIONS.

- How come the News networks don't label someone whose name is "Peter" or "John" as "Christian men" killed 43 people?

- Just because someone has a name that connects him to a religion doesn't necessarily mean that he is follower of that religion.

- Could you show us those posts that he made where he made anti-american remarks? If not, then I don't see any proof of it, which means that even the news networks are wrong on that. ASSSSSUMPTIONS.



This was an American who may have been sympathetic to the plight of Muslims who for whatever reason decided to declare Jihad on his fellow American soldiers....


- Whether you are Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, you should care for humanity and human life and be sympathetic to all humans, so what he did isn't sympathy to the plight of Muslims.

- He never declared any type of "jihad" , nor there is any evidence of that at all unless you are the only who has a video recording of him saying that as part of your supporting your baseless claim.

- By the way, "Jihad" doesn't mean "holy war" and I am sure you are using that in that context just like the rest of the US media without knowing the actual meaning of that word in Arabic.


But........

- We shouldn't forget that the situation created in Afghanistan and Iraq is because of illegal invasion in those countries, terrorizing of the people in those countries, killing their innocent children, sabotaging their infrastructure, etc.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/7/2009 3:52:19 PM
I agree it is possible..but I think shooting 43 and killing 7 of them shows a level of HATE....kind of scary also that we have people that feel that way about the Wars serving in our Military....makes you wonder about Friendly Fire deaths....


- How about the US millitary bombarding all the cities in Afghanistan, killing villagers, innocent kids that have nothing to do with the war, ruining infrastructure and creating terror in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Hmmm.............

I guess that doesn't count as "HATE" because "WE are RIGHT" when we kill others and invade their countries, right? :62:

P.S. Not defending what this Lunatic did at Fort Hood, but we are doing the same exact thing when we are bombarding places in Afghanistan with the drones without thinking for a second that there are innocent people in those houses that get killed for no reason.



P. S. Not defending the lunatic at Fort Hood, but when we are flying drones in villages and bombarding houses and villages, we kill innocent children, men and women living in those houses. To me, that is a form of terrorism.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 128 (view)
 
Introduction of Islam
Posted: 11/6/2009 7:35:45 PM
Plenty


No, i was born a lutheran :)


- If you were an atheist, you would mention "Non-religious" in your profile, wouldn't you?

But.............

I guess the traces of childhood Lutheran state has remained in ya.


For the rest, just turn on the news, see for yourself people are dying everyday over their socalled beliefs


- Just because someone has an Islamic name doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is following the religion. There have been millions of James, Peters and Johns around the world who don't even follow Christianity and work in gangs killing people etc.

So.............

How about we label those as "Christian Gangsters"? I wonder how CNN and FOX assume that if someone has an Islamic name, then they have done something because their religion has told him to do it without any proof.

I guess ASSSSSSUMPTIONS, eh? :)





i suppose religion is a good thing (in a way) it keeps the population down,
(slows down third world hunger)


-Hmmmmm. I smell lutheran terrorism here.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 126 (view)
 
Introduction of Islam
Posted: 11/6/2009 4:44:52 PM
Goodgodgirl



It is my belief the Quran has been corrupted to facilitate the recruitment of innocents who are desperate to believe in anything.


- That definitely might be your "belief", but that's not the reality in Koran unless you have verses from the Koran in CONTEXT that you could quote for us on here to support your claim.

And...........

- Please avoid going on google and searching for stuff and copying and pasting it on here because then I will be asking you follow up questions that will require you to explain the history of the verse, what the reason was based on Islamic history to the reveleation of the verse, the time the verse was revealed and what its purpose was and all.



It is used to fuel hatred


- Again, you would need to back up your claims by providing verses from the Koran and I REPEAT that they must be IN CONTEXT where you would explain the verses, the time they were revealed, what the purpose was, history of the verse itself, situation the verse was revealed for etc.



and that is NOT the message of Christianity. Slice it how you will.


- I am sure you will be quoting something like this from google.


"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)




Is there no redemption in Islam? No grace? And what of faith? ... Anyone??


