Moderate Islam: Great Article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gnosis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
pro_universal:
Is that a correct statement? Are you seriously affirming the principle “if someone else does bad, I’m entitled to do bad also”?
Click to expand...
Whats my fault? You want Isreal to be held to the same standards as other countries or not?
 
Whats my fault, holding Isreal to a different standard?
Click to expand...
No, your fault is in saying that Saudi Arabia is corrupt, and that therefore Israel has a right to be corrupt also.

If you want to keep your standards consistent, then to condemn Saudi Arabia, you should also condemn Israel…right?
 
I went to Israel. I was well treated, could say Mass, and now Jewish person mistreated me. I can’t go to Saudi Arabia. If I did I could be arrested. If I prayed there I could be tortured and killed. So all things considered I prefer Israel.
 
I went to Israel. I was well treated, could say Mass, and now Jewish person mistreated me. I can’t go to Saudi Arabia. If I did I could be arrested. If I prayed there I could be tortured and killed. So all things considered I prefer Israel.
Click to expand...
You’re also not a Palestinian, and you don’t live under the threat of an Israeli bomb taking out your house because someone who opposes Israel lives next door.
 
I lived under the threat of a Muslim bomb. On one bus someone left a bag. Everything stopped. People were terrified. Finally someone claimed it before the bomb squad arrived. In my own country I live under the threat of attack by Islamic terrorists. Why do you think I am not fond of Islam? Think about it. Maybe you should ask yourselves why Islam is so disliked.
 
Finally someone claimed it before the bomb squad arrived. In my own country I live under the threat of attack by Islamic terrorists. Why do you think I am not fond of Islam? Think about it. Maybe you should ask yourselves why Islam is so disliked.
Click to expand...
Then you should be able to sympathize with the Palestinians, who actually do have bombs dropped on them on a weekly basis.
 
Not really. Generally the IDF aims at terrorists. Sure sometimes they miss, but they try. On the other hand the Muslims hit Passover seders, pizza restaurants, buses etc. They WANT to hit civilians. That’s why they are terrorists and the Israelis are not.
 
Not really. Generally the IDF aims at terrorists. Sure sometimes they miss, but they try. On the other hand the Muslims hit Passover seders, pizza restaurants, buses etc. They WANT to hit civilians. That’s why they are terrorists and the Israelis are not.
Click to expand...
So using a 500 lb. bomb on an occupied apartment building where a terrorist lives is your idea of “sometimes missing”?

The Israelis attack civilians too. Look up what some of the Israeli human rights organizations have to say about their own government. The Palestinian civilian death toll is so large at this point that your statement is on its face ridiculous.
 
Actually they have tried to target terrorist leaders to get the top guys with less collateral damage. If they really wanted to take out the Palestinians they could do so easily. The IDF prefers to kill the killers. One bomb maker was taken out with a bomb hidden in his phone. The idea was to just get rid of him. They called him up, he answered, and that was that. It worked and no one else was hurt. And lot’s of bombs didn’t get made that day. Hooray!
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Actually they have tried to target terrorist leaders to get the top guys with less collateral damage. If they really wanted to take out the Palestinians they could do so easily. The IDF prefers to kill the killers. One bomb maker was taken out with a bomb hidden in his phone. The idea was to just get rid of him. They called him up, he answered, and that was that. It worked and no one else was hurt. And lot’s of bombs didn’t get made that day. Hooray!
Click to expand...
Okay, let me give you an example of the Israelis avoiding collateral damage:usatoday.com/news/world/2002-07-22-israel-strike2_x.htm
In an attack criticized by President Bush as “heavy-handed,” an Israeli warplane fired a missile that flattened a Gaza City apartment building early Tuesday, killing a Hamas leader at the top of Israel’s most wanted list.
Click to expand...
The Israeli government considered this “correct and professional”
mfa.gov.il/mfa/government/communiques/2002/findings+of+the+inquiry+into+the+death+of+salah+sh.htm
The inquiry findings show that the procedures followed in the IDF operation were correct and professional, as were the operational assessments.
Click to expand...
 
Sure sometimes they miss. So do we, but when I was in the military we were taught to try and avoid civilian casualties. The difference is that the terrorists don’t “miss” pizza joints. They plan on taking out such important targets as a Sbarro’s pizza restaurant. Somehow that doesn’t bother you much.

PS: I am interested in your view of the Muslims and homosexuality issue. You seem to care about “oppressed” people. Let’s hear your apologetic.
 
Sure sometimes they miss. So do we, but when I was in the military we were taught to try and avoid civilian casualties. The difference is that the terrorists don’t “miss” pizza joints. They plan on taking out such important targets as a Sbarro’s pizza restaurant. Somehow that doesn’t bother you much.
Click to expand...
The article I posted was not a miss. They used an air-dropped bomb on an apartment building. Enormous bombs tend to destroy buildings, and I think they knew that before they dropped it.
 
