Osama's Message to America!

[rmd3]

Steve,

I guess I must have forgotten that terrorism isn't necessarily fanaticism. Please show me how terrorism isn't fanaticism, and then please explain to me which type of fanaticism it is that doesn't harm anybody and is worthy of protest? I think my previous comments still stand.

Yes, the protest... Talking about it on, say, a bulletin board with logical arguments wouldn't change anyone minds, but get on the street and protest- that'll work. Then, finally, maybe my fellow Americans could have something to grasp.

-Randall

[winkle]

there were a lot of muslims in muslim countrys dancing in the streets when the twin towers fell

most other people and countrys had the opposite in their hearts

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Randall...

I guess I must have forgotten that terrorism isn't necessarily fanaticism. Please show me how terrorism isn't fanaticism, and then please explain to me which type of fanaticism it is that doesn't harm anybody and is worthy of protest? I think my previous comments still stand.

No they do not..."where you sit...is where you stand"! I made it so plain...so simply plain. You choose not to see it that way...This where we will disagree. I think my explanation spoke tomes about the way the fanatics are expressing their true feelings of their religeous interpretation. It's not just about the what...it was a demonstration towards the who...not just what in Islam that was so reprehensible, but who was doing it....Infidels....that came out so loud and clear for me.

You can deny all you want that their was a clear statement to be seen in the reactions to the so called...insulting of Islam, but...it seems to me that if you would scream and yell about the indignity of one act, you would surely find it just as meritorious of screaming about....unless, there was a difference...yep, Infidels....stands out, sore thumb and all to me....


Steve

[ken_behrendt]

Well, early this afternoon, I watched the Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Maliki, address the US Congress.

I found his speech interesting and was impressed with the gratitude he was expressing, on the part of the Iraqi people, to America for our efforts to bring freedom to the vast majority of his country. He said that the Iraqi people do not consider the terrorists to be practicing true Islam and that they will remain a friend of America and the other countries in the coalition for the future.

At one point during his address, a young blonde women in the gallery stood up and started yelling "Bring our troops home!". She was quickly removed by the security people, although she managed to momentarily bring the proceedings to a halt.

One wonders when watching such events, if the sentiments being expressed by various political leaders are truly what their countrymen think or it they are what they are supposed to think.

The last poll I saw claimed that 2/3 Americans did not approve of our involvement in Iraq and believed we should leave immediately. I think I saw another poll that claimed 2/3 Iraqi's want the West out of their country...but, only after their newly formed government can get the various militants, Saddam loyalists, and terrorists under control. However, I think the same poll did indicate that the citizens of Iraq are, indeed, grateful for the West getting rid of Saddam and his police state for them. He, basically, kept about 25 million people living in fear for almost 30 years!


On another front, there was some disturbing news to emerge concerning ongoing conflict in Lebanon.

Apparently, the Israel Defense Force is no longer just battling Herbollah. Now, we have recently learned that Hezbollah, the Lebanese Communist Party, and a private militia of the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament have joined forces to combat the Israeli's. Also, it seems that Hezbollah has suffered a serious blow...their top military commander was recently killed in a bombing attack.

The situation over there is rapidly becoming more complex and there is no hope of a cease fire any time soon...



ken

[rmd3]

Winkle,

It was CNN showing some Palestinians doing that abhorent act, and it happens to be forbidden in Islam to celebrate calamities that afflict people.
I reject their acts just like I reject the association of it with Islam.

...most Muslims had the opposite in their hearts too, if you take the time to look at the world's reaction and condemnation!!!

You can jump to conclusions that this is somehow related to Islam because most Palestinians are Muslims, or you can ask why they were doing that? Maybe we'd learn something if we ask those kinds of questions. Asking questions doesn't condone any wrong act. Maybe their celebrating has NOTHING to do with religion.

And why did you not mention the Israel the 5 Israelis that were seen celebrating in NYC watching the WTC fall...

http://guardian.150m.com/september-elev ... d-9-11.htm (the main sight might be a conspiracy theory site, but it doesn't matter, but the articles on this particular webpage can be independently verified).

I think most Jews and Israeli's, like the rest of the world, had the opposite in their hearts, so why think the Muslims did not? And it should be equally asked "why?" those Isrealis were they celebrating just as it should be asked why the those Palestinians were. Think what we could learn!

You can say both deserve each other, or you do something to learn more about the world and maybe change it for the better.


Steve,

Wait a second. You think that I chose not to see something your way, and that is not it. I pointed out what I saw as clear logical fallacies in your arguments. When I said my arguments still stand it is because they weren't addressed. Now, since you don't accept what I point out, I have two options, explain myself further or try to understand your point better. I'll do the latter first. So let's examine where that gets us.