- In Islam, everyone is responsible for their own sins. There is no such thing as original sin. Nobody carries someone else's sin or dies for someone else's sins. However, according to many verses in the Koran, it says that God is merciful, compassionate, forgiving etc. Therefore, Muslims can ask for forgiveness through prayer from God, acts of charity etc. That's one way to redeem yourself of sins. Thus, you are reponsible for saving yourself by doing great deeds in the world and not harming, hurting others, charity, prayer etc.


Plentyofdoubt



also when it comes down to it, there is too much bloodshed done in the name of a god for zealots to prove their god is right, its just not on,, bith christians and muslims have been killing over their damn books for thousands of years, its just stupid


- Could you provide some historical evidence as to the fact that Muslims have been killing Christians for thousands of years over their books? Any verses from the Koran where it dictates Muslims to go kill Christians?

- Please don't copy and paste google searches of verses on here unless you are ready to explain the context and history of the verses, why they were revealed, their purpose, meaning behind them etc. since I will be asking you to explain them if you did.



i believe in peace, so therefore i can only be an Atheist, to be any religion is just evil as they all stem from bloodshed


- Your profile says Lutheran. Am I smelling hypocrisy here?
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 125 (view)
 
Introduction of Islam
Posted: 11/6/2009 4:44:18 PM
Goodgodgirl



It is my belief the Quran has been corrupted to facilitate the recruitment of innocents who are desperate to believe in anything.


- That definitely might be your "belief", but that's not the reality in Koran unless you have verses from the Koran in CONTEXT that you could quote for us on here to support your claim.

And...........

- Please avoid going on google and searching for stuff and copying and pasting it on here because then I will be asking you follow up questions that will require you to explain the history of the verse, what the reason was based on Islamic history to the reveleation of the verse, the time the verse was revealed and what its purpose was and all.



It is used to fuel hatred


- Again, you would need to back up your claims by providing verses from the Koran and I REPEAT that they must be IN CONTEXT where you would explain the verses, the time they were revealed, what the purpose was, history of the verse itself, situation the verse was revealed for etc.



and that is NOT the message of Christianity. Slice it how you will.


- I am sure you will be quoting something like this from google.


"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)




Is there no redemption in Islam? No grace? And what of faith? ... Anyone??


- In Islam, everyone is responsible for their own sins. There is no such thing as original sin. Nobody carries someone else's sin or dies for someone else's sins. However, according to many verses in the Koran, it says that God is merciful, compassionate, forgiving etc. Therefore, Muslims can ask for forgiveness through prayer from God, acts of charity etc. That's one way to redeem yourself of sins. Thus, you are reponsible for saving yourself by doing great deeds in the world and not harming, hurting others, charity, prayer etc.


Plentyofdoubt



also when it comes down to it, there is too much bloodshed done in the name of a god for zealots to prove their god is right, its just not on,, bith christians and muslims have been killing over their damn books for thousands of years, its just stupid [ /quote]

- Could you provide some historical evidence as to the fact that Muslims have been killing Christians for thousands of years over their books? Any verses from the Koran where it dictates Muslims to go kill Christians?

- Please don't copy and paste google searches of verses on here unless you are ready to explain the context and history of the verses, why they were revealed, their purpose, meaning behind them etc. since I will be asking you to explain them if you did.



i believe in peace, so therefore i can only be an Atheist, to be any religion is just evil as they all stem from bloodshed


- Your profile says Lutheran. Am I smelling hypocrisy here?
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:20:19 PM
Where4

The Koran hasn't just specified that humans were created out of clay. There are many verses that refer to the fact that humans and all living things are made of water and dust, clay.

In fact..............

Here is the verse for you when it talks about them.


Quran 21:30 : Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?



And of His signs is this: He created you of dust, and behold you human beings, ranging widely!] (Ar-Rum 30:20)


- There are numerous references from the Koran referring to water and earth being part of the composition of living things. In fact, according to the theory of evolution, life began in water, so I don't see any contradiction here as to the composition of living things from water and earth.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/30/2009 8:18:06 PM
There are many factors that the situation in Afghanistan WILL not get better with the presence and involvement of foreign troops being there with all their artilerry and power and try to shoot people in the name of "Taliban", destroy innocent lives of civilians, destroy villages and cities and kill innocent children.

