Anjem Choudary - An enemy to Muslims?

[jafar00]

For those who think little groups of yobs like Al Muhajuroon are representative of Islam or Muslims as a whole.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXQ4xRGQTOo

[jafar00]

More Muslims speak out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSfRSRjWMl4

[jafar00]

More?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNezNuxs5kw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXkpEE35mso


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DNhylpop0

Why do idiots like Choudary get national exposure to such a great extent, yet the views of the wider Islamic community as a whole to his vile hatred do not get a single mention in mainstream media?

[Drummond]

Yes, Jafar. DO tell us why Choudary gets so much media attention.

He's appeared on Fox News, interviewed by Hannity. He's been on the BBC .. on 'Newsnight', interviewed by Jeremy Paxman. AND on BBC Radio 4's 'Today' programme. AND on the BBC's 'Big Questions' programme multiples of times, supplying 'a Muslim perspective'. If Choudary is so insignificant in the Muslim world, how come ??

How, in addition to his al-Muhajiroun activities, did he help found and run Islam4UK ... if he represented very few Muslims ?

As for al-Muhajiroun .....

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/al-muhajiroun/


Gateway to Terror reveals that at least 70 people who have been convicted of terrorism or terror-related offences, or who have actually participated in suicide attacks, have been linked to the group. We reveal that the man who narrated a recent 58-minute al-Shabaab video, threatening a number of moderate British Muslims, is from Tower Hamlets and has also been linked to the group (al-Shabaab is the militant Islamist group fighting for control of Somalia). We expose the growing connections between Choudary and the northern Iraqi Ansar al-Islam group, an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and name its British leader. We chart Choudary’s growing network of contacts across Europe and reveal that between 200-300 supporters from these groups have gone to fight in Syria.

This report nails the misguided view that we should tolerate Choudary's outlandish antics. Behind his media-grabbing and provocative stunts lies a group that is a gateway to terrorism, at home and abroad.

While Choudary might not have been directly involved in terror plots, he helped shape the mindset of many of those behind them. He indoctrinated them and through his networks linked them up to terror groups and supporters across the world.

So, Choudary's a 'lone nutter', representing NOBODY, Jafar .. ?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=baf_1263084329


The Muslim extremist planning a march through Wootton Bassett runs a secret sharia court where he marries hundreds of couples – then tells them not to register their weddings.

Anjem Choudary tells them that registering their marriages is forbidden in Islam, as it would be recognition of British law.

But critics said he was leaving women open to abuse, as they could not go to a normal court to escape a violent husband or win their share in a divorce.

Mr Choudary’s Islam 4 UK group wants to carry 500 coffins through the Wiltshire town to remember Afghans killed by Britain and America.

He styles himself the judge of the UK Sharia Court and principal lecturer of the London School of Sharia and has claimed that he runs a network of Islamic courts in London, Luton, Birmingham, Derby and Leicester.

He claims that he has married more than 1,800 couples across Britain in less than ten years and conducted hundreds of divorces.

HOW did this 'lone nutter', who Muslims are 'against', manage such feats, Jafar ? HUNDREDS OF COUPLES ... HUNDREDS OF DIVORCES. How do you explain such activities in such numbers, how do you explain how it is that ANYONE allowed Choudary authority, or the means, to do ANY of that ???

[aboutime]

Yes, Jafar. DO tell us why Choudary gets so much media attention.

He's appeared on Fox News, interviewed by Hannity. He's been on the BBC .. on 'Newsnight', interviewed by Jeremy Paxman. AND on BBC Radio 4's 'Today' programme. AND on the BBC's 'Big Questions' programme multiples of times, supplying 'a Muslim perspective'. If Choudary is so insignificant in the Muslim world, how come ??

How, in addition to his al-Muhajiroun activities, did he help found and run Islam4UK ... if he represented very few Muslims ?

As for al-Muhajiroun .....

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/al-muhajiroun/



So, Choudary's a 'lone nutter', representing NOBODY, Jafar .. ?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=baf_1263084329



HOW did this 'lone nutter', who Muslims are 'against', manage such feats, Jafar ? HUNDREDS OF COUPLES ... HUNDREDS OF DIVORCES. How do you explain such activities in such numbers, how do you explain how it is that ANYONE allowed Choudary authority, or the means, to do ANY of that ???


Sir Drummond. I can only compare this Choudary fellow to what our Liberal American Democrats feel, and say about anyone from the Conservative, Republican side of the political aisle.
We know...Liberal, Democrats FEAR anyone who offers solutions based on Honesty, and Truthful facts that THEY refuse to accept..because it doesn't suit their Brainwashed, Lack of Knowledge.

[jafar00]

Yes, Jafar. DO tell us why Choudary gets so much media attention.

He's appeared on Fox News, interviewed by Hannity. He's been on the BBC .. on 'Newsnight', interviewed by Jeremy Paxman. AND on BBC Radio 4's 'Today' programme. AND on the BBC's 'Big Questions' programme multiples of times, supplying 'a Muslim perspective'. If Choudary is so insignificant in the Muslim world, how come ??

How, in addition to his al-Muhajiroun activities, did he help found and run Islam4UK ... if he represented very few Muslims ?

As for al-Muhajiroun .....

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/al-muhajiroun/



So, Choudary's a 'lone nutter', representing NOBODY, Jafar .. ?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=baf_1263084329



HOW did this 'lone nutter', who Muslims are 'against', manage such feats, Jafar ? HUNDREDS OF COUPLES ... HUNDREDS OF DIVORCES. How do you explain such activities in such numbers, how do you explain how it is that ANYONE allowed Choudary authority, or the means, to do ANY of that ???

Despite all of his claims, he is a legend only in his own backyard. He has few friends among Muslims.

I know you would like to paint him as a true champion of Islamic values. He is your best friend in that regard and the media who get more ratings from demonising Muslims and sensationalism at every opportunity know it too.

Can your govt do us a favour and lock him up on trumped up terrorism charges? I'm sure he has already broken enough UK laws to have him incarcerated for a great deal of time! Quit pussyfooting around and get him and his henchmen off the streets of the UK.

[Drummond]

Despite all of his claims, he is a legend only in his own backyard. He has few friends among Muslims.

The evidence is against you, Jafar. Oh, no doubt not all Muslims go along with him (.. or SAY they don't ..). But how do you conclude, on what evidence, that only a 'small minority' follow him ?

Islam4UK didn't fold up through lack of membership participation. It ended because IT WAS BANNED.


I know you would like to paint him as a true champion of Islamic values. He is your best friend in that regard and the media who get more ratings from demonising Muslims and sensationalism at every opportunity know it too.

The BBC prides itself on its political correctness, yet, they've done much to give Choudary a voice, on various BBC programmes. If he has 'so few Muslim friends', HOW COME ?

My previous post showed you just how great his influence, or 'reach', is in Islamic circles. Check it out. Then try explaining it !


Can your govt do us a favour and lock him up on trumped up terrorism charges? I'm sure he has already broken enough UK laws to have him incarcerated for a great deal of time! Quit pussyfooting around and get him and his henchmen off the streets of the UK.

Let me get this straight, Jafar. You want him locked up 'on TRUMPED UP terrorism charges' ?? Oh, really ? Why TRUMPED UP terrorism charges ? Is it your assertion that our Government would INVENT such charges, that it acts disreputably, or is likely to ? What are you trying to allege ??

.... whoops - what a giveaway as to your real thinking, eh ?

And tell me. Do you want Choudary turned into a MARTYR ?

Now, why would that be, Jafar ??

I think you might enjoy this YouTube clip, Jafar. It has an Australian 'bias' in the discussion .. and Choudary is shamelessly evasive about his own past !

On other matters, he's equally shameless in his forthrightness. Instructively so.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAPmJexGvIc

[jafar00]

The evidence is against you, Jafar. Oh, no doubt not all Muslims go along with him (.. or SAY they don't ..). But how do you conclude, on what evidence, that only a 'small minority' follow him ?

Islam4UK didn't fold up through lack of membership participation. It ended because IT WAS BANNED.

Careful your conspiracy nut theory is showing.




The BBC prides itself on its political correctness, yet, they've done much to give Choudary a voice, on various BBC programmes. If he has 'so few Muslim friends', HOW COME ?

My previous post showed you just how great his influence, or 'reach', is in Islamic circles. Check it out. Then try explaining it !

Sensationalism sells when you are a news corporation. Choudary is so outside of the box and controversial that they felt compelled to give the idiot a voice. Or maybe they are helping the global anti Islam push by extremist Christians and Zionists.


Let me get this straight, Jafar. You want him locked up 'on TRUMPED UP terrorism charges' ?? Oh, really ? Why TRUMPED UP terrorism charges ? Is it your assertion that our Government would INVENT such charges, that it acts disreputably, or is likely to ? What are you trying to allege ??

.... whoops - what a giveaway as to your real thinking, eh ?

And tell me. Do you want Choudary turned into a MARTYR ?

Now, why would that be, Jafar ??


Trumped up or actual. It doesn't matter. Locking him up wouldn't make him a martyr. Who would he be a martyr to? His few misguided followers? Not a big deal.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Careful your conspiracy nut theory is showing. Make up your mind . Is he a fine fellow being wrongly attacked or a radical with no true following there. -Tyr





Sensationalism sells when you are a news corporation. Choudary is so outside of the box and controversial that they felt compelled to give the idiot a voice. Or maybe they are helping the global anti Islam push by extremist Christians and Zionists. That idiot inspired the brutal murder of a Brit soldier on the streets. I'd say his family would take a very harsh view of your attempted belittling of Choudary's influence of his fellow murdering muslims. -Tyr




Trumped up or actual. It doesn't matter. Locking him up wouldn't make him a martyr. Who would he be a martyr to? His few misguided followers? Not a big deal. Not a big deal to you as you are muslim and haven't suffered a thing because of his being allowed to spew hate and incite murder. -Tyr Jafar your bias is as big as the state of TEXAS. :laugh:--Tyr

[jafar00]

Jafar your bias is as big as the state of TEXAS. :laugh:--Tyr

Bias? Would you prefer that I support him or be against him? :p

[Drummond]

Jafar, I asked:


But how do you conclude, on what evidence, that only a 'small minority' follow him ?

You only answered with:


Careful your conspiracy nut theory is showing.

So in other words, you have NO way of showing us that it's only a 'small minority' ?

Well .. quite, Jafar.


Sensationalism sells when you are a news corporation. Choudary is so outside of the box and controversial that they felt compelled to give the idiot a voice. Or maybe they are helping the global anti Islam push by extremist Christians and Zionists.

You forget that the media outlet that's done (so far as I know) the most to give Choudary airtime is the BBC. And as you'll be very well aware yourself, from your own stay in the UK, the BBC's domestic channels are GUARANTEED THEIR REVENUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, THIS BEING FUNDED, COMPULSORILY, FROM THE LICENCE FEE THAT ALL UK TELEVISION WATCHERS ARE REQUIRED, BY LAW, TO PAY.

So the BBC has no need to 'sell' itself, at least, not domestically. Abroad, yes, they act like any other corporation doing business. But they are the UK's State broadcaster, and as such, are guaranteed the funds they need to continue to operate.

As for the BBC 'helping the global anti-Islam push', whatever that's supposed to mean, well, the BBC has been accused in the past of being biased both against Christianity, and against israel ! So that accusation doesn't fly, either.

Observe --

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8402973/A-family-slaughtered-in-Israel-doesnt-the-BBC-care.html


Who is Tamar Fogel? The chances are that you will have no idea. She is a 12-year-old girl who arrived home late on Friday, March 11, to discover her family had been slaughtered. Her parents had been stabbed to death; the throat of her 11-year-old brother, Yoav, had been slit. Her four-year-old brother, Elad, whose throat had also been cut, was still alive, with a faint pulse, but medics were unable to save him. Tamar's sister, Hadas, three months old, had also been killed. Her head had been sawn off.

There were two other Fogel brothers sleeping in an adjacent room. When woken by their big sister trying to get into a locked house, Roi, aged six, let her in. After Tamar discovered the bodies, her screaming alerted their neighbour who rushed in to help and described finding two-year-old Yishai desperately shaking his parents' blood-soaked corpses, trying to wake them up.

I found out about the barbaric attack not on BBC news, but via Twitter on Monday. I followed a link there to a piece by Mark Steyn entitled "Dead Jews is no news'. Horrified, I went to the BBC website to find out more. There I discovered only two stories: one a cursory description of the incident in Itamar, a West Bank settlement, and another focusing on Israel's decision to build more settlements, which mentioned the killings in passing.

As the mother of three children, one the same age as little Elad, who had lain bleeding to death, I was stunned at the BBC's seeming lack of care. All the most heart-wrenching details were omitted. The second story, suggesting that the construction announcement was an act of antagonism following the massacre, also omitted key facts and failed to mention the subsequent celebrations in Gaza, and the statement by a Hamas spokesman that "five dead Israelis is not enough to punish anybody".

There were more details elsewhere on the net: the pain and hurt, for example, of the British Jewish community at the BBC's apparent indifference to the fate of the Fogels. The more I read, the more the BBC's broadcast silence amazed me.

Yes, Jafar, the BBC failed to report anything of Hamas's subhumanity ...


Trumped up or actual. It doesn't matter. Locking him up wouldn't make him a martyr. Who would he be a martyr to? His few misguided followers? Not a big deal.

Truly incredible. YES, Jafar, reputability DOES matter. I'm sorry to see that you can't fathom that, or, that you somehow think it doesn't matter to the UK Government (.. or 'shouldn't'). And you've wholly failed to show, though challenged to previously, that only a 'few' followers are involved in supporting Choudary and his Islamic positions.

[jafar00]

Jafar, I asked:



You only answered with:



So in other words, you have NO way of showing us that it's only a 'small minority' ?

Well .. quite, Jafar.

You don't have to look far really...

His Wiki entry....


Choudary has received little support from the mainstream Muslim community, although in January 2010 Jamie Bartlett, a writer for the Telegraph, speculated that he might have "some" support among the minority of Muslims in the UK who could be considered to hold conservative views. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary#cite_note-65)

Or facebook https://www.facebook.com/BritishMuslimsAgainstAnjemChoudary

Or stories like...


More than a million British Muslims support wearing a poppy to mark Remembrance Day, new figures have claimed, as a think-tank arged anti-poppy extremists like radical preacher Anjem Choudary hold "marginal" views. (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/07/anjem-choudary-muslim-poppy_n_4230599.html)
Choudary earlier this week said all Islamic leaders who encourage Muslims to wear or sell poppies would "burn in hell-fire". (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/07/anjem-choudary-muslim-poppy_n_4230599.html)
But figures from the latest Ethnic Minority British Election Survey (EMBES), in an Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) study published by the Oxford University Press, show more than half or 53% of Pakistanis and 46% of Bangladeshis in Britain say they wear the poppy. (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/07/anjem-choudary-muslim-poppy_n_4230599.html)
According to think-tank British Future, this equates to around 800,000 poppy-wearers from these two communities alone, who make up two-thirds of Britain's 2.7 million Muslims. This figure grows to more than a million once the remainder of Britain's Muslim community is considered. (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/07/anjem-choudary-muslim-poppy_n_4230599.html)


and...


Muslims in Britain are totally fed up with Choudary and his organizations: Muslim communities around the country have shunned al-Muhajiroun and its various entities for years and refused to give them a platform. Instead, they have to work through front organisations, hire private halls, set up high-street stalls or leaflet people with their poisonous little tracts. They are utterly marginal but are still able to generate huge coverage through provocation.
(http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/anjem_choudaryislamic_thinkers_march_for_sharia_do es_not_represent_ame)

How about clicking a few of......