You notice that Muslims demonstrate against infidels for associating terrorism with Prophet Muhammad and subsequently Islam. I don't know if you think this is a good thing, just that it seems to have weight with you in that if Muslims should demonstrate against fanatics for associating terrorism with Islam, then Americans would have something to grasp (presumably to not think that Islam as a faith should not be condemned) and fanaticism will be understood as to not be taking over Islam. I assume I have understood this correctly. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Okay... Let me accept that as workable thesis to the end result - get people to not associate Islam with fanaticism...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/ ... or-in.html

or this in India (second largest population of Muslims in the world)...

http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?acti ... s&id=21801

or in Jordan...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175150,00.html

or in Morocco...

http://allthingsconservative.typepad.co ... otest.html

Now, all of these protests were against terrorism and were not protest against fanaticism per se, the burden is on you to explain the difference between the two for my understanding. I very sincerely really want to understand this.

Please show me how terrorism isn't fanaticism, and then please explain to me which type of fanaticism it is that doesn't harm anybody and is worthy of protest?

This is a total honest upfront question. I need that understanding in order to know where my logic fails, if it fails.

My other question would be what is the proof that fanaticism has taken over Islam? We never did address that. Is it terrorism? Then these demonstrations are the counter evidence required to dismiss that conclusion.

Steve, if, after considering the above and you can not articulate the difference, I would kindly ask you to please retract your statement that fanaticism has taken over my religion. It is simply not true, and I hope you understand that now.

Thanks for your consideration. I really do appreciate this exchange,
-Randall

[winkle]

question

who was the man that used trickly and slaughter to bring Islam to the people of medina

well to the ones that weren't slaughtered

the religon had it's foundation in acts of terrorism

Islam came into this world by the power of the sword

and that's not verry nice

well i suppose the people that were not fourced into Islam were tortued into the Catholic religon

and that's not verry nice

then came America

where do we go from here

[rmd3]

Winkle,

I'm not sure how to respond to your posting. Here are my choices...

(1) ask for clarification,
(2) just ignore your post,
(3) or interpret your intent

I'll go with (3). You may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're not interested in arguing your points from your previous post and my follow-up, but simply want to attack Islam.

-Randall

PS. If you decide to clarify, and you'd like to discuss the beginning of Islam, I'm ready, God willing. Just make sure you know what you're talking about.

[winkle]

i just wondered if you would acknowledge how Islam was spread in the beginning

[rmd3]

Winkle,

What exactly do you want me to acknowledge? Spell it out for me, how do you think did Islam spread? Give me specifics. I'll either confirm it, deny it, or help put things in context, God willing.

Do you think you could do me the same courtesy of acknowledging that you should not have grouped all Muslims in the same despicable act of celebrating the WTC falling as those few Palestinians and Israelis did?

Thanks in advance,
-Randall

PS. The answer on how did Islam spread is the same answer that keeps it spreading today as the fastest growing religion: It was because of the message "There is no god, except God" that people were attracted to, and the miracle of the truth and eloquence of the words of God; the Qur'an, and, of course, the impeccable character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

[rmd3]

My apologies, you did not say all Muslims, you said a lot of Muslims, I hope you acknowledge that it was an insignificant number of the whole body of Muslims. Thanks.

Sorry for the misunderstanding,
Randall

[winkle]

The answer on how did Islam spread is the same answer that keeps it spreading today as the fastest growing religion: It was because of the message "There is no god, except God" that people were attracted to, and the miracle of the truth and eloquence of the words of God; the Qur'an, and, of course, the impeccable character of the Prophet Muhammad

history works best if you don't change it to accommodate some agenda

historical fact

Perhaps the most significant difference between the first two centuries of the expansion of Christianity and Islam was between the methods used to spread their messages. These methods stemmed from the beliefs of each religion. While Christians recognized the truth that God loves all people and wants them to have a personal relationship with Him, Muhammad taught that “Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.”7 These contrasting attitudes caused Christians and Muslims to go about conversion in different manners. During their first two centuries, Christians did not force their religion on others but relied on missionaries, preaching, and leading godly lives to draw people to the one true God.8 Muslims, on the other hand, did not rely solely on preaching to spread their faith—they turned also to the sword. While it is true that many did convert willingly to Islam, the Muslims also conquered vast areas of land in the Middle East and Northern Africa during the seventh and eighth centuries. When they attacked or occupied new territory, they gave its inhabitants three options: convert to Islam, pay a special tax, or die. Under these circumstances many chose to pay the tax, and many others chose to convert to Islam. Clearly, the Islamic method of expansion did not match the loving approach of Christianity.