1. Afghans consists of different ethnic groups which include Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and other elasticities mixed in there. They have cultural and traditional values that they have hang on to for generations and generations and since the family system is all tied up together, the foreign troops are out there against a "beehive" rather than one person. You hurt one member of the family and you get the whole family get up in arms to hurt you back. They take matters in their own hands and don't call 911 or report it to the government.

2. Religiously speaking, they are allowed to defend themselves, their families and the country if they are attacked and what the US government and other countries do is show the might of their power with tanks, helicopters and military equipment and this gives them the sense of getting occupied, which they have fought against throughout history.

3. What the US military and the rest of the military gang from other countries do is bombard places, villages, cities and kill innocent children and destroy families and that encourages male members of different tribe and groups to band together for the following reasons:

A. They want to revenge the death of their entire family that the US military carpet bombed.

B. Some join different groups because they have large families and they don't have money to support them financially, so joining different groups helps them earn some money to support their family. All of this is because of poor economy and war that we have created in there.

4. Taliban are not just an "organized group" as the US military and the rest of the world considers them to be. People band together just like I mentioned above in different parts and form groups and form resistance against foreign troops for the above-mentioned reasons and the US government labels them as "Taliban".

5. There are groups that might be out there that don't belong to these two categories and are running operations, but it is all a mixed group of different people.

- The only way to bring solution to Afghan crisis is to stop showing off the military power and instead get the people engaged by finding their potentials and teaching them how to earn a living whether it is farming, carpentry, manufacturing etc. That way, the majority of men will be able to support their families and will not arm here and there to form resistance.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 115 (view)
 
Afghan Deaths Increase - deadliest month in Afghan war
Posted: 10/30/2009 8:15:45 PM
There are many factors that the situation in Afghanistan WILL not get better with the presence and involvement of foreign troops being there with all their artilerry and power and try to shoot people in the name of "Taliban", destroy innocent lives of civilians, destroy villages and cities and kill innocent children.

1. Afghans consists of different ethnic groups which include Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and other elasticities mixed in there. They have cultural and traditional values that they have hang on to for generations and generations and since the family system is all tied up together, the foreign troops are out there against a "beehive" rather than one person. You hurt one member of the family and you get the whole family get up in arms to hurt you back. They take matters in their own hands and don't call 911 or report it to the government.

2. Religiously speaking, they are allowed to defend themselves, their families and the country if they are attacked and what the US government and other countries do is show the might of their power with tanks, helicopters and military equipment and this gives them the sense of getting occupied, which they have fought against throughout history.

3. What the US military and the rest of the military gang from other countries do is bombard places, villages, cities and kill innocent children and destroy families and that encourages male members of different tribe and groups to band together for the following reasons:

A. They want to revenge the death of their entire family that the US military carpet bombed.

B. Some join different groups because they have large families and they don't have money to support them financially, so joining different groups helps them earn some money to support their family. All of this is because of poor economy and war that we have created in there.

4. Taliban are not just an "organized group" as the US military and the rest of the world considers them to be. People band together just like I mentioned above in different parts and form groups and form resistance against foreign troops for the above-mentioned reasons and the US government labels them as "Taliban".

5. There are groups that might be out there that don't belong to these two categories and are running operations, but it is all a mixed group of different people.

- The only way to bring solution to Afghan crisis is to stop showing off the military power and instead get the people engaged by finding their potentials and teaching them how to earn a living whether it is farming, carpentry, manufacturing etc. That way, the majority of men will be able to support their families and will not arm here and there to form resistance.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 10/12/2009 10:05:37 AM
freetime2bme



"but we are talking PROOF here from the Koran"

No that is what you are tring to do not me.

"Who cares what Islamic countries do?"

I do and so do most people on earth.

"There is no where in the Koran any verse that says to kill apostates and if you could find it and quote it and explain it to us, then we will know the extent of your Islamic knowledge here, which I am sure is lacking"

But apostates are killed in the name of islam, this is a fact!!!! You do not like the facts do you.

Because you have again tried to get around the facts, I declare all your post null and void.

I issue this fatwa all post new or old from passionteman are now and forever null and void



- The above-mentioned information doesn't contain any verses from the Koran where it could prove the evidence of prostates in the Koran nor does it explain the context of the verses.

Thus.....................

It is all nulll and void until the poster is able to provide the verses again and explain the context of the verse including what the verses are about, how they relate to Islamic theology etc.