Al-Muhajiroun’s little helpers, Inayat Bunglawalahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/mar/11/protest-islam-mujahiroun-luton (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcomm entisfree%2Fbelief%2F2009%2Fmar%2F11%2Fprotest-islam-mujahiroun-luton)
Al-Muhajiroun - British Extremists: “Trafalgar Square is our Mecca”, Shahed Amanullahhttp://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/al-muhajiroun_-_british_extremists_trafalgar_square_is_our_mecca/ (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Ftheamericanmuslim.org%2Ft am.php%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2Fal-muhajiroun_-_british_extremists_trafalgar_square_is_our_mecca% 2F)
Cancellation of the so-called “March for Sharia”, Inayat Bunglawalahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/islam (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcomm entisfree%2Fbelief%2F2009%2Fnov%2F02%2Fislam)
Fatwa Against The Targeting Of Civilians by Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti specifically countering al-Muhajiroun arguments http://www.livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livingislam.org%2Fmaa %2Fdcmm_e.html)
Fox News’s parade of buffoons, Adam Serwer http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/fox_news_parade_of_buffoons.html (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.washingtonpost.com %2Fplum-line%2F2011%2F02%2Ffox_news_parade_of_buffoons.htm l)
Free speech martyr’s, Junaid Afeef http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/3513/ (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.altmuslim.com%2Fa%2Fa %2Fa%2F3513%2F)
Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy Sharia Report a Threat to American Ideals, Sheila Musajihttp://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/center_for_security_policy_sharia_report_a_threat_ to_american_ideals/How (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Ftheamericanmuslim.org%2Ft am.php%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2Fcenter_for_security _policy_sharia_report_a_threat_to_american_ideals% 2FHow) not to deal with al-Muhajiroun, Yahya Birthttp://www.yahyabirt.com/?p=154 (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahyabirt.com%2F%3Fp% 3D154)
How Muslims Against Crusades Can Benefit From Theresa May’s Ban, Feisal Abbashttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/faisal-abbas/how-muslims-against-crusa_b_1086150.html (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F faisal-abbas%2Fhow-muslims-against-crusa_b_1086150.html)
How to build a fear bomb, Eboo Patelhttp://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2010/10/how_to_build_a_fear_bomb.html#more (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fonfaith.washingtonpost.co m%2Fonfaith%2Feboo_patel%2F2010%2F10%2Fhow_to_buil d_a_fear_bomb.html%23more)
Islam4UK: bad, but not worth banning, Inayat Bunglawala http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/12/islam4uk-ban-johnson (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcomm entisfree%2Fbelief%2F2010%2Fjan%2F12%2Fislam4uk-ban-johnson)
Muhajiroun versus Luton white trash, Yusuf Smithhttp://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/03/18/muhajiroun_versus_luton_white_trash (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogistan.co.uk%2Fblo g%2Fmt.php%2F2009%2F03%2F18%2Fmuhajiroun_versus_lu ton_white_trash)
Muhajiroun disrupt Luton army parade, Yusuf Smithhttp://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/03/11/muhajiroun_disrupt_luton_army_parade (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogistan.co.uk%2Fblo g%2Fmt.php%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Fmuhajiroun_disrupt_l uton_army_parade)
Muslim Day Parade Hijacked by Islamic Thinkers Society Extremists, Sheila Musajihttp://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_day_parade_hijacked_by_extremists/ (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Ftheamericanmuslim.org%2Ft am.php%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2Fmuslim_day_parade_h ijacked_by_extremists%2F)
Muslims versus Anjum Choudhary, Yusuf Smithhttp://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2010/01/06/muslims_versus_anjum_choudhary (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogistan.co.uk%2Fblo g%2Fmt.php%2F2010%2F01%2F06%2Fmuslims_versus_anjum _choudhary)
Please don’t listen to Anjem Choudary, Mehdi Hasanhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/04/anjum-choudary-wootton-bassett (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcomm entisfree%2Fbelief%2F2010%2Fjan%2F04%2Fanjum-choudary-wootton-bassett)
Splitters, Yusuf Smithhttp://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/03/11/muhajiroun_disrupt_luton_army_parade (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogistan.co.uk%2Fblo g%2Fmt.php%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Fmuhajiroun_disrupt_l uton_army_parade)
South Park Cartoon and the Muslim Lunatic Fringe, Sheila Musajihttp://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/south_park_episode/ (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Ftheamericanmuslim.org%2Ft am.php%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2Fsouth_park_episode% 2F) (with lots of info about the American version of these goons, Revolution Muslim and the Islamic Thinkers Society)
Stand tall against the extremists, Inayat Bunglawalahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/al-muhajiroun-protest-london (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcomm entisfree%2F2009%2Foct%2F21%2Fal-muhajiroun-protest-london)
Why is the media obsessed with this group of buffoons?, Ali Amlahttp://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/9337194.Why_is_the_media_obsessed_with_this_group_ of_baffoons_/ (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asianimage.co.uk%2Fne ws%2F9337194.Why_is_the_media_obsessed_with_this_g roup_of_baffoons_%2F)

Is that enough links for you?


You forget that the media outlet that's done (so far as I know) the most to give Choudary airtime is the BBC. And as you'll be very well aware yourself, from your own stay in the UK, the BBC's domestic channels are GUARANTEED THEIR REVENUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, THIS BEING FUNDED, COMPULSORILY, FROM THE LICENCE FEE THAT ALL UK TELEVISION WATCHERS ARE REQUIRED, BY LAW, TO PAY.

So the BBC has no need to 'sell' itself, at least, not domestically. Abroad, yes, they act like any other corporation doing business. But they are the UK's State broadcaster, and as such, are guaranteed the funds they need to continue to operate.

As for the BBC 'helping the global anti-Islam push', whatever that's supposed to mean, well, the BBC has been accused in the past of being biased both against Christianity, and against israel ! So that accusation doesn't fly, either.

Observe --

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8402973/A-family-slaughtered-in-Israel-doesnt-the-BBC-care.html



Yes, Jafar, the BBC failed to report anything of Hamas's subhumanity ...



Truly incredible. YES, Jafar, reputability DOES matter. I'm sorry to see that you can't fathom that, or, that you somehow think it doesn't matter to the UK Government (.. or 'shouldn't'). And you've wholly failed to show, though challenged to previously, that only a 'few' followers are involved in supporting Choudary and his Islamic positions.

The BBC needs viewers and ratings as much as any and the way they have given such a nutcase, a global platform to spout hate and throw Islam under a bus is abhorrent.

[Drummond]

You don't have to look far really...

Is that enough links for you?

Thank you for belatedly obliging, Jafar. Yes, it's quite enough.

Mixed into that lot are a number of British media links ... who, let me remind you, are constrained by current UK legislation. Publications here HAVE to buy into the 'Muslim extremist fringe' message, because if they straightforwardly attacked Islam, they'd find their articles actionable in law. And one thing that nobody denies, myself included, is that Choudary represents a hardline Islamic approach. Thus, he can be neatly slotted into the so-called 'extremist' category which successive British Governments have found it convenient to maintain exists.

None of this explains why the BBC has given over so much airtime to Choudary and his Muslim message. And I note that the Guardian seemed to want to take a 'don't listen to Choudary' line, as their way of trying to marginalise his message. Why ? BECAUSE THE GUARDIAN IS A LEFTIE NEWSPAPER, committed to the 'ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE' lie.

You have also failed to recognise that Choudary dabbles in all sorts of Muslim activities beyond our shores, maintaining links which ensure his influence internationally. Which most definitely defeats your 'he is a fringe, little heeded nutter' message.


The BBC needs viewers and ratings as much as any and the way they have given such a nutcase, a global platform to spout hate and throw Islam under a bus is abhorrent.

It is indeed abhorrent that they've given Choudary such attention. But, if they're to at least APPEAR to report in a manner representative of what's going on in the world, then they have to at least give him a mention (though they definitely overdo it !!). He has too many fingers in too many activist pies for them to do otherwise. As for your 'they need viewers and ratings' ... arguable. Yes, they'd LIKE such ratings. Nonetheless, they are our State broadcaster, therefore guaranteed their continued existence. Besides, they bought up the S4C channel, a Welsh language TV channel, which was failing on its own through LACK of ratings. If domestic UK ratings were so very important to the BBC, why take a chance on an UNpopular channel ??

[jafar00]

Thank you for belatedly obliging, Jafar. Yes, it's quite enough.

Mixed into that lot are a number of British media links ... who, let me remind you, are constrained by current UK legislation. Publications here HAVE to buy into the 'Muslim extremist fringe' message, because if they straightforwardly attacked Islam, they'd find their articles actionable in law. And one thing that nobody denies, myself included, is that Choudary represents a hardline Islamic approach. Thus, he can be neatly slotted into the so-called 'extremist' category which successive British Governments have found it convenient to maintain exists.

None of this explains why the BBC has given over so much airtime to Choudary and his Muslim message. And I note that the Guardian seemed to want to take a 'don't listen to Choudary' line, as their way of trying to marginalise his message. Why ? BECAUSE THE GUARDIAN IS A LEFTIE NEWSPAPER, committed to the 'ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE' lie.

You have also failed to recognise that Choudary dabbles in all sorts of Muslim activities beyond our shores, maintaining links which ensure his influence internationally. Which most definitely defeats your 'he is a fringe, little heeded nutter' message.



It is indeed abhorrent that they've given Choudary such attention. But, if they're to at least APPEAR to report in a manner representative of what's going on in the world, then they have to at least give him a mention (though they definitely overdo it !!). He has too many fingers in too many activist pies for them to do otherwise. As for your 'they need viewers and ratings' ... arguable. Yes, they'd LIKE such ratings. Nonetheless, they are our State broadcaster, therefore guaranteed their continued existence. Besides, they bought up the S4C channel, a Welsh language TV channel, which was failing on its own through LACK of ratings. If domestic UK ratings were so very important to the BBC, why take a chance on an UNpopular channel ??

That fact remains as I have shown that Choudary is a fringe nutter with few supporters. A self appointed Sheikh and Judge with a poor command of the Arabic language. He should never have been given the coverage. You could almost say he was planted in amongst Muslims to cause division, and confusion. His actions and words wildly distort the image and perception of Islam amongst the wider British public. It is a lot like the way British Intelligence promoted Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab (The creator of the Wahhabi/Salafi way followed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda today) to prominence in order to weaken the Ottoman Empire from within. His notoriety likely inspired such fine examples of humanity (sarcasm btw) as those two Nigerian killers who killed Lee Rigby. Wasn't that enough to reign in such a vile person to stop the continued division and hatred he and people like him are spreading?

Unfortunately, the fringe nutter voice is too often the loudest in the media. The media also needs to be taken to account for promoting such hatred and giving it voice. This goes beyond "leftie" or "righty" politics.

Why haven't you heard from the Anti Choudary crowd on mainstream media?

[Drummond]

That fact remains as I have shown that Choudary is a fringe nutter with few supporters. A self appointed Sheikh and Judge with a poor command of the Arabic language. He should never have been given the coverage. You could almost say he was planted in amongst Muslims to cause division, and confusion. His actions and words wildly distort the image and perception of Islam amongst the wider British public. It is a lot like the way British Intelligence promoted Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab (The creator of the Wahhabi/Salafi way followed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda today) to prominence in order to weaken the Ottoman Empire from within. His notoriety likely inspired such fine examples of humanity (sarcasm btw) as those two Nigerian killers who killed Lee Rigby. Wasn't that enough to reign in such a vile person to stop the continued division and hatred he and people like him are spreading?

Unfortunately, the fringe nutter voice is too often the loudest in the media. The media also needs to be taken to account for promoting such hatred and giving it voice. This goes beyond "leftie" or "righty" politics.

Why haven't you heard from the Anti Choudary crowd on mainstream media?

If a 'fringe nutter' with 'few supporters', how is it that his former 'Islam4uk' group posed a serious threat to the dignity and even the viability of the Wootton Bassett military repatriation funeral processions ?

If a 'self appointed' Sheikh and Judge, as you claim ... how is it, then, that he's officiated over HUNDREDS of Muslim weddings ? How has he managed to make judgments in Sharia courts ... why was it that he, as an 'imposter', was ever tolerated, much less had his judgments heeded ??

That doesn't make sense .. now does it, Jafar ?

As for us not hearing from the 'anti-Choudary crowd' ... I suppose the easy answer is to say that they don't exist !! Personally .. I believe that Choudary does have Muslim opposition, though in truth it's a lot weaker than you'd have us believe. It comes from a mixture of those relatively few who genuinely don't like him, and a greater majority who wince at his candour .. since our Muslim community want people to believe, without any doubts, that Islam IS a supposed 'religion of peace'.

Having Choudary give the game away must be irritating for them.

[jafar00]

If a 'fringe nutter' with 'few supporters', how is it that his former 'Islam4uk' group posed a serious threat to the dignity and even the viability of the Wootton Bassett military repatriation funeral processions ?

If a 'self appointed' Sheikh and Judge, as you claim ... how is it, then, that he's officiated over HUNDREDS of Muslim weddings ? How has he managed to make judgments in Sharia courts ... why was it that he, as an 'imposter', was ever tolerated, much less had his judgments heeded ??

That doesn't make sense .. now does it, Jafar ?

As for us not hearing from the 'anti-Choudary crowd' ... I suppose the easy answer is to say that they don't exist !! Personally .. I believe that Choudary does have Muslim opposition, though in truth it's a lot weaker than you'd have us believe. It comes from a mixture of those relatively few who genuinely don't like him, and a greater majority who wince at his candour .. since our Muslim community want people to believe, without any doubts, that Islam IS a supposed 'religion of peace'.

Having Choudary give the game away must be irritating for them.

Your attempts to elevate him to something he is not are futile.

[aboutime]

Your attempts to elevate him to something he is not are futile.



JAFAR. No different than you yelling "ALLAH SNACKBAR". Now, maybe you see the error of YOUR ways as well.?:laugh:

[jafar00]

JAFAR. No different than you yelling "ALLAH SNACKBAR". Now, maybe you see the error of YOUR ways as well.?:laugh:

Is that something like the old joke "I don't often drink a beer, but when I do I make it a Takbeer." :D

[aboutime]

Is that something like the old joke "I don't often drink a beer, but when I do I make it a Takbeer." :D


So jafar. When did you begin to call the author of your Holy Book...."TAKBEER"?

[Drummond]

Your attempts to elevate him to something he is not are futile.

I've given you some facts, Jafar. Since these ARE facts, your charge has no basis .. in fact.

Better that you accept the truth about his range of activities than continue to try to paint Choudary as the insignificant Islamic figure he's NOT.

[aboutime]

I've given you some facts, Jafar. Since these ARE facts, your charge has no basis .. in fact.

Better that you accept the truth about his range of activities than continue to try to paint Choudary as the insignificant Islamic figure he's NOT.


Sir Drummond. Have you noticed how Insistent jafar has become in hid denials on this topic?

Seems as if...TRUTH really cannot be proven wrong, and, no matter how hard some people try. They never succeed in CHANGING IT.

That means...it must be working against them if they constantly must defend AGAINST IT.

[jafar00]

I've given you some facts, Jafar. Since these ARE facts, your charge has no basis .. in fact.

Better that you accept the truth about his range of activities than continue to try to paint Choudary as the insignificant Islamic figure he's NOT.

The only "facts" you have given are lies printed by media op eds hungry for controversy and exaggerated half truths. I've given you much more in opposition.

[aboutime]

The only "facts" you have given are lies printed by media op eds hungry for controversy and exaggerated half truths. I've given you much more in opposition.


jafar. Do you ever wonder why some people who know you, silently wonder whether you fully understand the meaning of 'insanity'?

Ya know? Doing, or saying something...not getting it right. So, you try it again...hoping to get different results??
The same could easily be said for all of your Denials, and endless Defensive posts as well.

[jafar00]

So, I open a thread attacking Anjem Choudary and I get abuse for it?

You guys are anti Jafar no matter what eh?

[Drummond]

So, I open a thread attacking Anjem Choudary and I get abuse for it?

You guys are anti Jafar no matter what eh?

Islam sanitising, Jafar, to paint Islam in the most acceptable way you can manage, regardless of evident truths. THAT is the point.

Choudary shows us a glimpse of the true nature of Islam. So, you feel obliged to marginalise him !

.... and really, does any more need to be said, that hasn't been said before ?

[jafar00]

Islam sanitising, Jafar, to paint Islam in the most acceptable way you can manage, regardless of evident truths. THAT is the point.

Choudary shows us a glimpse of the true nature of Islam. So, you feel obliged to marginalise him !

.... and really, does any more need to be said, that hasn't been said before ?

He is a liar and a fool and has been marginalised wherever he goes. I don't get why you want me to agree with him.

[Drummond]

He is a liar and a fool and has been marginalised wherever he goes. I don't get why you want me to agree with him.

What has he lied about ? The one 'good' thing about Choudary is that he's completely open about the true nature of Islam. What it strives for, its power-hungriness, its liking for doing WHATEVER it takes to further its grip on humanity ... up to and including terrorism and even disgusting acts of butchery, e.g the murder of Lee Rigby on a Woolwich street, in full view of any passers-by happening to be there.

It's not that I want you to agree with him. My suggestion is that it would be logical for you to have reason to. After all, we know that you support Hamas, a TERRORIST organisation ... and that you'd hardly complain if Islam established greater dominion over mankind than it already has.

So you see, there's already room for you to see eye-to-eye with Choudary .... isn't there ?

Whether this continues, is a matter for you. I have no wish to see you, or anyone, agree with or lend support to Choudary. But here's the thing ... most Muslims, in truth, can find plenty of latitude to do so.

[aboutime]

He is a liar and a fool and has been marginalised wherever he goes. I don't get why you want me to agree with him.


Jafer. You should now tell us....list...the lies you claim, make him a liar.

And make every attempt to PROVE to all of us how his TRUTHFUL statements are lies. Which CANNOT BE DISPROVED...by the way. Unless you intentionally use your lies to determine them to be false.
Give it a try. We're open for your contributions, and waiting breathlessly to see how you can disprove TRUTH.

[jafar00]

What has he lied about ? The one 'good' thing about Choudary is that he's completely open about the true nature of Islam. What it strives for, its power-hungriness, its liking for doing WHATEVER it takes to further its grip on humanity ... up to and including terrorism and even disgusting acts of butchery, e.g the murder of Lee Rigby on a Woolwich street, in full view of any passers-by happening to be there.