Maybe they did and decided to accept the civilian casualties. Sort of like in Somalia when your troops had to shoot even though the terrorists were using civilians as shields. They didn’t like it, but they didn’t have a choice. Terrorists know we dont’ like killing civilians and they know they don’t care.
 
They didn’t like it, but they didn’t have a choice. Terrorists know we dont’ like killing civilians and they know they don’t care.
Click to expand...
Didn’t have a choice but to use an aircraft to bomb an apartment building???

That’s just silly, and you’re reaching now. The point stands clear: the Israeli government does not always “minimize civilian casualties.”
 
Maybe they didn’t have a choice. I didn’t see the battle plan and neither have you. But I don’t see them targeting pizza joints do you?
 
40.png
pro_universal:
Didn’t have a choice but to use an aircraft to bomb an apartment building???

That’s just silly, and you’re reaching now. The point stands clear: the Israeli government does not always “minimize civilian casualties.”
Click to expand...
If they didnt want to mininmize casualties, there is always the option of dropping a cluster bomb on a Hamas rally.
 
40.png
onesimplemind:
If they didnt want to mininmize casualties, there is always the option of dropping a cluster bomb on a Hamas rally.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much what they did, except it was an apartment building, not a Hamas rally.
 
An apartment building with terrorists in it. Not a pizza joint with teenagers in it. Therein lies the difference.
 
40.png
pro_universal:
That’s pretty much what they did, except it was an apartment building, not a Hamas rally.
Click to expand...
Do you know what happens when a cluster bomb is dropped.

Killing a terrorist and his human shields in an apartment is vastly different than using a cluster bomb on a rally.

My point is that Isreal could wipe out the whole lot of them but it isn’t happening. The fact that civilian casualties don’t amount into the hundreds of thousands points out that Isreal actually isn’t trying to kill em all.
 
40.png
pro_universal:
Alright, here’s a more direct expression of Papal approval for Conquest:
Click to expand...
First, since you’re quoting a Papal Bull - which is not doctrine of the Christian faith - from the 15th century, nearly four hundred years after the start of the crusades, and a response to reports that Spanish explorers were getting attacking by natives and had nothing to do with Islam, I think its safe to assume, then, that you’ve concede in believing that the Crusades were *not *wars of conquest and were defensive by nature?

Second, the Inter Caetera was not promoting Christian expansion for the sake of Christian expansion, it was an attempt to stem the cruelty with which the Spanish explorers were conducting their affairs in the New World.

Pope Alexander VI was not promoting a war to subject people under the will of God, he was trying to place limits on how the Spaniards were brutally conducting their explorations.
Yes they did. They treated the Monophysites like dogs and engaged in war after war, weakening the people’s support for their unjust regime. The muslims did in fact do better for heretical christians, poor orthodox, and jews.
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer my question. When did Byzantium attack Islamic forces and provoke a defensive war on the part of Muslims?
That is beside the point. There was no such thing as a “sort of” anathema at the time. It’s dubious to claim defense of Christians after the Church already declared that they weren’t.
Click to expand...
I was trying to respect the sensitivities of the Eastern Orthodox. In order to claim that the Eastern Churches are *anathema *you would have to believe that the Roman Church is the legitimate authority of God since they both excommunicated each other. Is that you’re position?
In some cases they did, in many they did not. It certainly was not the majority opinion of the members of the Church at the time that Jews should be defended at all costs. And look at how much protection they offered the Cathari.
Click to expand...
In some cases Christians sin, in other cases Christians do not. Does it follow, then, that Christianity promotes sin?
No they weren’t. They were in a state of Imperial expansion, just like the Romans had been, just like Europe was whenever it had power. But life in the heartland of the Muslim empire was very good leading up to the time of the Crusades. That’s why they were able to build up such an economy and expand so rapidly (an expansion that slowed down greatly after 732…that’s also about four centuries before 1095).
Click to expand...
Since the fall of Rome, Europe has never been a unified “nation.” In fact, that’s why the reponse to the Byzantine emperors request was that the whole of Europe was so busy fueding and fighting themselves that to build a unified effort against the invading Muslims would have been impossible.

Furthermore, I never said that the Roman’s Imperialist expansion was acceptable. The fact that the moment Islam began it waged war against the world to conquer it says a lot about the religion.
They didn’t sack the city. The garrisoned it and actually lowered taxes, and also granted religious protection for the Christians and Jews there. That was something the Byzantines failed miserably at doing, and it’s why their armies were defeated so quickly. They had no support, and the populations they were supposed to be “defending” knew they were in for a much better life under muslim occupation.
Click to expand...
Lowered taxes? Is this before or after non-Muslims were subject to dhimmitude?

Look, to bring us back to the initial argument, when Christianity says that it is a religion of peace, despite sorrowful moments in its history, it can do so by pointing to its founder and the first several hundred years of Christianity. When Islam says that it’s a “religion of peace,” to where do we look? The first 1000 years of Islam’s existence was mired in wars of conquest and expansion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top