Where4


I see no reason to insult and challenge a man who has the courage to try to explain his own life experience. (Why in the world would you pretend that you can issue a fatwa, moron? Are you an imam? If so, please quote the Koran as asked! Take your ignorant hate elsewhere - that's how wars are started! After you've had the experience of living in a predominantly Muslim country, please enlighten us as to what your life has been like.)


- Thanks for your post here. I just don't understand how people are not able to back up their own opinions with FACTS. He keeps talking about apostates and Islam and when he is told that the primary source of Islam is the Koran and that he is supposed to provide evidence from the verses of the Koran and explain the context, he is not ready to do so because I know he has gone on the internet and copies and pasted some verses without actually knowing what the verses are talking about.

- Then, he comes around and talks about "Muslim countries" - Islam was not built on the idea of "Muslim countries" - Islam was built from the Koran being the primary source of that religion. Therefore, talking about "Islamic countries" and what they do has nothing to do with Islam since many Muslim countries have their own laws just like USA, Canada and other European countries have and most of it has nothing to do with the religion at all.

But.......................

If you want to find the connection between Islam and the laws of the country, then you had better be ready to provide evidence from the Koran "IN CONTEXT" to back up your opinion. Unfortunately, Freetime2be me has simply watched too much FOX News and CNN and goes in circles without providing any sort of evidence. :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 10/11/2009 9:57:54 PM

No it's still a facted, because I said it was. Your not the king of the forums.


- Nah. I am not king of the forum and you aren't either, but we are talking PROOF here from the Koran and you have failed to provide the verse, explained the context of the verse and explain what the purpose of that verse was based on what Islamic sholars say. Your saying in this matter is NULL since you are neither Muslim who knows about Islam, nor an Islamic scholar who has done his research and studied it.

But..........

If you are, please explain the verses in context, the history of the verses, why where they revealed to Muhammad, the year it was revealed and the purpose of the verses when it comes to Islamic theology.


You have again shown your lack of logical thought. There is no need for me to show any more then I did.


- No. I haven't. You have showed your ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding Islam without providing evidence and right now not even able to explain the verses in context since you have no clue what you are talking about and simply repeat the propaganda that you listen to in your circles.


We all know what goes on in the Islamic countries


- Who cares what Islamic countries do? Countries don't represent Islam. Koran represents Islam. If countries have t heir own laws and regulations regarding death pentalty and all, that's their problem and not Islam's problems.

- There following verses are from the Koran and this is what the Koran states regarding killing others.


5:32 "......... if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity...."


- There is no where in the Koran any verse that says to kill apostates and if you could find it and quote it and explain it to us, then we will know the extent of your Islamic knowledge here, which I am sure is lacking.

Also.................

Koran is the only book that explicitly mentions that there is no force in religion at all.


There is no compulsion in religion. Right has become distinct from wrong. So whoever rejects evil and puts faith in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And God is hearing, knowing. (2:256)



lot of them kill if you say you no longer believe in god. This is a fact!!!!!!! You are trying to use tricks to get out of this fact, but it will not work. You keep this up I will delair a Jihad on your post.


- The above-mentioned information doesn't contain any verses from the Koran where it could prove the evidence of prostates in the Koran nor does it explain the context of the verses.

Thus.....................

It is all nulll and void until the poster is able to provide the verses again and explain the context of the verse including what the verses are about, how they relate to Islamic theology etc.

- If you are not ready to debate logically, put your closed-minded ideologies to yourself and rather indulge in debate with knowledge. I am sure you haven't read the Koran and nor know how many chapters it contains and can't read the Arabic text either. :)

But................

If you can, please provide evidence and explain them in context just like I have been asking you to do so. Otherwise, without proof. You are barking at the wrong tree.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 10/11/2009 9:56:38 PM

No it's still a facted, because I said it was. Your not the king of the forums.


- Nah. I am not king of the forum and you aren't either, but we are talking PROOF here from the Koran and you have failed to provide the verse, explained the context of the verse and explain what the purpose of that verse was based on what Islamic sholars say. Your saying in this matter is NULL since you are neither Muslim who knows about Islam, nor an Islamic scholar who has done his research and studied it.

But..........