It's not that I want you to agree with him. My suggestion is that it would be logical for you to have reason to. After all, we know that you support Hamas, a TERRORIST organisation ... and that you'd hardly complain if Islam established greater dominion over mankind than it already has.

So you see, there's already room for you to see eye-to-eye with Choudary .... isn't there ?

Whether this continues, is a matter for you. I have no wish to see you, or anyone, agree with or lend support to Choudary. But here's the thing ... most Muslims, in truth, can find plenty of latitude to do so.

The hate he spouts is not Islam. He has you duped. I know why you defend him. He is the best friend to far right extremists promoting hatred of Muslims.

[aboutime]

The hate he spouts is not Islam. He has you duped. I know why you defend him. He is the best friend to far right extremists promoting hatred of Muslims.


jafar. Do you honestly believe we can't see, or are incapable of seeing how your hatred for someone like Choudary comes about?
Of course you would deny him, and call him an extremist...linking all of us to him, as a means of proving we HATE like you do.

You must...by all means, accuse us of being Duped, and making claims that we defend him. That, we all recognize...is how you operate, and MUST defend against anyone like him who uses TRUTH to DISPROVE all of your propaganda...we know to be endless lies.
Call it whatever you will. But, if you continue to believe such things as factual. You are merely proving to the rest of us...how hatred drives you to say, and do what you do.

[logroller]

Jafar your bias is as big as the state of TEXAS. :laugh:--Tyr
you still have that log in your eye.


Islam sanitising, Jafar, to paint Islam in the most acceptable way you can manage, regardless of evident truths. THAT is the point.

Choudary shows us a glimpse of the true nature of Islam. So, you feel obliged to marginalise him !

.... and really, does any more need to be said, that hasn't been said before ?
That's a good question; should we stop posting in the muslim terror thread ?

In general people tend to fulfill other's expectations of them. They're exceptions but, mainstream speaking, people tend to conform-- this can be conformity to the whole or conformity as members of a subgroup-- again, it depends on the expectations.
So when I see people convey expectations of Muslims which are deplorable, it leads me to question whether such people desire Muslims to act upon, as you believe to be, their 'true nature?

( it seems more like nurture than nature IMO)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

you still have that log in your eye. Why is that? Because I post too much TRUTH! I did not know posting the God's honest truth was hypocrisy. Care to enlighten me on how it is or else prove the information submitted here is lies. Were it lies Jafar would have already proven that to be the case. Why you defend the darkest and greatest enemy of Christianity I havent a clue. Know this ---- to defend as right the enemies of Christianity is to deny the Saviour. It will not be ignored/overlooked in the Time of the Judgment . We post on here what the evildoers are doing not what the innocent are doing. Seems you and others overlook that fact IMHO. A HINT ---- being PC is not Christian. Denying truth in favor of propaganda is not Christian. -- Tyr

[logroller]

Why is that? Because I post too much TRUTH! I did not know posting the God's honest truth was hypocrisy. Care to enlighten me on how it is or else prove the information submitted here is lies. Were it lies Jafar would have already proven that to be the case. Why you defend the darkest and greatest enemy of Christianity I havent a clue. Know this ---- to defend as right the enemies of Christianity is to deny the Saviour. It will not be ignored/overlooked in the Time of the Judgment . We post on here what the evildoers are doing not what the innocent are doing. Seems you and others overlook that fact IMHO. A HINT ---- being PC is not Christian. Denying truth in favor of propaganda is not Christian. -- Tyr
Where did I say anything about lies? You said Jafar was exceedingly biased; I implied that you are too-- Not that complex really. Any allegations lobbed of lying is of your creation, not mine. But do tell, is erecting a strawman Christian? Pretty sure presenting another's position as something other that it is is bearing false witness. So if it is the truth you present-- show me where in this thread I accused anyone of lying or speaking an untruth.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Where did I say anything about lies? You said Jafar was exceedingly biased; I implied that you are too-- Not that complex really. Any allegations lobbed of lying is of your creation, not mine. But do tell, is erecting a strawman Christian? Pretty sure presenting another's position as something other that it is is bearing false witness. So if it is the truth you present-- show me where in this thread I accused anyone of lying or speaking an untruth. ok no sooner asked than done.


Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post

you still have that log in your eye. If that does not present that I am lying because of great bias then what does it present? That I am posting the truth? If that is the case(posting truth) I ask again when has that been a judgment of hypocrisy? A log in the eye is an accusation of hypocrisy. --Tyr

[logroller]

ok no sooner asked than done.
If that does not present that I am lying because of great bias then what does it present? That I am posting the truth? If that is the case(posting truth) I ask again when has that been a judgment of hypocrisy? A log in the eye is an accusation of hypocrisy. --Tyr
that your presentation of fact is predicated upon your bias. Again, not that complicated.
Someone can be biased/ hypocritical and still tell the truth. The truth doesn't depend upon on the presenter of fact, but rather the trier. Judgement is mine, sayeth the Lord.

[aboutime]

that your presentation of fact is predicated upon your bias. Again, not that complicated.
Someone can be biased/ hypocritical and still tell the truth. The truth doesn't depend upon on the presenter of fact, but rather the trier. Judgement is mine, sayeth the Lord.


BS Log. You might want to CHECK before pretending to quote from the Bible.

[logroller]

BS Log. You might want to CHECK before pretending to quote from the Bible.
Did you see quotes? Its a paraphrase of Romans and Mathew iirc. But feel free to offer a correction.

[aboutime]

Did you see quotes? Its a paraphrase of Romans and Mathew iirc. But feel free to offer a correction.


Another phony excuse? It's still BS. Plain and simple.

[Drummond]

The hate he spouts is not Islam. He has you duped. I know why you defend him. He is the best friend to far right extremists promoting hatred of Muslims.

There are many Islamists who'd completely disagree ... HAMAS, of course, being among them !! For all that you say, your support of them continues, Jafar. Doesn't it ?

I don't defend Choudary. He's one of the very last 'people' on this planet I have any interest in 'defending' !! That said -- I merely acknowledge his worth when it comes to obtaining a true and properly accurate idea of what Islam is really about.

What about Abu Hamza ? WHY was HE tolerated, in Finsbury Park ? Hamza preached, weekly, to Muslims there for YEARS. Tell me, if you can, what opposition he met from local Muslims (.. of which there would've been many, as you yourself know). And if you can't manage that, tell me why he DIDN'T get that opposition, and more, how it was that he was able to command audiences for his preachings !!

See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri


Hamza was formerly the imam of Finsbury Park Mosque, and a leader of "Supporters of Sharia", an extremist group that believed in a strict interpretation of Islamic law. In 2003, he addressed a rally in central London called by the Islamic al-Muhajiroun, where members spoke of their support for Islamist goals such as the creation of a new Islamic caliphate and destroying the Western-backed Middle Eastern regimes.

On 4 February 2003 (after being suspended since April 2002), Hamza was dismissed from his position at the Finsbury Park mosque by the Charity Commission,[22][23] the government department that regulates charities in England and Wales. After his exclusion from the mosque, he preached outside the gates until May 2004, when he was arrested at the start of US extradition proceedings against him.

Hamza publicly expressed support for Islamist goals such as creating a caliphate, and for Osama bin Laden. He wrote a paper entitled El Ansar (The Victor) in which he expressed support for the actions of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria, but he later rejected them when they started killing civilians.

In one sermon relating to the necessity of Jihad, he said: "Allah likes those who believe in Him who kill those who do not believe in Him. Allah likes that. So if you Muslims don’t like that because you hate the blood, there is something wrong with you."

Would you agree with him ? IS there 'something wrong' with Muslims who might want to take an alternative line ?

If Hamza's preachings WEREN'T Islamic .. how could he have been preaching, I quote, ' a strict interpretation of Islamic law.' ... ??

So - how is Choudary what you claim him to be ? I'm having a difficult time seeing differences in beliefs between Hamza and Choudary.

[Drummond]

That's a good question; should we stop posting in the muslim terror thread ?

Yes, well ... to ask a silly question ... would you like that ?

Should future accounts of atrocities be banned from expression, because they resemble other previous atrocities ?

Maybe if (God forbid) there's a future '9/11', reporting of it shouldn't happen, because there was one we already know of in the past ???!?


In general people tend to fulfill other's expectations of them. They're exceptions but, mainstream speaking, people tend to conform-- this can be conformity to the whole or conformity as members of a subgroup-- again, it depends on the expectations.

DOES CHOUDARY FULFILL OTHER MUSLIMS' EXPECTATIONS OF HIM, THEN ?


So when I see people convey expectations of Muslims which are deplorable, it leads me to question whether such people desire Muslims to act upon, as you believe to be, their 'true nature?

There's a long-running thread here, the one I believe you referred to earlier, that is devoted NOT to others' 'expectations' of deplorable acts committed by Muslims, but rather, WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO. It doesn't matter that you don't like what it reports. It doesn't matter that you'd prefer those reports to cease (.. I'll just bet you would !). No, that thread reflects a truth, proven daily, which totally defies your sanitising efforts.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

that your presentation of fact is predicated upon your bias. Again, not that complicated.
Someone can be biased/ hypocritical and still tell the truth. The truth doesn't depend upon on the presenter of fact, but rather the trier. Judgement is mine, sayeth the Lord. I'll take a sound judgment made upon TRUTH as a bias any day. A bias has a negativity based upon it being unsound reasoning . How is it unsound if its the truth? Methinks your label of bias does not apply. That is unless you are accusing me of being biased towards the truth. Just because the muslims do not like this to be revealed to more people is not reason to attempt to hide the truth. Hiding the truth under a bushel basket has never been a good policy. As a Christian you are supposed to love the truth not agree with those seeking to suppress it. By calling my presentation of truth a bias you applied a negativity to it that is absolutely undeserved and certainly a false position. In essence you are attacking presentation of truth not me but channeling it to me by calling it my bias lets you dodge that . Doesn't work unless the reader is of low intelligence. I am not which is why I point it out.--Tyr

[aboutime]

I'll take a sound judgment made upon TRUTH as a bias any day. A bias has a negativity based upon it being unsound reasoning . How is it unsound if its the truth? Methinks your label of bias does not apply. That is unless you are accusing me of being biased towards the truth. Just because the muslims do not like this to be revealed to more people is not reason to attempt to hide the truth. Hiding the truth under a bushel basket has never been a good policy. As a Christian you are supposed to love the truth not agree with those seeking to suppress it. By calling my presentation of truth a bias you applied a negativity to it that is absolutely undeserved and certainly a false position. In essence you are attacking presentation of truth not me but channeling it to me by calling it my bias lets you dodge that . Doesn't work unless the reader is of low intelligence. I am not which is why I point it out.--Tyr


Tyr. The One, most important fact all of us need to remember is. To date. No person alive has ever DISPROVED the Truth.
They can distort it, try to re-define it, twist it, take it out of context, and mostly LIE about it. But...nobody. And I do mean...NOBODY can ever change the TRUTH.
That has to be a real thorn in anyone's side whenever they are confronted, challenged, or proven to be lying.
It simply cannot be changed.

[jafar00]

There are many Islamists who'd completely disagree ... HAMAS, of course, being among them !! For all that you say, your support of them continues, Jafar. Doesn't it ?

I don't defend Choudary. He's one of the very last 'people' on this planet I have any interest in 'defending' !! That said -- I merely acknowledge his worth when it comes to obtaining a true and properly accurate idea of what Islam is really about.

Keep twisting away Chubby Checker. You like Choudary. He helps you spread your lies by doing your work for you.

What about Abu Hamza ? WHY was HE tolerated, in Finsbury Park ? Hamza preached, weekly, to Muslims there for YEARS. Tell me, if you can, what opposition he met from local Muslims (.. of which there would've been many, as you yourself know). And if you can't manage that, tell me why he DIDN'T get that opposition, and more, how it was that he was able to command audiences for his preachings !!

See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri[/QUOTE]

I'm surprised the authorities tolerated him for so long. I and the other Muslims in London were warned away from him and his band lf not so merry men. Like Choudary, he had a small amount of followers. The rest of us stayed away.

How long will it take to jail Choudary on the same charges?


Would you agree with him ? IS there 'something wrong' with Muslims who might want to take an alternative line ?

If Hamza's preachings WEREN'T Islamic .. how could he have been preaching, I quote, ' a strict interpretation of Islamic law.' ... ??

So - how is Choudary what you claim him to be ? I'm having a difficult time seeing differences in beliefs between Hamza and Choudary.

Indeed they are both the same. Crazy and well out of the fold.

[Drummond]

Keep twisting away Chubby Checker. You like Choudary.

That's actually offensive. I cannot possibly 'like' a terrorist supporter. Or anything he represents.


He helps you spread your lies by doing your work for you.

He tells it as it IS about Islam. Hamas, no doubt, would readily agree ...


I'm surprised the authorities tolerated him [HAMZA] for so long. I and the other Muslims in London were warned away from him and his band lf not so merry men. Like Choudary, he had a small amount of followers. The rest of us stayed away.

Laws weren't initially in place giving the police latitude to act. When they ultimately did ... extradition proceedings (on terrorist charges) helped empower them.

But you haven't explained the total inaction from Muslims in the area. You say many 'stayed away'. Did any COMPLAIN ??

If not, WHY not ?

And some, of course, attended his weekly gatherings outside the mosque ...


How long will it take to jail Choudary on the same charges?

No idea. But then, Choudary has a good knowledge of British law. Perhaps he knows to tread a very fine line between disgusting outrageousness and provable criminality ?


Indeed they are both the same. Crazy and well out of the fold.

And how do both view Hamas (.. or, how would Hamas view their brand of Islamic teachings) ???

[aboutime]

That's actually offensive. I cannot possibly 'like' a terrorist supporter. Or anything he represents.



He tells it as it IS about Islam. Hamas, no doubt, would readily agree ...



Laws weren't initially in place giving the police latitude to act. When they ultimately did ... extradition proceedings (on terrorist charges) helped empower them.

But you haven't explained the total inaction from Muslims in the area. You say many 'stayed away'. Did any COMPLAIN ??

If not, WHY not ?

And some, of course, attended his weekly gatherings outside the mosque ...



No idea. But then, Choudary has a good knowledge of British law. Perhaps he knows to tread a very fine line between disgusting outrageousness and provable criminality ?



And how do both view Hamas (.. or, how would Hamas view their brand of Islamic teachings) ???



Sir Drummond. As I, and others have constantly pointed out about jafar. Whenever he is pushed into a corner. His only defense...much like that of Obama, and his supporters is...To always deflect, distract, accuse, or blame others.
We point out the TRUTH to jafar, and his sole duty is to DENY, DENY, DENY...otherwise. He would be accused of betrayal by those he claims...he doesn't support.

[logroller]

I'll take a sound judgment made upon TRUTH as a bias any day. A bias has a negativity based upon it being unsound reasoning . How is it unsound if its the truth? Methinks your label of bias does not apply. That is unless you are accusing me of being biased towards the truth. Just because the muslims do not like this to be revealed to more people is not reason to attempt to hide the truth. Hiding the truth under a bushel basket has never been a good policy. As a Christian you are supposed to love the truth not agree with those seeking to suppress it. By calling my presentation of truth a bias you applied a negativity to it that is absolutely undeserved and certainly a false position. In essence you are attacking presentation of truth not me but channeling it to me by calling it my bias lets you dodge that . Doesn't work unless the reader is of low intelligence. I am not which is why I point it out.--Tyr
The truth is an American gun owner is ten times more likely to commit murder than a muslim is an act of terror--yet you defend gun owners and berate Muslims--that's biased tyr. The truth is that, throughout time and place, GREED has been far more pervasive a motivation to kill and oppress than any religion ever was or is. Beaten and ridiculed, Christ never berated his assailants; He forgave them...can't say the same for the money changers. The truth, that is commanded of us to seek and spread is The Lord Jesus Christ-- show passion for that, not the evils of the world. Whether you intend to spread such evil matters not if that is what you do. I suspect that your campaign against Islam is doing just that--spreading evil.

In addition to the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives lost as collateral damage, the war on terror has resulted in an INCREASE of terror attacks....like two-fold, atleast. You rail against the healthcare law for increases, yet the war on terror you think justified. That's biased.

You deem justified a traditional war with tanks, planes and infantry-- a far more destructive force-- yet despise asymmetric warfare that results in far less casualties....again, that's bias. That al Qaida learned the techniques of asymmetric warfare from the mujahadeen, who in turn learned it from the US-- quick are many to dismiss the link, that it was somehow acceptable for 'freedom fighters'' to use such but its cowardice when some other does so...again, that's biased.
Im not trying to silence you-- far from it-- Im trying to get you to seek the truth from a broader perspective, one with less bias.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The truth is an American gun owner is ten times more likely to commit murder than a muslim is an act of terror--yet you defend gun owners and berate Muslims--that's biased tyr. The truth is that, throughout time and place, GREED has been far more pervasive a motivation to kill and oppress than any religion ever was or is. Beaten and ridiculed, Christ never berated his assailants; He forgave them...can't say the same for the money changers. The truth, that is commanded of us to seek and spread is The Lord Jesus Christ-- show passion for that, not the evils of the world. Whether you intend to spread such evil matters not if that is what you do. I suspect that your campaign against Islam is doing just that--spreading evil.