The answer on how did Islam spread is the same answer that keeps it spreading today

you may want to alter that statement a little

mabe not who knows

[ken_behrendt]

Many religions have, on occasion, resorted to intimidation, coersion, and outright violence to spread their faiths. I'm sure that early Islam did not have monopoly on this tendency. For some reason, it seems that all religions want to continuously gain converts and this is probably due to the fact that the more people supporting a religion, the more power and prestige its leaders will have. People, even supposedly Godly ones, seem to crave power and status. The very idea that God might have made different forms of religion that were each "right" for a different people is anathema to many religious leaders.

This is why I like a religion that teaches a world-positive message that advises its members to live moral and ethical lives in which they try to convert outsiders to their faith solely by example. Such a religion would not be xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, or racist. It would be tolerant of the differences between people and not out to homogenize everybody into a particular rigid belief system.

Unfortunately, I do not know of such a religion at the present time on planet Earth. Maybe in a few hundred years we will finally have one. If that happens, then I predict that it will automatically sweep across our planet and people will embrace it more as a philosophy of life and brotherhood than as a formal religion consisting solely of rituals and a long list of Thou Shall's and Thou Shall Not's. It will be a religion that will not make people ashamed for being falable humans, but will inspire them to reach their personal best in terms of moral and ethical behavior.

You'll know it's finally here when you can turn on a cable news show and they will have nothing to talk about but the weather!



ken

[rmd3]

Winkle,

I googled the text you lifted without reference, and lo and behold...

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays ... expand.htm

Check out the home page: http://www.hyperhistory.net/

It says...

This network offers a free world history course from a Biblical perspective. Content within a Christian worldview of history believes that from creation to Christ's return, history pivots on His resurrection.

I believe you said...

history works best if you don't change it to accommodate some agenda

My agenda is an honest discourse, and you came in bad mouthing the Prophet and that Islam has foundation in acts of terrorism. You haven't shown that. If you want to prove Islam spread by the sword, you have to have evidence for that. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're not. What if you're not? I don't care if you have an agenda or not, just so long as you present the facts, because the truth is all that matters.


Tell me one thing, if you say Islam is spread by the sword, why is it the fastest growing religion amongst religious conversions? Nobody held a sword to my neck.

I'm waiting for some facts to discuss.
-Randall

PS. I was wondering why there is Hell, if God loves everyone? You see Muslims see God's invitation to believe in Him through revelation as God's good intention and mercy towards his creation. There is a saying from the Prophet which articulate God's love for his servant as greater than that of a woman who has lost her child and is frantically looking for the child. You have, in your unreferenced quote, a partial translation of a Quranic verse. There's more to discuss on that, if you like.

[ken_behrendt]

Drifting away from various theological issues for the moment, I saw an interesting joint press conference this afternoon featuring Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair and our President Bush.

Bush, once again, declared that Iran must give up on its nuclear "ambitions" (that's a euphorism for their nuclear weapons program) and then Blair said that what is going on in Lebanon is, obviously, an attempt by Iran to draw the world's attention away from their efforts to develop nuclear weapons. I think Blair even went so far as to state that most of the conflict in the Middle East lately is the result of a theocracy in Iran seeking to spread its influence and control over the entire region through a variety of ongoing "proxy" wars.

Of course, all of this was obvious to me months ago...hmmm...maybe I should be in politics?!

Anyway, the conflict between the West and the "Axis of Evil" is still largely one of words. But, the potential is definitely there for it to turn into a serious military conflict at any moment. I still stand by my prediction that the West will launch a massive air campaign to eliminate any suspected Iranian uranium enrichment sites before the end of this year. Once that happens, all hell will break loose in the region.


Well, the conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah of Lebanon is still ongoing. Despite Israel's declaration that they do not intend to extend their occupation of a "buffer zone" in southern Lebanon, I think that position will change just as soon as their occupying forces there begin to be bombarded with Katyusha rockets and Hezbollah decides to continue bombarding northern Israel with longer range projectiles fired from the middle region of Lebanon.


There was a new video tape released recently by al-Zawahiri (Osama's doctor) that pledged Al-Qaeda's support for Hezbollah. That struck me as unusual because, reportedly, Hezbollah hates Al-Qaeda for some reason. I suspect that Al-Qaeda wants to strengthen its presence in the region and is trying to form bonds with Hezbollah. That tape could be the signal that Europe and, perhaps, the USA will be subject to soon coming "sympathy" attacks from Al-Qaeda in support of Hezbollah.


Meanwhile, the US is getting ready to ship more troops out to Iraq...



ken

[winkle]

rnd3 wrote

[/quote]Winkle,

I googled the text you lifted without reference, and lo and behold...

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays ... expand.htm

Check out the home page: http://www.hyperhistory.net/

It says...

Quote:
This network offers a free world history course from a Biblical perspective. Content within a Christian worldview of history believes that from creation to Christ's return, history pivots on His resurrection. [quote]

i suppose you're saying any christian source must be lieing

well check any other reliable source and you will find the same thing