If you are, please explain the verses in context, the history of the verses, why where they revealed to Muhammad, the year it was revealed and the purpose of the verses when it comes to Islamic theology.


You have again shown your lack of logical thought. There is no need for me to show any more then I did.


- No. I haven't. You have showed your ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding Islam without providing evidence and right now not even able to explain the verses in context since you have no clue what you are talking about and simply repeat the propaganda that you listen to in your circles.


We all know what goes on in the Islamic countries


- Who cares what Islamic countries do? Countries don't represent Islam. Koran represents Islam. If countries have t heir own laws and regulations regarding death pentalty and all, that's their problem and not Islam's problems.

- There following verses are from the Koran and this is what the Koran states regarding killing others.


5:32 "......... if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity...."

- There is no where in the Koran any verse that says to kill apostates and if you could find it and quote it and explain it to us, then we will know the extent of your Islamic knowledge here, which I am sure is lacking.

Also.................

Koran is the only book that explicitly mentions that there is no force in religion at all.

[quote' There is no compulsion in religion. Right has become distinct from wrong. So whoever rejects evil and puts faith in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And God is hearing, knowing. (2:256)



lot of them kill if you say you no longer believe in god. This is a fact!!!!!!! You are trying to use tricks to get out of this fact, but it will not work. You keep this up I will delair a Jihad on your post.


- The above-mentioned information doesn't contain any verses from the Koran where it could prove the evidence of prostates in the Koran nor does it explain the context of the verses.

Thus.....................

It is all nulll and void until the poster is able to provide the verses again and explain the context of the verse including what the verses are about, how they relate to Islamic theology etc.

- If you are not ready to debate logically, put your closed-minded ideologies to yourself and rather indulge in debate with knowledge. I am sure you haven't read the Koran and nor know how many chapters it contains and can't read the Arabic text either. :)

But................

If you can, please provide evidence and explain them in context just like I have been asking you to do so. Otherwise, without proof. You are barking at the wrong tree.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:24:58 PM

I posted what I posted. I stand by what I posted. You continute to debate what I posted. Your context was wrong my context was right. I do not have to look up anything for you. "No further debate is required " lol. Please you are a joke


- The above-mentioned information doesn't contain any verses from the Koran where it could prove the evidence of prostates in the Koran nor does it explain the context of the verses.

Thus.....................

It is all nulll and void until the poster is able to provide the verses again and explain the context of the verse including what the verses are about, how they relate to Islamic theology etc.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 10/11/2009 8:56:28 AM
Freetime2beme


Wrong again you proved nothing to me. You can not think clearly. You have been infected with an illness. The illness you have been infected with is religion and when you are infected you do not think logically. By saying you have proved something to me when you have not, clearly proves that. I too have traveled to many moslem countries. I was in the US Army for over 25 years. Gave me the opportunity to see the underside of islam close up. I looked at it without having the false belief in a none existent god, so I saw it for what it is and what it is is a blight on man kind. I see what you don't because I see with clear eyes and an open mind. Your will likely never be able to do this and for that I feel sad for you.


No proof found in the above statement regarding Quran and what it says about apostates.

So............

No further debate is required till you provide the proof from the Quran and explained the context of the verse in detail instead of copying and pasting it from the internet. Good luck.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 10/10/2009 7:54:17 PM
Freetime2bme


I can see what it has to do with apostates in Islam even if you don't.


- No. You can't see it at all. If you could see it, you wouldn't be quoting verses out of context without knowing the history behind the verse and what it was talking about.

- I already proved to you what that verse says and what the context was.

- Plus, you can't even read the Arabic version of it and I can read it and understand it since I have lived most of my life overseas and studied about Islam.

- Now, if you have a better proof, please provided it on here so that we will know that you know a bit about Islam and make sure you quote them in context this time.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Atheist's and Islam
Posted: 10/10/2009 10:13:17 AM
78outdoorsguy


This is something that's been on my mind for a while. I know many atheist's and christians like to 'have it out' by arguing about God, Jesus, the bible and religion. Which is fine. But I don't see all that many atheist's arguing about religion, the Qur'an, Allah, and Muhammad with Muslims. Why is this?



There are several different reasons that there isn't much argument.