In addition to the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives lost as collateral damage, the war on terror has resulted in an INCREASE of terror attacks....like two-fold, atleast. You rail against the healthcare law for increases, yet the war on terror you think justified. That's biased.

You deem justified a traditional war with tanks, planes and infantry-- a far more destructive force-- yet despise asymmetric warfare that results in far less casualties....again, that's bias. That al Qaida learned the techniques of asymmetric warfare from the mujahadeen, who in turn learned it from the US-- quick are many to dismiss the link, that it was somehow acceptable for 'freedom fighters'' to use such but its cowardice when some other does so...again, that's biased.
Im not trying to silence you-- far from it-- Im trying to get you to seek the truth from a broader perspective, one with less bias.


The truth is an American gun owner is ten times more likely to commit murder than a muslim is an act of terror--yet you defend gun owners and berate Muslims--that's biased tyr. First prove the ten times number to me . After that(if you can) I will want you to point out where I defend such murders here in USA and point out that a great many of those gun murders here are drug/gang related. So the comparison fails right from the start IMHO. SINCE MY PRIMARY POINT IN POINTING OUT THE JIHADIST MURDERS AROUND THE WORLD IS THIER MOTOVE AND AGENDA WHICH ARE THE COMMANDS OF ISLAM.. THATS THE FOUNDATION WHERAS YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL GUN RELATED MURDERS BY U.S. CITIZENS AS IF I SHOULD BE WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST MURDER. There are likely hundreds of different reasons those murders occur. Additionally why and how does my supporting gun rights for law abiding American citizens play into a comparison of my posting the TRUTH about Islam. One is crime(murder) the other is a war waged in the name of Islam -a religion. Do show how and why they are comparable.-Tyr
The truth is that, throughout time and place, GREED has been far more pervasive a motivation to kill and oppress than any religion ever was or is. Beaten and ridiculed, Christ never berated his assailants; He forgave them...can't say the same for the money changers. As if the lust for power Islam seeks is not greed mixed in with religion! Sure you can not say the same for the money changers because Christ gave an example of not turning the other cheek there. Which is exactly what I am doing but not using any physical act instead posting the Truth. How can that be wrong I ask ? --Tyr
Whether you intend to spread such evil matters not if that is what you do. I suspect that your campaign against Islam is doing just that--spreading evil. You mean exposing the truth is "spreading evil matters"!!??? And here I was thinking the bible teaches truth is to be held sacred and honored. While your contention is to hide it under a bushel basket. No sir, I simply do not believe in (hiding) ignoring the TRUTH of the threat the muslims present. So I post truth and it pisses people off --Tough shat. Such people certainly deserve to be pissed off if they seek to deny the truth. Deny truth and you've denied Christ . Think on that one. --Tyr
In addition to the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives lost as collateral damage, the war on terror has resulted in an INCREASE of terror attacks....like two-fold, atleast. You rail against the healthcare law for increases, yet the war on terror you think justified. That's biased. I am not in charge of the war on terror and that's government policy take it up with them. I'd launched a war on the real source of the problem were I in charge. You are bringing that in to prove what? My bias ? Don't make me laugh. SO YOU COMPARE THE WAR ON TERROR WITH THE ACTS OF DELIBERATE MURDER ON TENS OF THOUSANDS INNOCENT PEOPLE BY ISLAMISTS! Interesting since that's exactly how the murdering terrorists compare it only they leave out the fact of their multitude of murders. -Tyr

You deem justified a traditional war with tanks, planes and infantry-- a far more destructive force-- yet despise asymmetric warfare that results in far less casualties....again, that's bias. That al Qaida learned the techniques of asymmetric warfare from the mujahadeen, who in turn learned it from the US-- quick are many to dismiss the link, that it was somehow acceptable for 'freedom fighters'' to use such but its cowardice when some other does so...again, that's biased. So now you seek to justify terrorism by calling it asymmetric warfare ! Isn't it terrorism despite the convenient name change? Isn't it the holy war conducted by means of terrorism just as its Jihadists say it is? Talk about a fallacy that's a big one. For you just tried to give just cause to TERRORSM !! A NAME CHANGE DOES NOT NEGHATE REALITY OR THE TRUTH HOSS. May look good on paper but fails WHEN the light of truth IS shown upon it IMHO.-TYR
Im not trying to silence you-- far from it-- Im trying to get you to seek the truth from a broader perspective, one with less bias Good because only way to silence me on this grave threat to our way of life and survival is to ban me.. As you toss in "bias" I must remind you it Is the TRUTH SO I REJECT YOUR LABEL OF BIAS. AND I BELIEVE A CHRISTIAN MUST NOT YEILD TO SUCH PC-NESS AND START A CAMPAIGN TO SUPPRESS TRUTH REGARDLESS HOW THEY TRY TO WRAP IT. I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO EMBRACE THE TRUTH NOT RUN FROM IT BECAUSE IT UPSETS OUR ENEMIES. GOOD THAT WE BOTH ARE WORKING WITH PURE MOTIVES AND JUST SEEKING TO HELP OUR FELLOW MAN , RIGHT? -TYR

[Drummond]

First prove the ten times number to me . After that(if you can) I will want you to point out where I defend such murders here in USA and point out that a great many of those gun murders here are drug/gang related. So the comparison fails right from the start IMHO. SINCE MY PRIMARY POINT IN POINTING OUT THE JIHADIST MURDERS AROUND THE WORLD IS THIER MOTOVE AND AGENDA WHICH ARE THE COMMANDS OF ISLAM.. THATS THE FOUNDATION WHERAS YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL GUN RELATED MURDERS BY U.S. CITIZENS AS IF I SHOULD BE WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST MURDER. There are likely hundreds of different reasons those murders occur. Additionally why and how does my supporting gun rights for law abiding American citizens play into a comparison of my posting the TRUTH about Islam. One is crime(murder) the other is a war waged in the name of Islam -a religion. Do show how and why they are comparable.-Tyr As if the lust for power Islam seeks is not greed mixed in with religion! Sure you can not say the same for the money changers because Christ gave an example of not turning the other cheek there. Which is exactly what I am doing but not using any physical act instead posting the Truth. How can that be wrong I ask ? --Tyr You mean exposing the truth is "spreading evil matters"!!??? And here I was thinking the bible teaches truth is to be held sacred and honored. While your contention is to hide it under a bushel basket. No sir, I simply do not believe in (hiding) ignoring the TRUTH of the threat the muslims present. So I post truth and it pisses people off --Tough shat. Such people certainly deserve to be pissed off if they seek to deny the truth. Deny truth and you've denied Christ . Think on that one. --Tyr I am not in charge of the war on terror and that's government policy take it up with them. I'd launched a war on the real source of the problem were I in charge. You are bringing that in to prove what? My bias ? Don't make me laugh. SO YOU COMPARE THE WAR ON TERROR WITH THE ACTS OF DELIBERATE MURDER ON TENS OF THOUSANDS INNOCENT PEOPLE BY ISLAMISTS! Interesting since that's exactly how the murdering terrorists compare it only they leave out the fact of their multitude of murders. -Tyr
So now you seek to justify terrorism by calling it asymmetric warfare ! Isn't it terrorism despite the convenient name change? Isn't it the holy war conducted by means of terrorism just as its Jihadists say it is? Talk about a fallacy that's a big one. For you just tried to give just cause to TERRORSM !! A NAME CHANGE DOES NOT NEGHATE REALITY OR THE TRUTH HOSS. May look good on paper but fails WHEN the light of truth IS shown upon it IMHO.-TYR Good because only way to silence me on this grave threat to our way of life and survival is to ban me.. As you toss in "bias" I must remind you it Is the TRUTH SO I REJECT YOUR LABEL OF BIAS. AND I BELIEVE A CHRISTIAN MUST NOT YEILD TO SUCH PC-NESS AND START A CAMPAIGN TO SUPPRESS TRUTH REGARDLESS HOW THEY TRY TO WRAP IT. I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO EMBRACE THE TRUTH NOT RUN FROM IT BECAUSE IT UPSETS OUR ENEMIES. GOOD THAT WE BOTH ARE WORKING WITH PURE MOTIVES AND JUST SEEKING TO HELP OUR FELLOW MAN , RIGHT? -TYR:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Great reply to Logroller. I have my own to offer as well, which won't match your own .. but offered for what it's worth .....

[Drummond]

The truth is an American gun owner is ten times more likely to commit murder than a muslim is an act of terror--

I agree with Tyr's questioning of that claim. I look forward to your answer !


... yet you defend gun owners and berate Muslims--that's biased tyr. The truth is that, throughout time and place, GREED has been far more pervasive a motivation to kill and oppress than any religion ever was or is.

But you overlook the organisational aspect !! Did 'the greedy' you refer to ever form covert terrorist cells, planning atrocities ???


Beaten and ridiculed, Christ never berated his assailants; He forgave them...can't say the same for the money changers.

Imagine the condemnation, most probably strident calls for his immediate impeachment, had GW Bush gone on air in the aftermath to 9/11 and declared that he simply 'forgave' the attackers !!!! I find it inconceivable that he could've continued on in his job and commanded any respect or appreciation. Except, that is, for the 'appreciation' of Al Qaeda, who'd have thanked him with more attacks !!!


The truth, that is commanded of us to seek and spread is The Lord Jesus Christ-- show passion for that, not the evils of the world. Whether you intend to spread such evil matters not if that is what you do. I suspect that your campaign against Islam is doing just that--spreading evil.

What will total tolerance of Islam's arrogance, and its terrorism, possibly result in ? My answer .. an invitation for MORE OF THE SAME !!

You don't deter a belligerent force by rolling over and playing dead !!!!


In addition to the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives lost as collateral damage, the war on terror has resulted in an INCREASE of terror attacks....like two-fold, at least. You rail against the healthcare law for increases, yet the war on terror you think justified. That's biased.

I call it REALISTIC. More, I call it DESERVED and NECESSARY.

HAS THERE BEEN a twofold increase in attacks ?? Let's say that's right, for the sake of argument. OK, tell me, Logroller .. had Al Qaeda forces not been decimated following the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan, what makes you think that, today, you'd not have been observing a TWENTY fold increase, instead ?

The War on Terror must've helped to keep Al Qaeda off balance over recent years. If they'd had nothing to contend with, what makes you think that a thriving Al Qaeda, today, wouldn't be doing so well, that it'd actually be deploying WMD's by now ?!?


You deem justified a traditional war with tanks, planes and infantry-- a far more destructive force-- yet despise asymmetric warfare that results in far less casualties....again, that's bias.



You rail against the War on Terror, because you say the casualty rate is 'asymmetrical' ?

-- Seriously ?

OK, then. Do I take it that you'd only have been willing to accept a reported casualty rate (.. so I've seen reported ..) of 100,000 deaths .. had Al Qaeda perpetrated a further THIRTY TWO '9/11' attacks against America ??

You want symmetry ? OK ... WITH THIRTY TWO MORE COMPARABLE ATTACKS, YOU WOULD ACHIEVE YOUR PREFERENCE. That'll do it, eh ?

In your world, your ideal President would sit in the Oval Office, busily 'forgiving' terrorist scum whose 'humanity' only extends to butchering 3,000 innocents ... [I]and then would compound that by never ordering counter-attacks capable of exceeding around one-thirtieth of the manpower damage to America's enemies than has in fact occurred to date, if the reports are true. Well, Logroller, each and every terrorist you 'forgive', then 'save', can and would reward you with further innocent American deaths.

DO YOU FIND THAT REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE ?


That al Qaida learned the techniques of asymmetric warfare from the mujahadeen, who in turn learned it from the US-- quick are many to dismiss the link, that it was somehow acceptable for 'freedom fighters'' to use such but its cowardice when some other does so...again, that's biased.

Freedom fighters fight for freedom (.. the clue's in the name, I suggest ..) ... as the Mujahiddeen did, against Soviet occupation. It was a worthy cause. Al Qaeda, by total contrast, by being the terrorists they became (... given actual success in their stated aims, anyway ...) became freedom CRUSHERS. Al Qaeda exists to defy freedoms you take for granted. They utterly oppose the theological basis upon which the US was founded. They further want to deny any Middle Eastern country any links whatever with the West in general, and America in particular, and will bomb the guts out of anyone not complying with their expectations.

They don't much like Israel's existence, either.

This is all apart from the simple fact that they deny their innocent victims the freedom to LIVE THEIR LIVES !

So you can hardly compare the two. One fights FOR freedom. The other seeks to CRUSH it, as I say.

Perhaps you see your equivocations as evidence of the furtherance of the values upon which America was founded. In all honesty, Logroller, I believe I've shown otherwise. Tolerance of murderous, savage tyranny, inaction in the face of it, a determination to 'forgive' rather than defend against a freedom-hating enemy aggressor, and to even only consider that fighting can be justified if parity amongst casualty rates could be assured ... really, Logroller, would America's founders have approved ?!?

I somehow doubt it.

[aboutime]

I agree with Tyr's questioning of that claim. I look forward to your answer !



But you overlook the organisational aspect !! Did 'the greedy' you refer to ever form covert terrorist cells, planning atrocities ???



Imagine the condemnation, most probably strident calls for his immediate impeachment, had GW Bush gone on air in the aftermath to 9/11 and declared that he simply 'forgave' the attackers !!!! I find it inconceivable that he could've continued on in his job and commanded any respect or appreciation. Except, that is, for the 'appreciation' of Al Qaeda, who'd have thanked him with more attacks !!!



What will total tolerance of Islam's arrogance, and its terrorism, possibly result in ? My answer .. an invitation for MORE OF THE SAME !!

You don't deter a belligerent force by rolling over and playing dead !!!!



I call it REALISTIC. More, I call it DESERVED and NECESSARY.

HAS THERE BEEN a twofold increase in attacks ?? Let's say that's right, for the sake of argument. OK, tell me, Logroller .. had Al Qaeda forces not been decimated following the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan, what makes you think that, today, you'd not have been observing a TWENTY fold increase, instead ?

The War on Terror must've helped to keep Al Qaeda off balance over recent years. If they'd had nothing to contend with, what makes you think that a thriving Al Qaeda, today, wouldn't be doing so well, that it'd actually be deploying WMD's by now ?!?





You rail against the War on Terror, because you say the casualty rate is 'asymmetrical' ?

-- Seriously ?

OK, then. Do I take it that you'd only have been willing to accept a reported casualty rate (.. so I've seen reported ..) of 100,000 deaths .. had Al Qaeda perpetrated a further THIRTY TWO '9/11' attacks against America ??

You want symmetry ? OK ... WITH THIRTY TWO MORE COMPARABLE ATTACKS, YOU WOULD ACHIEVE YOUR PREFERENCE. That'll do it, eh ?

In your world, your ideal President would sit in the Oval Office, busily 'forgiving' terrorist scum whose 'humanity' only extends to butchering 3,000 innocents ... [I]and then would compound that by never ordering counter-attacks capable of exceeding around one-thirtieth of the manpower damage to America's enemies than has in fact occurred to date, if the reports are true. Well, Logroller, each and every terrorist you 'forgive', then 'save', can and would reward you with further innocent American deaths.

DO YOU FIND THAT REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE ?



Freedom fighters fight for freedom (.. the clue's in the name, I suggest ..) ... as the Mujahiddeen did, against Soviet occupation. It was a worthy cause. Al Qaeda, by total contrast, by being the terrorists they became (... given actual success in their stated aims, anyway ...) became freedom CRUSHERS. Al Qaeda exists to defy freedoms you take for granted. They utterly oppose the theological basis upon which the US was founded. They further want to deny any Middle Eastern country any links whatever with the West in general, and America in particular, and will bomb the guts out of anyone not complying with their expectations.

They don't much like Israel's existence, either.

This is all apart from the simple fact that they deny their innocent victims the freedom to LIVE THEIR LIVES !

So you can hardly compare the two. One fights FOR freedom. The other seeks to CRUSH it, as I say.

Perhaps you see your equivocations as evidence of the furtherance of the values upon which America was founded. In all honesty, Logroller, I believe I've shown otherwise. Tolerance of murderous, savage tyranny, inaction in the face of it, a determination to 'forgive' rather than defend against a freedom-hating enemy aggressor, and to even only consider that fighting can be justified if parity amongst casualty rates could be assured ... really, Logroller, would America's founders have approved ?!?

I somehow doubt it.



Sir Drummond. After reading log's words. I choose to just feel sorry for him, and stay quiet. He almost sounds like another jafar...and the only difference is...how they spell their name.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. After reading log's words. I choose to just feel sorry for him, and stay quiet. He almost sounds like another jafar...and the only difference is...how they spell their name.

I honestly don't understand the stance we see taken, this apparently from a NON Muslim. If such thinking was generally accepted and taken on board, who could believe that the result could fail to be one where Muslim domination became the order of the day ?

An America too concerned about casualty rates to ever meaningfully fight Muslim aggressors. President after President facing impeachment for failing to act in defence of the Nation. Political correctness acting to stifle non-tolerance of belief systems alien to the foundation of America, to say nothing of other Western cultures such as my own.

The outcome of all this given totally free rein would surely prove to be a nightmare for us all. Worse - in the name of 'enlightened freedom', the eventual DEATH of freedom.

Cue Anjem Choudary, triumphant, seeing his dream come alive !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree with Tyr's questioning of that claim. I look forward to your answer !



But you overlook the organisational aspect !! Did 'the greedy' you refer to ever form covert terrorist cells, planning atrocities ???



Imagine the condemnation, most probably strident calls for his immediate impeachment, had GW Bush gone on air in the aftermath to 9/11 and declared that he simply 'forgave' the attackers !!!! I find it inconceivable that he could've continued on in his job and commanded any respect or appreciation. Except, that is, for the 'appreciation' of Al Qaeda, who'd have thanked him with more attacks !!!



What will total tolerance of Islam's arrogance, and its terrorism, possibly result in ? My answer .. an invitation for MORE OF THE SAME !!

You don't deter a belligerent force by rolling over and playing dead !!!!



I call it REALISTIC. More, I call it DESERVED and NECESSARY.

HAS THERE BEEN a twofold increase in attacks ?? Let's say that's right, for the sake of argument. OK, tell me, Logroller .. had Al Qaeda forces not been decimated following the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan, what makes you think that, today, you'd not have been observing a TWENTY fold increase, instead ?

The War on Terror must've helped to keep Al Qaeda off balance over recent years. If they'd had nothing to contend with, what makes you think that a thriving Al Qaeda, today, wouldn't be doing so well, that it'd actually be deploying WMD's by now ?!?





You rail against the War on Terror, because you say the casualty rate is 'asymmetrical' ?

-- Seriously ?

OK, then. Do I take it that you'd only have been willing to accept a reported casualty rate (.. so I've seen reported ..) of 100,000 deaths .. had Al Qaeda perpetrated a further THIRTY TWO '9/11' attacks against America ??

You want symmetry ? OK ... WITH THIRTY TWO MORE COMPARABLE ATTACKS, YOU WOULD ACHIEVE YOUR PREFERENCE. That'll do it, eh ?

In your world, your ideal President would sit in the Oval Office, busily 'forgiving' terrorist scum whose 'humanity' only extends to butchering 3,000 innocents ... [I]and then would compound that by never ordering counter-attacks capable of exceeding around one-thirtieth of the manpower damage to America's enemies than has in fact occurred to date, if the reports are true. Well, Logroller, each and every terrorist you 'forgive', then 'save', can and would reward you with further innocent American deaths.

DO YOU FIND THAT REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE ?



Freedom fighters fight for freedom (.. the clue's in the name, I suggest ..) ... as the Mujahiddeen did, against Soviet occupation. It was a worthy cause. Al Qaeda, by total contrast, by being the terrorists they became (... given actual success in their stated aims, anyway ...) became freedom CRUSHERS. Al Qaeda exists to defy freedoms you take for granted. They utterly oppose the theological basis upon which the US was founded. They further want to deny any Middle Eastern country any links whatever with the West in general, and America in particular, and will bomb the guts out of anyone not complying with their expectations.

They don't much like Israel's existence, either.

This is all apart from the simple fact that they deny their innocent victims the freedom to LIVE THEIR LIVES !

So you can hardly compare the two. One fights FOR freedom. The other seeks to CRUSH it, as I say.

Perhaps you see your equivocations as evidence of the furtherance of the values upon which America was founded. In all honesty, Logroller, I believe I've shown otherwise. Tolerance of murderous, savage tyranny, inaction in the face of it, a determination to 'forgive' rather than defend against a freedom-hating enemy aggressor, and to even only consider that fighting can be justified if parity amongst casualty rates could be assured ... really, Logroller, would America's founders have approved ?!?

I somehow doubt it. Bravo.... :beer: Loved this one!
You don't deter a belligerent force by rolling over and playing dead !!!! We had people crying for America to stay out of WW2. That kept us out longer so the Nazis and Japs were much stronger!! In ended up costing us many thousands more American lives when we finally did engage the enemy. Now we have those same kind of people preaching total tolerance to us. Yet you never see or hear of those people attempting to preach that crap to the murdering muslims. Could it be because they know it would get their stupid asses murdered rather quickly? And if they know that(and they do) why the hell would they preach we should just let them win with offering no meaningful opposition. The answer would be a mixture of ignorance, gullibility , stupidity and outright deceit IMHO... I FAVOR NONE OF THOSE MYSELF. I PREFER DEALING IN REALITY AND TRUTH INSTEAD. Just call me old fashioned like that. ;)--Tyr

[Drummond]

Bravo.... :beer: Loved this one! We had people crying for America to stay out of WW2. That kept us out longer so the Nazis and Japs were much stronger!! In ended up costing us many thousands more American lives when we finally did engage the enemy. Now we have those same kind of people preaching total tolerance to us. Yet you never see or hear of those people attempting to preach that crap to the murdering muslims. Could it be because they know it would get their stupid asses murdered rather quickly? And if they know that(and they do) why the hell would they preach we should just let them win with offering no meaningful opposition. The answer would be a mixture of ignorance, gullibility , stupidity and outright deceit IMHO... I FAVOR NONE OF THOSE MYSELF. I PREFER DEALING IN REALITY AND TRUTH INSTEAD. Just call me old fashioned like that. ;)--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Many thanks, Tyr !!

[jafar00]

Drummond, Tyr. You guys continually mix up terrorist groups like Al Qaeda with Islam when they are polar opposites. I can understand why you would hate Muslims when you think that way, but you have been duped. Likewise, Choudary's unIslamic views represent only him and his small band of follower's views. The other 99.99999999% of Muslims do not agree with the likes of him.

[aboutime]

Drummond, Tyr. You guys continually mix up terrorist groups like Al Qaeda with Islam when they are polar opposites. I can understand why you would hate Muslims when you think that way, but you have been duped. Likewise, Choudary's unIslamic views represent only him and his small band of follower's views. The other 99.99999999% of Muslims do not agree with the likes of him.


jafar. Since September 11th, 2001. Nobody has ever been told, or have any reason to believe what you claim....The Other 99.999999999% agree with since they either remain quiet, or happily dance whenever they learn of another Deadly attack on Americans.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, Tyr. You guys continually mix up terrorist groups like Al Qaeda with Islam when they are polar opposites. I can understand why you would hate Muslims when you think that way, but you have been duped. Likewise, Choudary's unIslamic views represent only him and his small band of follower's views. The other 99.99999999% of Muslims do not agree with the likes of him. Jafar, I truly believe that you believe that but it is wrong. Perhaps its you that is out of touch with what the majority of muslims agree with! Perhaps it is you and a small core group of those you know that think moderation is key. I tell you the majority of muslims believe 100% in Jihad and in the absolute and utter destruction of Israel. The majority want Israel completely and utterly destroyed and America as well. OBAMA wants Iran to get a few nukes because he knows their first use will be on Israel. They are rushing to complete that task while he is still our nation's Commander in Chief. Because they know he is a traitor and huge muslim supporter too. -TYR

[Drummond]

Drummond, Tyr. You guys continually mix up terrorist groups like Al Qaeda with Islam when they are polar opposites. I can understand why you would hate Muslims when you think that way, but you have been duped. Likewise, Choudary's unIslamic views represent only him and his small band of follower's views. The other 99.99999999% of Muslims do not agree with the likes of him.

Jafar, you want everyone to believe that your '99.99999999% of Muslims' figure is broadly believable. This, you argue, represents the 'great groundswell' of 'moderate, even downright peaceloving', Muslims in the world.

So my question to you, Jafar, is ... do you think you are a part of that figure ??

I think this is a legitimate question. You see, I've not forgotten your support for Hamas .. Hamas, this a TERRORIST organisation, one that fires rockets at Israel in the hope of maximising death and carnage rates across the border into Israeli territory. Hamas, the organisation which before now has strapped bombs to children to turn them into walking bombs.

So tell me if you still claim to be part of that '99.99999999% of Muslims' figure ... and if you do, WHY you do .... and even more, if you can estimate what percentage of your claimed figure would nonetheless DO AS YOU DO, AND CONTINUE SUPPORT FOR MURDEROUS TERRORISTS.

The Hamas Charter makes abundantly clear their intolerance for peace, their commitment to warfare and Jihad as the 'proper Muslim way'. They want all other Muslims to conform to their militant, murderous approach, to be standard-bearers for THAT interpretation for Islamic devotion.

AND YOU SUPPORT THEM.

How many other Muslims want to do likewise, and identify with Hamas's mindset ... overtly, AND covertly, Jafar ??

And then tell me .... how markedly does this differ from the Choudary doctrine ? Don't Hamas, and Choudary, share an Islamic-based reverence for terrorist bloodshed as a means to an end ???

[logroller]

First prove the ten times number to me
Why should I prove it? Is it going to change your outlook on gun owners or Muslims?
If it will, then wouldn't it behoove you to check the stats yourself? And if not, then such a request is the devil's errand.
The truth is murder is murder, calling it terrorism or warfare doesn't change that; we are instructed to love our enemies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why should I prove it? Is it going to change your outlook on gun owners or Muslims?
If it will, then wouldn't it behoove you to check the stats yourself? And if not, then such a request is the devil's errand.
The truth is murder is murder, calling it terrorism or warfare doesn't change that; we are instructed to love our enemies. You are free to not prove it just as I was free to question the number and not believe it. Isn't such freedom wonderful? I myself have recently balked at running such errands when they are very frequently requested but if memory serves that is my first request ever of you to verify a number. Correct me if I am wrong on that stat, my memory is not what it once was. ;)--Tyr

[jafar00]

jafar. Since September 11th, 2001. Nobody has ever been told, or have any reason to believe what you claim....The Other 99.999999999% agree with since they either remain quiet, or happily dance whenever they learn of another Deadly attack on Americans.

That video was in no way indicative of how Muslims feel. 15 Arabs dancing around for no apparent reason doesn't mean they were celebrating the 9/11 attacks. Nor would it represent what Muslims feel about it worldwide. I would have thought the thousands of condemnations from Muslims around the world would speak louder for us, yet you and others cling to that video of a few people in the street eating cake.


Jafar, you want everyone to believe that your '99.99999999% of Muslims' figure is broadly believable. This, you argue, represents the 'great groundswell' of 'moderate, even downright peaceloving', Muslims in the world.

So my question to you, Jafar, is ... do you think you are a part of that figure ??

I think this is a legitimate question. You see, I've not forgotten your support for Hamas .. Hamas, this a TERRORIST organisation, one that fires rockets at Israel in the hope of maximising death and carnage rates across the border into Israeli territory. Hamas, the organisation which before now has strapped bombs to children to turn them into walking bombs.

So tell me if you still claim to be part of that '99.99999999% of Muslims' figure ... and if you do, WHY you do .... and even more, if you can estimate what percentage of your claimed figure would nonetheless DO AS YOU DO, AND CONTINUE SUPPORT FOR MURDEROUS TERRORISTS.

The Hamas Charter makes abundantly clear their intolerance for peace, their commitment to warfare and Jihad as the 'proper Muslim way'. They want all other Muslims to conform to their militant, murderous approach, to be standard-bearers for THAT interpretation for Islamic devotion.

AND YOU SUPPORT THEM.

How many other Muslims want to do likewise, and identify with Hamas's mindset ... overtly, AND covertly, Jafar ??

And then tell me .... how markedly does this differ from the Choudary doctrine ? Don't Hamas, and Choudary, share an Islamic-based reverence for terrorist bloodshed as a means to an end ???

There you go again. I have said before I only support their struggle against oppression. I have objected to some of their methods many times. However you have to realise that they are living in an open air prison cut off from the rest of the world while being attacked constantly. They have been living the life of a warzone for decades so they can be forgiven for being a bit misguided and brutal. Meanwhile the Palestinians in other areas of occupied Palestine are still being turfed from their homes and having them knocked down and replaced by Jewish only enclaves filled with armed "settlers". Do you agree with that?

[aboutime]

That video was in no way indicative of how Muslims feel. 15 Arabs dancing around for no apparent reason doesn't mean they were celebrating the 9/11 attacks. Nor would it represent what Muslims feel about it worldwide. I would have thought the thousands of condemnations from Muslims around the world would speak louder for us, yet you and others cling to that video of a few people in the street eating cake.



There you go again. I have said before I only support their struggle against oppression. I have objected to some of their methods many times. However you have to realise that they are living in an open air prison cut off from the rest of the world while being attacked constantly. They have been living the life of a warzone for decades so they can be forgiven for being a bit misguided and brutal. Meanwhile the Palestinians in other areas of occupied Palestine are still being turfed from their homes and having them knocked down and replaced by Jewish only enclaves filled with armed "settlers". Do you agree with that?



Poor jafar. No idea how foolish, and endlessly defensive you sound.

Never mind. Your propaganda goes no farther than this forum.
Nobody really cares how many ways, or excuses you deliver here.
If you still can't see, or understand that.
There's really no reason for any of us to aid you in your propaganda campaign.

[Drummond]

There you go again. I have said before I only support their struggle against oppression. I have objected to some of their methods many times. However you have to realise that they are living in an open air prison cut off from the rest of the world while being attacked constantly. They have been living the life of a warzone for decades so they can be forgiven for being a bit misguided and brutal. Meanwhile the Palestinians in other areas of occupied Palestine are still being turfed from their homes and having them knocked down and replaced by Jewish only enclaves filled with armed "settlers". Do you agree with that?

But it's not that simple. By supporting Hamas, you support a known terrorist organisation. More, you support an organisation with some very rigidly determined pronouncements of its own about what a good Muslim should be like. An examination of their Charter will show you their expectations in that regard, expectations which Choudary would happily identify with.

From all you profess to be true about Islam from your own summaries ... it should be clear that what 'you believe', and what 'Hamas believes Muslims should be all about', are two very sharply divergent beliefs.

... but you support Hamas ANYWAY ! Tell me, why aren't you outraged over what you presumably must say is Hamas's DISTORTION of Islam ? Why is that outrage absent, Jafar ?

As for what you term an 'open air prison', I'd simply point out that Gaza is a terrorist-run territory, populated by those who'd be delighted to see, and even arrange, Israel's extermination. You conveniently overlook the level of racial and religious hatreds that area is harbouring. I suspect that even Ahmadinejad might seem moderate compared to some of that lot !!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

But it's not that simple. By supporting Hamas, you support a known terrorist organisation. More, you support an organisation with some very rigidly determined pronouncements of its own about what a good Muslim should be like. An examination of their Charter will show you their expectations in that regard, expectations which Choudary would happily identify with.

From all you profess to be true about Islam from your own summaries ... it should be clear that what 'you believe', and what 'Hamas believes Muslims should be all about', are two very sharply divergent beliefs.

... but you support Hamas ANYWAY ! Tell me, why aren't you outraged over what you presumably must say is Hamas's DISTORTION of Islam ? Why is that outrage absent, Jafar ?

As for what you term an 'open air prison', I'd simply point out that Gaza is a terrorist-run territory, populated by those who'd be delighted to see, and even arrange, Israel's extermination. You conveniently overlook the level of racial and religious hatreds that area is harbouring. I suspect that even Ahmadinejad might seem moderate compared to some of that lot !!! All very valid points which Jafar will likely dismiss with some kind of spinning one-liner. Certainly he (if a "good" Muslim) should happily disavow Hamas and what it stands for. That he does not do so is very telling IMHO. TIS' OBVIOUS TO ME THAT HE GIVES NO SOLID OR CONVINCING REASON FOR GIVING HAMAS SUCH SUPPORT EXCEPT THEY BOTH WANT ISREAL DESTROYED IMHO. TYR

[jafar00]

But it's not that simple. By supporting Hamas, you support a known terrorist organisation. More, you support an organisation with some very rigidly determined pronouncements of its own about what a good Muslim should be like. An examination of their Charter will show you their expectations in that regard, expectations which Choudary would happily identify with.

From all you profess to be true about Islam from your own summaries ... it should be clear that what 'you believe', and what 'Hamas believes Muslims should be all about', are two very sharply divergent beliefs.

... but you support Hamas ANYWAY ! Tell me, why aren't you outraged over what you presumably must say is Hamas's DISTORTION of Islam ? Why is that outrage absent, Jafar ?

As for what you term an 'open air prison', I'd simply point out that Gaza is a terrorist-run territory, populated by those who'd be delighted to see, and even arrange, Israel's extermination. You conveniently overlook the level of racial and religious hatreds that area is harbouring. I suspect that even Ahmadinejad might seem moderate compared to some of that lot !!!