1. There is no confusion when it comes to their belief system and who God really is. Muslims believe that there is only ONE God that governs everything and that they worship the god and that Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and all the others that have come before them were simply messengers who brought message to people regarding knowing God and worshipping one God. Unlike, Christianity where there is Jesus, the son, the father and the holly spirit and all other denominations that have their own belief systems. Therefore, people get confused as to who do they really worship when it comes to Christianity and people mostly leave the religion 'cause they don't understand it and go all in different directions and some turn atheists and argue against it.

2. Not all Muslims really know about Islam itself and most are "born muslim" just like there are "born Christians, Jews etc", so they wouldn't be able to argue regarding the religion as they follow what they have been told by their fathers and grand fathers and all.

3. Not all Muslims in the Muslim countries pray and go to mosque all the time and all. You need to travel there and see it for yourself. Just like in the Western world, there are many many Christians, Jews etc, who don't really follow the religion, the same applies to Muslim countries. There are secular people who don't necessarily pray and all and nobody bothers them or forces them since in Islam everyone is responsible for their own actions, so if they pray and ask for forgiveness and all, it is their own duty and has nothing to do with being forced into it. Thus, there are many Muslims who may not really believe in Islam and argue with scholars of Islam about it as well, but I don't think we have any TV channels that will broad cast those since it doesn't make money in the western world. :)


Freetime to be me


However, once a person freely "enters into the fold of Islam, the rules change." 1 The word "Islam" means "submission to the will of God." The Qur'ãn says that: "No believing man and no believing woman has a choice in their own affairs when Allãh and His Messenger have decided on an issue." (33:36) On the issue of apostasy, "Islam clearly says: No! You cannot become an apostate." 1 Apostasy is viewed as a form of treason.


- You need to stop quoting verses that have nothing to do with an issue without really understanding it. This verse has nothing to do with apostates in Islam. When you quote a verse, try to understand the actual context of the verse before you are quoting it.

- The following is the actual context of this verse that you have quoted. I have quoted the verse before the one you quoted and the one after as well so that you can see the context of the verse.





33: 35. For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise,- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.


- In this verse, God says that for both men and women who believe in God, are devout, truthful, patient, humble, give charity and fast and state chaste, God has prepared great reward for them and that's the forgiveness for them and great reward.

- Then the next verse says the following in context of the above verse.


36. It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

- This verse doesn't say anything about apostates at all. It simply says that what you have been told by God and his messenger, such as believing in God, staying chaste, patient, fasting and all the other things mentioned in the Koran need to be followed by the believers since they have been decided by God and his messenger for you (which are supposedly good things and good decision) and if you disobey them, then you are going in the wrong path.
So..................
- There is no such thing mentioned in this verse regarding apostates or anything like that at all. Therefore, I suggest you research a little bit more and then quote verses in context rather than out of context.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 75 (view)
 
What do men think about during sex to stop them from bustin?
Posted: 8/29/2009 2:08:49 PM
Put a puzzle right over her lower back and solve the puzzle while doing her doggy.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Tax on Junk Foods
Posted: 8/25/2009 9:01:08 AM

So what do you think about this?? Besides french fries that was mentioned in the article, what about those donuts in Tim Hortons?? And all the Sweets of Starbucks?? If the New Tax is approved, do you think it will " curb the obesity epidemic " as suggested??


1. The tax is only another way for the government to collect money from people in the name of "tackling obesity". It doesn't serve any other purpose than getting rid of your money so that you would continue to work more and more and possibly 2 jobs so that you could make the ends meet.

That way...............

The economic cycle doesn't crash into dust.

2. If you like something and enjoy eating it, the tax will not deter you from buying it by paying a bit extra.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 4 (view)
 
biggest jewel heist ever,...in Brittan
Posted: 8/21/2009 10:45:44 AM
The more the governments and corporations control the financial system by paying less for the employees so that the economic cycle is maintained, the more people are going to find other ways of making money.

1. People are paid enough so that their pay cheque could last them till the next pay cheque comes up. That way, everyone is shackled up to rely on credit cards, loans etc.

2. The credit cards know that people can't afford to pay off their debts right away and thus have the interest system set up so that as long as you pay the minimum you are good to go, so in a sense, everyone pays interests on their loans and not only can't afford to live properly because they are paid less, but rely more and more on these loans and put themselves buried under loans.

3. This way, the people are controlled so that everyone has to work LOTS of hours including two jobs or three jobs to maintain living costs and the economy is maintained that way.

4. Almost nobody has money in their bank accounts to purchase property or house by pay it off right on the spot, so most are tied up to mortgages that charge you interest on grand level and will be paid off by the time you are in your 90s.

Thus...............

This system of financial system forces many different types of problems in society including.

1. Robbery and theft both in small scale and grand scale since people get tired of not enjoying life and being prisoners of the system.

2. Drug dealing and availability of drugs on the streets with the sole purpose of making money.

3. Health problems that costs the govern millions and billions of dollars since people get stressed and hooked on to caffeine, drugs and or alcohol so that they can forget about their real LIFE for a bit.

 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 117 (view)
 
The Four favourite questions guys love to ask....
Posted: 8/19/2009 8:35:25 AM
Nothing wrong with asking questions and getting to know the person for the following reasons:

1. Personally, I tend to find shy women are not very adventurous when it comes to such fun things as oral, kissing all over the body while they are naked, and or adventurous sex outside the house.

This way..................

You could ask prompting questions and find out whether they are adventurous or not.

2. I enjoy giving oral and find it fun, but am not interested to find a jungle down there as it had happened once since that's gross and a huge turn off. :(

So................

Nothing wrong with question as long as I am comfortable with the person I am chatting with. :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Doesn't EVERYONE like oral sex?
Posted: 8/19/2009 8:30:03 AM
Nah. That's a generalization to make that all guys love oral sex - just like making generalization that all women love it.

1. Personally, I enjoy giving it to my woman and it REALLY turns me on and don't mind receiving it, but when it is time for the second and third round of sex.

2. I have dated women who were not into receiving oral as they would cum through intercourse and weren't fond of receiving oral fun.

3. Some men can get it up without the oral by just enjoying the love making with the woman and tend to be more sensitive during the first round, so oral might make them cum faster.


Thus...............

Avoiding oral sex right away.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Is it possible complete al-Qaida defeat.... Mehsud dead
Posted: 8/10/2009 11:16:14 AM

Mehsud dead and al-Qaida is seriously weakened.............

Should we blame this on Obama?

Are we on the right path.....


1.People seriously need to get the idea that Taliban are not simply a group that is organized by one individual running around trying to kill.

2. When you create a war zone in a country and take all weapons, tanks and show your power and presence, people in other parts of the world have different types of societies and settings and that needs to be taken into consideration as well. In Afghanistan, for example, people are very close to each other and when you go to villages and other suburban areas with your weapons and guns, there are many un-employed people in those areas due to the war that has been going on for ages there and those people get defensive and think that that you are out there and trying to kill their children, family, wife et.

That's why...................

Most of the ordinary people get up and get guns and ammunition and gather together forming groups of resistance.

And what do we call those people who try to defend themselves?

The TALIBAN.

3. Military strategy doesn't work in that part of the region. Afghanistan has been in war for decades and they have never been conquered throughout history. It has to do with culture and social life style.

4. If you really want to get that country fixed, you need to go in those parts of the region and find out people's skills and try to help them build livelihood, such as a shop for a carpenter or a building a farm for a farmer. This way, it is going to help them find alternative way of making $$$ to support their families instead of joining one group or another for money.

So..............

To answer your question, the Taliban will never be defeated as ordinary people are part of the Taliban and this cycle will continue for ages.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Is Intercourse or Oral more Intimate?
Posted: 7/5/2009 11:50:05 AM
I enjoy giving oral to my woman and it turns me on as well!!!

But...................

Gotta have the intercourse once she is ready and all juiced up though.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 62 (view)
 
men's habits....
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:57:49 AM
All me are different, just like all women are different.

Personally speaking...................

I LOVE sex and am horny on regular basis and tend to like getting it on regular basis.

As for Lingerie or Naked body...............

That depends on the mood and the teasing involved there. Having lingerie on and teasing the man seems like a hot idea.

But..............

I also enjoy seeing a woman naked around me all day long and get it on with her over and over too.

Of course with breaks in between. :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
when the sex is over is it wrong to want to leave
Posted: 6/27/2009 9:58:48 AM
Yes. It is wrong 'cause I tend to get horny for the other rounds.