I still don't see how my opinion = support for Hamas. What alternative do you suggest for the Palestinians imprisoned in Gaza? Lay down and die?

[fj1200]

I still don't see how my opinion = support for Hamas. What alternative do you suggest for the Palestinians imprisoned in Gaza? Lay down and die?

You know, cuz Muslim. And Gandhi of course of course. :420:

[jimnyc]

There you go again. I have said before I only support their struggle against oppression. I have objected to some of their methods many times. However you have to realise that they are living in an open air prison cut off from the rest of the world while being attacked constantly.

Let's use the past 6 months alone to talk about this "constantly", and please at least be honest and don't claim "fake" or propaganda, as I can toss out sources from various avenues. Anyway, in the past 6 months, show us how the Israels have been attacking them constantly, and not in retaliation for Palestinian attacks into Israel. My guess, and bet, is that ALL Israeli attacks into Palestine are in response. If that be the case, and I know it is, then it's not "being attacked constantly", unless you want to point out that they are "attacked in response to their own endless attacks on Israel".

No one is fully innocent in this endless war, but I would stake my last dollar on a bet that says the Palestinians would cease to be attacked if they didn't attack Israel first. I further would go into debt betting that this situation is fixed by at least 80-90% if both sides are willing to go the the negotiating table, make concessions and compromise a bit. But one of those sides has all but ruled out peace, said negotiations would never happen.

We would all like to see the bombings and death stop. But I think we all also know that this won't happen until the bombing stops and some sort of agreement takes place. But how can that happen if one side refuses? If one side says they would prefer to see Jew blood than negotiate?

[Kathianne]

I still don't see how my opinion = support for Hamas. What alternative do you suggest for the Palestinians imprisoned in Gaza? Lay down and die?

Jafar, I believe you believe you are 'condemning' the Palestinian methodology, but really?

If they should find a way to 'win,' regardless of how, you will rejoice, no? Up to and including the destruction of all of Israel. You are not for 'peace,' other than as accomplished by 'total war' which is what the Hamas Charter is all about.

[Drummond]

I still don't see how my opinion = support for Hamas. What alternative do you suggest for the Palestinians imprisoned in Gaza? Lay down and die?

Kathianne makes the point that Hamas is for war. Indeed they are. Their Charter commits them to follow only a course which sees that as the means for winning out.

You, Jafar, have made it plain in past posts that you DO support Hamas -- and Hamas are terrorists, committed to violence, bloodshed, maiming and murder as their modus operandi 'of choice'. Further, they say that Muslims generally should be guided by their example.

So let's not kid ourselves, OK ? When you support Hamas, you support 'people' who say that all this is OK, and make good on it .. with enthusiasm !

Jim also makes some good points. Particularly .. consider that Hamas has never renounced violence, and has never indicated the slightest interest in doing so. So, OF COURSE Israel is going to continue to be ready to strike at enemy aggressors !!!

Israel, as Jim points out, do not 'perpetually' fire on Hamas, or Gaza. Far from it. So I say this: let Hamas turn its back on its own Charter, renounce violence, and give commitment to a peaceful outcome a chance.

But, Jafar .. if you're being honest .. you know these two things:

1. Hamas will NEVER want peace, except a peace following all-out war, with them as victors against a smashed Israel, and ...

2. You will continue to support Hamas, REGARDLESS.

Am I wrong ? OK, show me that I am ---

[jafar00]

Let's use the past 6 months alone to talk about this "constantly", and please at least be honest and don't claim "fake" or propaganda, as I can toss out sources from various avenues. Anyway, in the past 6 months, show us how the Israels have been attacking them constantly, and not in retaliation for Palestinian attacks into Israel. My guess, and bet, is that ALL Israeli attacks into Palestine are in response. If that be the case, and I know it is, then it's not "being attacked constantly", unless you want to point out that they are "attacked in response to their own endless attacks on Israel".

No one is fully innocent in this endless war, but I would stake my last dollar on a bet that says the Palestinians would cease to be attacked if they didn't attack Israel first. I further would go into debt betting that this situation is fixed by at least 80-90% if both sides are willing to go the the negotiating table, make concessions and compromise a bit. But one of those sides has all but ruled out peace, said negotiations would never happen.

We would all like to see the bombings and death stop. But I think we all also know that this won't happen until the bombing stops and some sort of agreement takes place. But how can that happen if one side refuses? If one side says they would prefer to see Jew blood than negotiate?

Ok so ignore Gaza. What about the West Bank? "Settlement" (ie. land grab) construction was up 130% in 2013 (http://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-construction-up-130-in-2013/) in the West Bank.

Palestinians (Both Muslim and Christian!!) are being evicted from their ancestral homes so that Jews can come in and take over.

Israel: Eviction of 1,300 Palestinians necessary to save IDF time, money (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.539057)

First forced eviction of Palestinian family in Jerusalem’s Beit Hanina to make way for Jewish settler (http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/first-forced-eviction-palestinian-family-jerusalems-beit-hanina-make-way-jewish)s

Palestinian couple evicted from home of 50 years as Jerusalem settlers move in (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/10/israelandthepalestinians) Britain, US and UN fail to stop supreme court decision (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/10/israelandthepalestinians)

FACING EVICTION IN SHEIKH JARRAH (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/sheikh-jarrah-evictions-jerusalem-palestinians.html)


Do you think this kind of thing can go on forever before the displaced lose patience and launch another intifada? The West Bank hasn't been launching rockets like Gaza, and they have been losing homes and territory at a rapid rate.

[jimnyc]

Ok so ignore Gaza. What about the West Bank? "Settlement" (ie. land grab) construction was up 130% in 2013 (http://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-construction-up-130-in-2013/) in the West Bank.

Palestinians (Both Muslim and Christian!!) are being evicted from their ancestral homes so that Jews can come in and take over.

Israel: Eviction of 1,300 Palestinians necessary to save IDF time, money (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.539057)

First forced eviction of Palestinian family in Jerusalem’s Beit Hanina to make way for Jewish settler (http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/adri-nieuwhof/first-forced-eviction-palestinian-family-jerusalems-beit-hanina-make-way-jewish)s

Palestinian couple evicted from home of 50 years as Jerusalem settlers move in (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/10/israelandthepalestinians) Britain, US and UN fail to stop supreme court decision (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/10/israelandthepalestinians)

FACING EVICTION IN SHEIKH JARRAH (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/sheikh-jarrah-evictions-jerusalem-palestinians.html)


Do you think this kind of thing can go on forever before the displaced lose patience and launch another intifada? The West Bank hasn't been launching rockets like Gaza, and they have been losing homes and territory at a rapid rate.

To answer the red/bold above - no, I don't think it can go on forever. I think BOTH sides need to compromise and negotiate this entire deal, to save lives at the very least. But again, there is only one side that is refusing to negotiate and only one side who said they preferred to see Jew blood and only one side who vowed there would never be peace.

I don't expect Palestinians to disappear, I think they should ALL (Israel too) come to the table and make an agreement that can make both sides happy. But do you really expect Israel to simply walk away and just leave it be and have the land go back to the way it was 50 years ago? The majority of lives at stake here weren't even around back then. It's time to MAKE PEACE and that won't happen unless BOTH sides comply. And I can say this a million times and it appears it goes unheard - it takes BOTH sides, Jafar. How can you expect peace, and to expect to stop having to claim Israel shoots rockets, or that it's in response, or that Palestinians shot rockets... Does it matter? Isn't the end goal to save lives, make peace and make compromises that everyone can live with? Do you HONESTLY think that can happen if one sides stance is to refuse to negotiate or ever make peace?

[aboutime]

To answer the red/bold above - no, I don't think it can go on forever. I think BOTH sides need to compromise and negotiate this entire deal, to save lives at the very least. But again, there is only one side that is refusing to negotiate and only one side who said they preferred to see Jew blood and only one side who vowed there would never be peace.

I don't expect Palestinians to disappear, I think they should ALL (Israel too) come to the table and make an agreement that can make both sides happy. But do you really expect Israel to simply walk away and just leave it be and have the land go back to the way it was 50 years ago? The majority of lives at stake here weren't even around back then. It's time to MAKE PEACE and that won't happen unless BOTH sides comply. And I can say this a million times and it appears it goes unheard - it takes BOTH sides, Jafar. How can you expect peace, and to expect to stop having to claim Israel shoots rockets, or that it's in response, or that Palestinians shot rockets... Does it matter? Isn't the end goal to save lives, make peace and make compromises that everyone can live with? Do you HONESTLY think that can happen if one sides stance is to refuse to negotiate or ever make peace?


Jim. The truth is. Israel has attempted to sit down across a table, and they have even offered more land the Palestinians demanded.....SEVERAL TIMES. But the Hamas/Palestinian side has also constantly REFUSED all attempts at negotiations, and even denied the offers THEY DEMANDED from Israel.
Jafar will never, ever admit....THEY DO NOT WANT ANY PEACE Settlements...no matter what has been offered from Israel.
Anyone who observes the History of such talks....also knows. Instantly following FAILED attempts to negotiate Peace, or Peaceful solutions...that becomes the SIGNAL for Hamas to begin shooting more rockets, and mortars into Israel.
But people like jafar CANNOT, and WILL NOT ever admit their side DOESN'T WANT PEACE....unless it means the irradication, and removal from the face of the earth...ANYTHING Jewish/Israeli.
Palestine is like our Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton.
If racial problems are one day solved...THEY ARE OUT OF BUSINESS.
Just as HAMAS would be...if there was PEACE with Israel.

[logroller]

First prove the ten times number to me
Why--would it change your opinion of gun ownership or Muslims? If it would, you're capable of doing the math yourself, total number of gun murders/ total number of gun owners vs total number of terrorist attackers/ total number of Muslims----why don't you prove it to yourself?

I believe that such proof isn't your desire, and it wouldn't change your opinion at all....so your request is a fool's errand.


SINCE MY PRIMARY POINT IN POINTING OUT THE JIHADIST MURDERS AROUND THE WORLD IS THIER MOTOVE AND AGENDA WHICH ARE THE COMMANDS OF ISLAM.. THATS THE FOUNDATION WHERAS YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ALL GUN RELATED MURDERS BY U.S. CITIZENS AS IF I SHOULD BE WAGING A CAMPAIGN AGAINST MURDER.
What leads to more loss of life: Islam or guns?


There are likely hundreds of different reasons those murders occur.
There's probably more like 7...as in seven deadly sins.



Additionally why and how does my supporting gun rights for law abiding American citizens play into a comparison of my posting the TRUTH about Islam.
Because you pursue truth with a bias towards your own selfish desires.


One is crime(murder) the other is a war waged in the name of Islam -a religion. Do show how and why they are comparable.-Tyr
Both are the unlawful killing of another of God's children.



As if the lust for power Islam seeks is not greed mixed in with religion! Sure you can not say the same for the money changers because Christ gave an example of not turning the other cheek there. Which is exactly what I am doing but not using any physical act instead posting the Truth. How can that be wrong I ask ? --Tyr
The truth is love and worship, not illuminating sin.



You mean exposing the truth is "spreading evil matters"!!???
No. You aren't exposing God's truth, but rather spreading evil.


And here I was thinking the bible teaches truth is to be held sacred and honored.
That's true. Perhaps you should present the truth of the God's message.


While your contention is to hide it under a bushel basket.
Hmmm. A reference to Jesus at the sermon of the mount? Surely you wouldn't be trying to pass off another's work as your own....



No sir, I simply do not believe in (hiding) ignoring the TRUTH of the threat the muslims present. So I post truth and it pisses people off --Tough shat.
Well that didn't last long-- you're not referencing Jesus there. Clearly you stand a better chance of being ordained a minister of propaganda than God.


Such people certainly deserve to be pissed off if they seek to deny the truth. Deny truth and you've denied Christ . Think on that one. --Tyr

I accept that Christ IS Truth. I'm denying that you have any authority to elaborate on truth unsupported by scripture.



I am not in charge of the war on terror and that's government policy take it up with them. I'd launched a war on the real source of the problem were I in charge.
I'm sure you would only have furthered the problem.


You are bringing that in to prove what? My bias ? Don't make me laugh. SO YOU COMPARE THE WAR ON TERROR WITH THE ACTS OF DELIBERATE MURDER ON TENS OF THOUSANDS INNOCENT PEOPLE BY ISLAMISTS! Interesting since that's exactly how the murdering terrorists compare it only they leave out the fact of their multitude of murders. -Tyr
Murder is murder, and its sin. No bias, just truth.


So now you seek to justify terrorism by calling it asymmetric warfare ! Isn't it terrorism despite the convenient name change? Isn't it the holy war conducted by means of terrorism just as its Jihadists say it is? Talk about a fallacy that's a big one. For you just tried to give just cause to TERRORSM !! A NAME CHANGE DOES NOT NEGHATE REALITY OR THE TRUTH HOSS. May look good on paper but fails WHEN the light of truth IS shown upon it IMHO.-TYR
Totally agree that a name change doesn't negate the truth----Terrorism is murder--- Warfare is murder.


Good because only way to silence me on this grave threat to our way of life and survival is to ban me.. As you toss in "bias" I must remind you it Is the TRUTH SO I REJECT YOUR LABEL OF BIAS. AND I BELIEVE A CHRISTIAN MUST NOT YEILD TO SUCH PC-NESS AND START A CAMPAIGN TO SUPPRESS TRUTH REGARDLESS HOW THEY TRY TO WRAP IT.
Well, I gotta be honest, calling yourself a Christian while spreading hate and evil is hardly as Christ would have done.


I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO EMBRACE THE TRUTH NOT RUN FROM IT BECAUSE IT UPSETS OUR ENEMIES. GOOD THAT WE BOTH ARE WORKING WITH PURE MOTIVES AND JUST SEEKING TO HELP OUR FELLOW MAN , RIGHT? -TYR
i embrace God's love and forgiveness--that's TRUTH. Our own sin is the problem and the enemy is the devil who does his best to play to our own selfish desires and make us believe its something else.

[logroller]

I agree with Tyr's questioning of that claim. I look forward to your answer !

Like I said, not a complicated calculation. Look into it yourself.


But you overlook the organisational aspect !! Did 'the greedy' you refer to ever form covert terrorist cells, planning atrocities ???
Yes. Organized crime does so around the world.



Imagine the condemnation, most probably strident calls for his immediate impeachment, had GW Bush gone on air in the aftermath to 9/11 and declared that he simply 'forgave' the attackers !!!! I find it inconceivable that he could've continued on in his job and commanded any respect or appreciation. Except, that is, for the 'appreciation' of Al Qaeda, who'd have thanked him with more attacks !!!
i see, so political correctness has its merits...even when, pragmatically its a failure.




What will total tolerance of Islam's arrogance, and its terrorism, possibly result in ? My answer .. an invitation for MORE OF THE SAME !!

Well the reality is that intolerance has invited more of the same.


You don't deter a belligerent force by rolling over and playing dead !!!!





I call it REALISTIC. More, I call it DESERVED and NECESSARY.

Of Course you do; you embrace evil.


HAS THERE BEEN a twofold increase in attacks ?? Let's say that's right, for the sake of argument. OK, tell me, Logroller .. had Al Qaeda forces not been decimated following the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan, what makes you think that, today, you'd not have been observing a TWENTY fold increase, instead ?

Well its factually correct. Just at its fact that radical ideologies are fueled by violence suffered at t hands of superior power.



The War on Terror must've helped to keep Al Qaeda off balance over recent years. If they'd had nothing to contend with, what makes you think that a thriving Al Qaeda, today, wouldn't be doing so well, that it'd actually be deploying WMD's by now ?!?

more hypotheticals... Its fun to watching you spin glaring failure into success. It's a vicious cycle this " war on terror", in essence a war on killing innocents, by which attacks on innocents are acceptable as collateral.



I've been halfway tempted to supply a bullet-pointed list of objections to your post, Logroller -- that's how easy it is to dismiss your points. But, anyway ...
Dismissal is your specialty


You rail against the War on Terror, because you say the casualty rate is 'asymmetrical' ?

-- Seriously ?

Clearly you lack understanding of the concept of asymmetric warfare.


OK, then. Do I take it that you'd only have been willing to accept a reported casualty rate (.. so I've seen reported ..) of 100,000 deaths .. had Al Qaeda perpetrated a further THIRTY TWO '9/11' attacks against America ??

Why would I accept any deaths? Is there a number of innocent deaths that you'd be willing to accept to win the war on terror?


You want symmetry ? OK ... WITH THIRTY TWO MORE COMPARABLE ATTACKS, YOU WOULD ACHIEVE YOUR PREFERENCE. That'll do it, eh ?
Again, you don't understand the concept of asymmetric/symmetric warfare; but would you accept the murder of 1,000,000 innocents in a foreign land to prevent the murder of 10,000 domestic losses?


In your world, your ideal President would sit in the Oval Office, busily 'forgiving' terrorist scum whose 'humanity' only extends to butchering 3,000 innocents ... and then would compound that by never ordering counter-attacks capable of exceeding around one-thirtieth of the manpower damage to America's enemies than has in fact occurred to date, if the reports are true. Well, Logroller, each and every terrorist you 'forgive', then 'save', can and would reward you with further innocent American deaths.

DO YOU FIND THAT REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE ?
Its insane hat you think you can predict the future of what another would do. I speak to what has been done and what we are instructed to do.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
-- was that an acceptable act?


I somehow doubt it.
You're no better than the savages you rally against IMO. You need to repent and turn away from sin; not embrace sin as necessary.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why--would it change your opinion of gun ownership or Muslims? If it would, you're capable of doing the math yourself, total number of gun murders/ total number of gun owners vs total number of terrorist attackers/ total number of Muslims----why don't you prove it to yourself?

I believe that such proof isn't your desire, and it wouldn't change your opinion at all....so your request is a fool's errand.


What leads to more loss of life: Islam or guns?


There's probably more like 7...as in seven deadly sins.



Because you pursue truth with a bias towards your own selfish desires.


Both are the unlawful killing of another of God's children.



The truth is love and worship, not illuminating sin.



No. You aren't exposing God's truth, but rather spreading evil.


That's true. Perhaps you should present the truth of the God's message.


Hmmm. A reference to Jesus at the sermon of the mount? Surely you wouldn't be trying to pass off another's work as your own....



Well that didn't last long-- you're not referencing Jesus there. Clearly you stand a better chance of being ordained a minister of propaganda than God.


I accept that Christ IS Truth. I'm denying that you have any authority to elaborate on truth unsupported by scripture.



I'm sure you would only have furthered the problem.


Murder is murder, and its sin. No bias, just truth.


Totally agree that a name change doesn't negate the truth----Terrorism is murder--- Warfare is murder.


Well, I gotta be honest, calling yourself a Christian while spreading hate and evil is hardly as Christ would have done.


i embrace God's love and forgiveness--that's TRUTH. Our own sin is the problem and the enemy is the devil who does his best to play to our own selfish desires and make us believe its something else. I just spent over 30 minutes composing a point by point reply to your post only to have it vanish forever when submitting it. Too lazy to do that again. So I'll condense it to this. Your attacks upon my character in that reply does nothing to strengthen your case. Your condemnation of my presenting Truth can only be that you personally find it objectionable without any true foundational support. You reference the bible a lot in that reply but fail to follow the admonition that the truth is not to be denied. I truly believe the crusade you are on is one you can not justify in any way by referencing the bible. For your true objection is about my presenting truth about Islam. You do not refute such truth but still you declare that I "spread evil " as if presenting truth is evil. The bible teaches the TRUTH is not to be denied. You sir seek it to be denied. I have not the knowledge of why you do so but I suspect that it is a combination of PCness and a desire to appease Islam. Islam seeks total destruction of Christianity and clearly denies the divinity of Jesus yet you go all out defending them. I suggest that you sir have embarked on a dastardly and erroneous crusade . One in which you should really question why and who truly inspires you to embark upon such a dedicated defense of evil. You are mixing guns/gun rights, murder, terrorism, warfare, Christianity in an attempt to so muddy the waters that truth becomes hard to fathom . Yet you clearly leave out all references to Islam and its deeds/evil and murders . Such hypocrisy and defense of those that ever so clearly seek to destroy all other religions on earth with Christianity being at the top of the list leads me to question your true motive in doing so. While you condemn me for judging with the truth you judge my motives with only your bias and use that as a justification. You did not refute the truth I present but instead object to my presenting based upon a motive you have decided that I pursue. Yet you have not and can not prove that erroneous motive ! I suggest you restart this topic and your debating it in the religion forum. You have clearly lost your way. I can only conclude that because you present your Christianity while you defend those that seek to destroy Christianity and seek to destroy the very Salvation that Jesus Christ gave his life for! Of course they(muslims) can not accomplish that goal but you aiding them must be condemned . I suggest you seek which master you truly serve in this crusade you are on . For denying truth presented is not a path the bible commands a Christian to take. Your biased opinion of my motives lend nothing to the rightness or validity of your stand. For you can not prove such a judgment nor can you ever justify demanding truth be hidden! --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Like I said, not a complicated calculation. Look into it yourself. .

And yet again you cleverly refuse to give proof of that supposed fact. Could it be because you just made it up? Two members merely asked you to prove the number and you balk at it. Methinks that points out it is a made up number with no validity at all. Admit it and carry on. Nobody is perfect. I remember once back in the Summer of 69' EVEN I MADE A MISTAKE! ;)-Tyr

[logroller]

And yet again you cleverly refuse to give proof of that supposed fact. Could it be because you just made it up? Two members merely asked you to prove the number and you balk at it. Methinks that points out it is a made up number with no validity at all. Admit it and carry on. Nobody is perfect. I remember once back in the Summer of 69' EVEN I MADE A MISTAKE! ;)-Tyr
I did the math, but neither that nor the fact itself is very important IMO. It was used to illustrate a point: your own refusal to seek truth that conflicts with your bias. You proved my point, so any further explanation is unnecessary. Boastful pride is not of God's truth, but of the world.

[logroller]

I just spent over 30 minutes composing a point by point reply to your post only to have it vanish forever when submitting it. Too lazy to do that again. So I'll condense it to this. Your attacks upon my character in that reply does nothing to strengthen your case. Your condemnation of my presenting Truth can only be that you personally find it objectionable without any true foundational support. You reference the bible a lot in that reply but fail to follow the admonition that the truth is not to be denied. I truly believe the crusade you are on is one you can not justify in any way by referencing the bible. For your true objection is about my presenting truth about Islam. You do not refute such truth but still you declare that I "spread evil " as if presenting truth is evil. The bible teaches the TRUTH is not to be denied. You sir seek it to be denied. I have not the knowledge of why you do so but I suspect that it is a combination of PCness and a desire to appease Islam. Islam seeks total destruction of Christianity and clearly denies the divinity of Jesus yet you go all out defending them. I suggest that you sir have embarked on a dastardly and erroneous crusade . One in which you should really question why and who truly inspires you to embark upon such a dedicated defense of evil. You are mixing guns/gun rights, murder, terrorism, warfare, Christianity in an attempt to so muddy the waters that truth becomes hard to fathom . Yet you clearly leave out all references to Islam and its deeds/evil and murders . Such hypocrisy and defense of those that ever so clearly seek to destroy all other religions on earth with Christianity being at the top of the list leads me to question your true motive in doing so. While you condemn me for judging with the truth you judge my motives with only your bias and use that as a justification. You did not refute the truth I present but instead object to my presenting based upon a motive you have decided that I pursue. Yet you have not and can not prove that erroneous motive ! I suggest you restart this topic and your debating it in the religion forum. You have clearly lost your way. I can only conclude that because you present your Christianity while you defend those that seek to destroy Christianity and seek to destroy the very Salvation that Jesus Christ gave his life for! Of course they(muslims) can not accomplish that goal but you aiding them must be condemned . I suggest you seek which master you truly serve in this crusade you are on . For denying truth presented is not a path the bible commands a Christian to take. Your biased opinion of my motives lend nothing to the rightness or validity of your stand. For you can not prove such a judgment nor can you ever justify demanding truth be hidden! --Tyr
This truth you speak of is only of the world, not His Kingdom. Pray tell, how can Islam destroy God's love if We let it shine? You referenced a passage from the sermon of the mount, have you read I recently?



43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.


44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;


45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.


46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?


47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?


48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=KJV

In the darkest of moments, is Islam so grave a threat that we are to recuse God, is the truth of. Islam Greater than His truth? Seriously brother, get into the Word--His truth will set you free.

[aboutime]

Poor Logroller. Trying desperately to be our second version of jafar, or some other False Prophet.

[Drummond]

Like I said, not a complicated calculation. Look into it yourself.

Your reply fails to answer the question posed. Tyr has already noted that for himself, hasn't he ? I am disappointed that you apparently cannot give something more definitive.


Yes. Organized crime does so around the world.

... H'mm !!! Granted, you've given a better answer there than I was expecting. Your answer isn't totally without merit.

I'd suggest this, though. If, starting tomorrow (... and forgetting that one of them has been running for ages already !) two contributors committed themselves, here, to going all-out to find evidence of (a) Muslim terrorist acts being committed, and (b) the very same sort of acts committed by organised crime 'cells', both the number of occurrences, and the death tolls incurred, would show that FAR more was done by Muslim terrorists.

If you doubt that ... why not start your own 'organised crime' tally yourself, and regularly update us, on this forum ?


i see, so political correctness has its merits...even when, pragmatically its a failure.

The only meritorious response to the kind of terrorist attack '9/11' constituted, WAS and IS the War on Terror.

This is surely incontrovertible.

To give just one example: had Afghanistan not been carpet-bombed, Al Qaeda wouldn't have been decimated there. Consequently, today, they'd be far stronger, which can only mean that their capacity for attacks would be comparably higher.

I don't call the carpet-bombing a failure. It makes no sense to argue that it was. Nonetheless, it WAS a consequence of the War on Terror, and must surely have saved many innocent lives.


Well the reality is that intolerance has invited more of the same.

Nope. Greater intolerance means greater alertness to dangers posed. Sleepwalking to disaster would create that disaster.


Of Course you do; you embrace evil.

What 'evil' .. ???

The so-called evil of accepting that a bloodthirsty enemy must be effectively and implacably opposed ? This is what you think of as 'evil' ?


Well its factually correct. Just at its fact that radical ideologies are fueled by violence suffered at t hands of superior power.

Logroller, the worst terrorist attack ever experienced on the American mainland happened BEFORE the War on Terror, not afterwards !! The 'radical ideology' involved already existed, it was fought for by terrorists ALREADY recruited for the purpose, and none of the 'fueling' you suggest had yet occurred !!

So history, I suggest, is against you.


more hypotheticals... Its fun to watching you spin glaring failure into success. It's a vicious cycle this " war on terror", in essence a war on killing innocents, by which attacks on innocents are acceptable as collateral.

But rolling over and playing dead, Logroller, is essentially the same as abject surrender.

If you believe the enemy has a 'merciful heart' and would respond WELL by not being implacably fought ... well, present your evidence. For my part, I've already cited 9/11 for proof of where NON action gets you !

Terrorism is not about being merciful, nor is it open to negotiation. A terrorist bombs, maims, kills, his path to his perceived victories !


Clearly you lack understanding of the concept of asymmetric warfare.

I understand the concept of winning out against bloodthirsty savages, Logroller, regardless of any need to keep a strict headcount of the combatants involved ...


Why would I accept any deaths? Is there a number of innocent deaths that you'd be willing to accept to win the war on terror?

What imaginable War on Terror could GUARANTEE zero innocent deaths ? Indeed, what war, anywhere, could do that ?

Should Hitler never have been fought, because to do so might kill innocents who'd otherwise have survived ?

[.. and this is before you ponder the fate of Auschwitz inmates ...]


Again, you don't understand the concept of asymmetric/symmetric warfare; but would you accept the murder of 1,000,000 innocents in a foreign land to prevent the murder of 10,000 domestic losses?

That's a nice numbers-game you're trying to draw me into.

Try this one instead.

How many innocent deaths cannot possibly be accepted, if the result of them would be the total and permanent defeat of Islamic terrorism ?


Its insane hat you think you can predict the future of what another would do.

The logical outcome I extrapolated from my example was far from 'insane'.


I speak to what has been done and what we are instructed to do.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
-- was that an acceptable act?

You are equating both God, and the Son of God, and actions concerning them, to the lives of ordinary people and everyday modern scenarios ? Really ?


You're no better than the savages you rally against IMO. You need to repent and turn away from sin; not embrace sin as necessary.

Where in the Bible does it command anyone to surrender to evil ?

[logroller]

Poor Logroller. Trying desperately to be our second version of jafar, or some other False Prophet.
I merely presented Jesus' message---I made no claim to it being my own, only that it is the true path...so was He a false prophet?

[aboutime]

I merely presented Jesus' message---I made no claim to it being my own, only that it is the true path...so was He a false prophet?


NO. YOU are the DP false prophet today. Quoting the bible is a sad method many use to try and justify how ONLY THEY are right, while anyone else who doesn't think, or believe like them, are wrong.
Throwing verses from the Bible is only a phony way for you to pretend you are presenting a message.

Thus...the PHONY, FALSE PROPHET I believe you have shown us you are.

[logroller]

Your reply fails to answer the question posed. Tyr has already noted that for himself, hasn't he ? I am disappointed that you apparently cannot give something more definitive.



... H'mm !!! Granted, you've given a better answer there than I was expecting. Your answer isn't totally without merit.

I'd suggest this, though. If, starting tomorrow (... and forgetting that one of them has been running for ages already !) two contributors committed themselves, here, to going all-out to find evidence of (a) Muslim terrorist acts being committed, and (b) the very same sort of acts committed by organised crime 'cells', both the number of occurrences, and the death tolls incurred, would show that FAR more was done by Muslim terrorists.

If you doubt that ... why not start your own 'organised crime' tally yourself, and regularly update us, on this forum ?



The only meritorious response to the kind of terrorist attack '9/11' constituted, WAS and IS the War on Terror.

This is surely incontrovertible.

To give just one example: had Afghanistan not been carpet-bombed, Al Qaeda wouldn't have been decimated there. Consequently, today, they'd be far stronger, which can only mean that their capacity for attacks would be comparably higher.

I don't call the carpet-bombing a failure. It makes no sense to argue that it was. Nonetheless, it WAS a consequence of the War on Terror, and must surely have saved many innocent lives.



Nope. Greater intolerance means greater alertness to dangers posed. Sleepwalking to disaster would create that disaster.



What 'evil' .. ???

The so-called evil of accepting that a bloodthirsty enemy must be effectively and implacably opposed ? This is what you think of as 'evil' ?



Logroller, the worst terrorist attack ever experienced on the American mainland happened BEFORE the War on Terror, not afterwards !! The 'radical ideology' involved already existed, it was fought for by terrorists ALREADY recruited for the purpose, and none of the 'fueling' you suggest had yet occurred !!

So history, I suggest, is against you.



But rolling over and playing dead, Logroller, is essentially the same as abject surrender.

If you believe the enemy has a 'merciful heart' and would respond WELL by not being implacably fought ... well, present your evidence. For my part, I've already cited 9/11 for proof of where NON action gets you !

Terrorism is not about being merciful, nor is it open to negotiation. A terrorist bombs, maims, kills, his path to his perceived victories !



I understand the concept of winning out against bloodthirsty savages, Logroller, regardless of any need to keep a strict headcount of the combatants involved ...



What imaginable War on Terror could GUARANTEE zero innocent deaths ? Indeed, what war, anywhere, could do that ?

Should Hitler never have been fought, because to do so might kill innocents who'd otherwise have survived ?


[.. and this is before you ponder the fate of Auschwitz inmates ...]



That's a nice numbers-game you're trying to draw me into.

Try this one instead.

How many innocent deaths cannot possibly be accepted, if the result of them would be the total and permanent defeat of Islamic terrorism ?



The logical outcome I extrapolated from my example was far from 'insane'.



You are equating both God, and the Son of God, and actions concerning them, to the lives of ordinary people and everyday modern scenarios ? Really ?



Where in the Bible does it command anyone to surrender to evil ?

I didn't realize God's message had an expiration date or exceptions when faced with current evils. As I understand it, Surrendering to evil is done in one's heart when they reject God's commandments and submit to the temptation to sin.... And what we are commanded to do is surrender to God's will; no if, ands or buts. Did you read the Jesus' sermon on the mount? You don't fight the devil with evil; for if you do, you've already lost. That's what Jesus learned during 40days and 40 nights of temptation. The war on terror demonstrates that fighting evil with evil leads to more evil.

[Drummond]

NO. YOU are the DP false prophet today. Quoting the bible is a sad method many use to try and justify how ONLY THEY are right, while anyone else who doesn't think, or believe like them, are wrong.
Throwing verses from the Bible is only a phony way for you to pretend you are presenting a message.

Thus...the PHONY, FALSE PROPHET I believe you have shown us you are.:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

I didn't realize God's message had an expiration date or exceptions when faced with current evils. As I understand it, Surrendering to evil is done in one's heart when they reject God's commandments and submit to the temptation to sin.... And what we are commanded to do is surrender to God's will; no if, ands or buts. Did you read the Jesus' sermon on the mount? You don't fight the devil with evil; for if you do, you've already lost. That's what Jesus learned during 40days and 40 nights of temptation. The war on terror demonstrates that fighting evil with evil leads to more evil.

How about, then, the 'temptation' to submit to a religion which means to wipe out your own ? Because inaction against it, adds up to submission TO it.

Islam, which is no friend to Christianity, is a highly aggressive creed. I happen to NOT believe that it's God's will that I submit to Islam !!