That's why.............

I won't leave.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 30 (view)
 
persian men
Posted: 6/26/2009 9:30:48 AM

Do yourself a favor. Stay with your own kind. I agree with all OP. Persians, Iranians, Pakistanians, etc... are 99% Muslum.

They have some really weird beliefs and practices. STAY AWAY. Can't you find someone closer to you in regard to culture?

Good luck.


What else could be expected from a 60 year old man?

As for the original post.................

It all depends on the person you are with and whether they like you or not. It doesn't make any sense on earth for someone to sleep with you and have sex and run away the next day.

Unless.............

There is some hygiene issue or anything they find offensive.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 31 (view)
 
If Jesus or Mohamed were around today they would be on Thorazine, Haldol, or Risperdal
Posted: 6/26/2009 9:19:50 AM
OP: Could you please provide exact examples of Jesus's and Mohammad's proof of schizoprenia based on the following that you have stated in your post:

1. When and how were Jesus and Mohammad confused?
2. When did they have the "inability to make decisions"?
3. When did they have the "changes in eating and sleep habits"?
4. When and how their "energy level" was changed?

So........

You get the idea what I am asking for. Could you please provide evidence for all of what you have stated in your post?

And............

If you can't, then we know you are simplying making a case based on your own delusions.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, being reelected for a second constitutional term
Posted: 6/14/2009 10:47:20 AM
I am more concerned about war-mongering powers who have used their power to attack other nations with nuclear bombs, such as Nagasaki and Heroshima, invaded other countries in order to secure its oil and natural resources supplies, trampled upon others' traditions and values, use "scare techniques" against its own citizens in a systematic approach.

Iran, on the other hand......................

Has no previous history of using nuclear bombs on civilians nor have they invaded other countries and killed its citizens, children, men and women.

So.......................

I wouldn't be too cautious as to what happens in Iran and who gets elected.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Unitarian..
Posted: 6/13/2009 7:35:49 AM
Unitarianism is strict monotheism where Jesus is not considered divine and is simply thought of as a prophet or messenger. It is more close to Islam in the sense that Muslims consider Jesus as a prophet and messenger and there is no such thing as the concept of trinity.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Sexual frustration help.
Posted: 6/11/2009 12:26:43 PM
You should have flirted with the roomies all along and now wouldn't have to complain here.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 479 (view)
 
How long for cunnilingus?
Posted: 6/11/2009 10:59:45 AM
Gentleman don't perform oral on ladies. Only naughty boys like me do.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 109 (view)
 
How Important is Sex in a Relationship????
Posted: 5/31/2009 8:17:34 PM
I gotta have GREAT sex on regular basis.

But.......................

That's my strong sex drive. :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 108 (view)
 
How Important is Sex in a Relationship????
Posted: 5/31/2009 8:17:26 PM
I gotta have GREAT sex on regular basis.

But.......................

That's my strong sex drive. :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 144 (view)
 
ok boys which do u prefer boobs or butts?
Posted: 5/30/2009 9:53:28 AM
Booty is Yummmy. Gotta have the ass to make her bend over ;)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 120 (view)
 
Guys: Tgirls hot or not??
Posted: 5/20/2009 10:23:46 AM
Nah I like REAL Women born naturally with a vagina.

So..........

She would get kicked out.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Being friends with all the EX’s…Normal??
Posted: 5/3/2009 11:25:48 AM
Yah. Nothing wrong with that. Stop being jealous and move on with your life.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Momma's boy's and Whine tits
Posted: 4/17/2009 9:37:41 AM
No complaints here. Who gives a f*ck if someone reads and doesn't respond or deletes messages? It is all part of the selection process. Some like one type of person with certain characteristics and personalities, while others have different opinions.

So............

Why be a wuss and whine all over the site about it? :)
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 57 (view)
 
wrong to want sex once a day?
Posted: 4/15/2009 12:12:08 PM

LOL! Joke! But seriously, isn't that down to BOTH partners in a relationship?


Yah, but I wouldn't want to sit there jerking off the rest of the week just 'cause she wants to have sex once a week.

So................

That's a relationship not working for me. Both partners should have compatible sex drive.
 
Show ALL Forums