[logroller]

NO. YOU are the DP false prophet today. Quoting the bible is a sad method many use to try and justify how ONLY THEY are right, while anyone else who doesn't think, or believe like them, are wrong.
Throwing verses from the Bible is only a phony way for you to pretend you are presenting a message.

Thus...the PHONY, FALSE PROPHET I believe you have shown us you are.
So presenting God's word, His truth that I believe to be right, not just for me, but for all men, is sad and phony in your opinion. Well blessed am I, as it was said,


10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

[logroller]

How about, then, the 'temptation' to submit to a religion which means to wipe out your own ? Because inaction against it, adds up to submission TO it.

Islam, which is no friend to Christianity, is a highly aggressive creed. I happen to NOT believe that it's God's will that I submit to Islam !!
Do you believe that islam can wipe out the Kingdom of heaven? Force one to partake in evil?
I happen to believe that the Kingdom of God is for the merciful, the meek; for so it was written. You seem to think that submission to God's will is submission is submission to man's will; that's not what James spoke of when he said,

4 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?


2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.


3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.


4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.


5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?


6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.


7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.


9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.


10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.


11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.


12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?


13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:


14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.


15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.


16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.


17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


King James Version (KJV)
by Public Domain

[aboutime]

So presenting God's word, His truth that I believe to be right, not just for me, but for all men, is sad and phony in your opinion. Well blessed am I, as it was said,


10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.


You should ask jim to move your THUMPING posts to the Religious portion of this forum log.
Don't know what, or who you suddenly think you are. But I actually feel sorry for you.
Are you located in San Francisco, and standing on a wooden Orange crate?

You sound like you are JUDGING me by using the very same tactics you would normally dismiss as Judging others.

The word HYPOCRISY seems to scream from everything you preach, or attempt to preach here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This truth you speak of is only of the world, not His Kingdom. Pray tell, how can Islam destroy God's love if We let it shine? You referenced a passage from the sermon of the mount, have you read I recently?



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=KJV

In the darkest of moments, is Islam so grave a threat that we are to recuse God, is the truth of. Islam Greater than His truth? Seriously brother, get into the Word--His truth will set you free. The fact that they will not win out against God and Jesus does not negate the fact that they(the muslims) could still destroy America. I speak out for those they have murdered and those they will murder! I am the guy yelling to the villagers that there is a hungry man eating tiger in the woods killing those it may. You are the guy not denying that truth but instead telling me to just be quiet. Because the villagers should have more faith in God and seek his protection. And to that I ask- how do you know the tiger is only eating those weak in faith? Even if that's true do not those weak in faith still deserve to live and care for their families? While you express great faith you also (if I Am Right) SHOW A VERY CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR THE LIVES OF OTHERS. YOU HAVE ASSIGNED ME A FALSE MOTIVE AND YOU ACT UPON THAT ASSUMPTION. SURE YOU SAY LOVE ALL PEOPLE BUT ISNT IT CONCERN AND LOVE TO SEEK TO MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF GREAT DANGER AND PRAY THEY TAKE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THAT? Islam teaches to both lie and murder for Allah. Jesus taught love even your enemies but he did not teach let them win. Nor did he teach to aid them in their evil ways. Opposition even to the point of it being physical he taught when he overturned tables and threw the money changes out of his Father's house. DID JESUS SIN OR TEACH A MISTAKE BY HIS DOING THAT? I SAY NAY, HE TAUGHT THAT THERE ARE TIMES TO FIGHT BUT DO SO ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. THIS NATION HAS NOT ONLY TURNED THE OTHER CHEEK BUT NOW HAS BENT OVER TOO.! I refuse to bend over just as I refuse to ever stop posting the TRUTH about a great evil masquerading as a Religion of Peace. I MUST ASK YET AGAIN, IF ITS TRUE WHY SEEK TO STOP IT? --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you believe that islam can wipe out the Kingdom of heaven? Force one to partake in evil?
I happen to believe that the Kingdom of God is for the merciful, the meek; for so it was written. You seem to think that submission to God's will is submission is submission to man's will; that's not what James spoke of when he said,

4 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?


2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.


3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.


4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.


5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?


6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.


7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.


9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.


10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.


11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.


12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?


13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:


14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.


15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.


16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.


17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


King James Version (KJV)
by Public Domain DO YOU FORGET THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT A THEOCRACY? PEOPLE MAY SURELY STILL SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC WITHOUT INVOKING A RELIGIOUS FAITH. It is great that you have such faith but surely you do not care to condemn others lacking such faith. Have they not a future when such faith may come to them? Did not the thief on the cross receive Salvation because of his faith in Jesus even at the last moments of his life! Perhaps you are judging others of their lack of faith when tis better to pray that they gain it instead. Just a thought for you to ponder, amigo. You are however most correct = faith , hope and love and the greatest is love. -Tyr

[logroller]

You should ask jim to move your THUMPING posts to the Religious portion of this forum log.
Don't know what, or who you suddenly think you are. But I actually feel sorry for you.
Are you located in San Francisco, and standing on a wooden Orange crate?

You sound like you are JUDGING me by using the very same tactics you would normally dismiss as Judging others.

The word HYPOCRISY seems to scream from everything you preach, or attempt to preach here.
Humbled as I am by God's blessings, you'd sooner ask Jim to move your posts to the cage than I ask God's truth to be vanquished from any forum. Truly I say to you, ask Him why you revile His word.

[jafar00]

To answer the red/bold above - no, I don't think it can go on forever. I think BOTH sides need to compromise and negotiate this entire deal, to save lives at the very least. But again, there is only one side that is refusing to negotiate and only one side who said they preferred to see Jew blood and only one side who vowed there would never be peace.

One thing that Israel does is that it continues persecuting the Palestinians, stealing their land and building settlements all while pretending to come to the table to negotiate. It's hard to have a fair negotiation while the other side has it's hand in your back pocket stealing stuff.

I think Israel needs to take a step back before real negotiations can take place.


Poor Logroller. Trying desperately to be our second version of jafar, or some other False Prophet.

Are you just being anti everything for the hell of it?


The only meritorious response to the kind of terrorist attack '9/11' constituted, WAS and IS the War on Terror.

How is that going for you?

Is there more, or less terrorism in the world now because of it?

Are you more or less in fear of a terrorist attack now than you were prior to September 2001?


To give just one example: had Afghanistan not been carpet-bombed, Al Qaeda wouldn't have been decimated there. Consequently, today, they'd be far stronger, which can only mean that their capacity for attacks would be comparably higher.

One of my friends died in a valley that was carpet bombed destroying a whole village. He was there assisting in humanitarian aid, not fighting.


I don't call the carpet-bombing a failure. It makes no sense to argue that it was. Nonetheless, it WAS a consequence of the War on Terror, and must surely have saved many innocent lives.

Which innocent lives? Thousands of innocent lives were snuffed out. Because of a kneejerk reaction by Bush.


Logroller, the worst terrorist attack ever experienced on the American mainland happened BEFORE the War on Terror, not afterwards !! The 'radical ideology' involved already existed, it was fought for by terrorists ALREADY recruited for the purpose, and none of the 'fueling' you suggest had yet occurred !!

You know why they did it right? The US has been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for decades. Installing dictators and then selling WMDs to said dictators which they then used on their own people for example would have been more than enough reason for them to justify the 9/11 attacks. (Disclaimer: I didn't just voice support for 9/11, I merely presented their point of view and of course ignoring the false flag attack scenario).


Terrorism is not about being merciful, nor is it open to negotiation. A terrorist bombs, maims, kills, his path to his perceived victories !

Glad you know the definition of terrorism. It is a purely political tool.


How about, then, the 'temptation' to submit to a religion which means to wipe out your own ? Because inaction against it, adds up to submission TO it.

Islam, which is no friend to Christianity, is a highly aggressive creed. I happen to NOT believe that it's God's will that I submit to Islam !!

Do you, as a Christian submit to God?

[logroller]

DO YOU FORGET THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT A THEOCRACY? PEOPLE MAY SURELY STILL SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC WITHOUT INVOKING A RELIGIOUS FAITH. It is great that you have such faith but surely you do not care to condemn others lacking such faith. Have they not a future when such faith may come to them? Did not the thief on the cross receive Salvation because of his faith in Jesus even at the last moments of his life! Perhaps you are judging others of their lack of faith when tis better to pray that they gain it instead. Just a thought for you to ponder, amigo. You are however most correct = faith , hope and love and the greatest is love. -Tyr
Our government is a creation of man. Its laws are not superior to God's laws and it shall return to dust when God wills it to be so. Far be it from me to say when He shall do so, but our nation was created with the impetus of In God We trust. Our failure to defer to His word shall expedite our nation's demise IMO.
Btw-- I pray for all to receive God's blessings. I could do more and pray for the strength and guidance to do so. I hope you'll pray for me also, for I am too weak to go it alone. Talk about man's truths, tis Far easier to give countenance to my selfish desires.

[aboutime]

Humbled as I am by God's blessings, you'd sooner ask Jim to move your posts to the cage than I ask God's truth to be vanquished from any forum. Truly I say to you, ask Him why you revile His word.


log. I still feel sorry for you. Even as a Christian myself. You are not humbled at all. Something in your mind has pushed you to wherever you THINK only you are, while looking down on everyone else. Not exactly the way God would want someone like you to be.

I, on the other hand. Have no need to profess, claim, or look down on anyone else who doesn't have my faith, or feel as I do as a Christian. I feel no need to apologize to anyone...not even you, for my faith. Which you seem to feel comfortable..JAMMING down other people's throat with your FALSE PROPHET tactics here.
Using the language as you suddenly do on this forum. Cheapens all of your attempts to convince me, or other Christians that you are WHO YOU CLAIM to be...honestly. Which brings me back to the HYPOCRISY you demonstrate here.
Explaining why...I feel sorry for you, and others who must resort to such shameful tactics to IMPRESS yourselves.

[logroller]

log. I still feel sorry for you. Even as a Christian myself. You are not humbled at all. Something in your mind has pushed you to wherever you THINK only you are, while looking down on everyone else. Not exactly the way God would want someone like you to be.

I, on the other hand. Have no need to profess, claim, or look down on anyone else who doesn't have my faith, or feel as I do as a Christian. I feel no need to apologize to anyone...not even you, for my faith. Which you seem to feel comfortable..JAMMING down other people's throat with your FALSE PROPHET tactics here.
Using the language as you suddenly do on this forum. Cheapens all of your attempts to convince me, or other Christians that you are WHO YOU CLAIM to be...honestly. Which brings me back to the HYPOCRISY you demonstrate here.
Explaining why...I feel sorry for you, and others who must resort to such shameful tactics to IMPRESS yourselves.
I Fell away from Him and, thankfully I'm forgiven. So I ask your forgiveness for whatever transgressions you and I have had. But more I pray for your assistance in my walk with Christ. Please, Dispatch your pity and your sorry. Help me to serve Him.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Our government is a creation of man. Its laws are not superior to God's laws and it shall return to dust when God wills it to be so. Far be it from me to say when He shall do so, but our nation was created with the impetus of In God We trust. Our failure to defer to His word shall expedite our nation's demise IMO.
Btw-- I pray for all to receive God's blessings. I could do more and pray for the strength and guidance to do so. I hope you'll pray for me also, for I am too weak to go it alone. Talk about man's truths, tis Far easier to give countenance to my selfish desires. I make no claims of human perfection but God teaches that we are all perfect in Christ. I will gladly join you in such a prayer to greater serve God and would ask the same from you in return as I know my weakness is my temper and my great stubbornness . We all can easier see other's faults than we ever can our own. I am nothing if not true to my principles but even that shield leaves me lacking against the weaknesses I EVER SO stubbornly retain for myself. God chose the JEWS AS HIS PEOPLE AND ITS WELL KNOWN THEY WERE THE MOST STUBBORN PEOPLE ON EARTH. I PONDER THAT AND OFTEN THINK MY STUBBORNNESS IS LESS OF A WEAKNESS THAN LIKELY IT TRULY IS. -Tyr

[aboutime]

I Fell away from Him and, thankfully I'm forgiven. So I ask your forgiveness for whatever transgressions you and I have had. But more I pray for your assistance in my walk with Christ. Please, Dispatch your pity and your sorry. Help me to serve Him.


Log. My previous posts stand. Do whatever you have to do, but this is not the right place, or time for you.
Go somewhere to worship, and visit with someone.
I am not a member of any clergy. So I have none of the powers of forgiveness you seem determined to find.
I still am convinced you are just patronizing, and being a phony here. Trying to get the support of anyone who will denounce me, or scold me for being so cold to you.
But then. That seems to have been your intent all along.
I no longer feel sorry for you. But for anyone around you who falls for your attempts to be someone, or something you are NOT.

[logroller]

Log. My previous posts stand. Do whatever you have to do, but this is not the right place, or time for you.
Go somewhere to worship, and visit with someone.
I am not a member of any clergy. So I have none of the powers of forgiveness you seem determined to find.
I still am convinced you are just patronizing, and being a phony here. Trying to get the support of anyone who will denounce me, or scold me for being so cold to you.
But then. That seems to have been your intent all along.
I no longer feel sorry for you. But for anyone around you who falls for your attempts to be someone, or something you are NOT.
I'm forgiven by Him, I merely ask that you extend me the same grace. But nonetheless, I pray I'm given the opportunity to show you that you are mistaken about me. Peace be with you.

[logroller]

I make no claims of human perfection but God teaches that we are all perfect in Christ. I will gladly join you in such a prayer to greater serve God and would ask the same from you in return as I know my weakness is my temper and my great stubbornness . We all can easier see other's faults than we ever can our own. I am nothing if not true to my principles but even that shield leaves me lacking against the weaknesses I EVER SO stubbornly retain for myself. God chose the JEWS AS HIS PEOPLE AND ITS WELL KNOWN THEY WERE THE MOST STUBBORN PEOPLE ON EARTH. I PONDER THAT AND OFTEN THINK MY STUBBORNNESS IS LESS OF A WEAKNESS THAN LIKELY IT TRULY IS. -Tyr
Certainly there is an insoluble value to serving God; but I believe the sacrifice has been laid upon the throne-- that whoever shall believe in Him shall have eternal life. That belief is not to be levied to appease our selfish desires...but admittedly, I struggle with that myself.

[fj1200]

Which innocent lives? Thousands of innocent lives were snuffed out. Because of a kneejerk reaction by Bush.

Innocent lives? Sure. Knee-jerk reaction? I seem to recall Bush giving the Taliban the option to turn over OBL prior instead of military action. You can't honestly expect that there would have been no reaction.

[Drummond]

Innocent lives? Sure. Knee-jerk reaction? I seem to recall Bush giving the Taliban the option to turn over OBL prior instead of military action. You can't honestly expect that there would have been no reaction.

I'm sure you won't be happy about it, FJ, but here, you've posted a piece I'm in agreement with.

My recollection is that Bush waited two weeks for the Taliban to hand OBL over. Had they done so, the option they had was not to suffer the warfare that they in fact did. As really happened, the Taliban defied Bush, so the attacks followed.

There was nothing 'kneejerk' about any of that. Quite the opposite. The Taliban could've let justice prevail, and complied. They refused, and so bore their share of the blame for follow-on events.

[fj1200]

I'm sure you won't be happy about it, FJ, but here, you've posted a piece I'm in agreement with.

Happy is irrelevant. All I ever post is truth. ;)

[Drummond]

How is that going for you?

It could be better, to be honest, Jafar. There could be more of a commitment to continue with it than there really is. Which can ONLY be good news for terrorist scum !!


Is there more, or less terrorism in the world now because of it?

You're asking me to view both what is, and what might have been. A fairly tall order ?

It's reasonable to consider that, with all the terrorists that have been killed, all their bases neutralised, the effect of the War on Terror just HAS to be a very good one. With none of those terrorists killed, with all training camps left intact, with NO decimation of Al Qaeda seen, SURELY we'd have seen a many-fold increase in attacks over what has really been true.


Are you more or less in fear of a terrorist attack now than you were prior to September 2001?

A great effect of the War on Terror has been to keep the enemy off-balance. Left unmolested, who can believe that terrorists wouldn't be deploying WMD attacks by now ?? Overall, then, the fear factor has to be less .. this compounded by the alertness levels intelligence agencies are governed by, thanks to all the work done, even behind the scenes, to effectively combat terrorist plannings and deployments.


One of my friends died in a valley that was carpet bombed destroying a whole village. He was there assisting in humanitarian aid, not fighting.

Sadly, the bombs couldn't have known of him (!). However, I'm sure they were also effective against their intended targets. And tell me .. this 'humanitarian aid' Do we have any guarantee that terrorists definitely didn't profit from it ?

Your friend must've known he was in a war zone. He took his chances. He chose to.


Which innocent lives? Thousands of innocent lives were snuffed out. Because of a kneejerk reaction by Bush.

-- Already refuted in some detail !


You know why they did it right? The US has been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for decades. Installing dictators and then selling WMDs to said dictators which they then used on their own people for example would have been more than enough reason for them to justify the 9/11 attacks. (Disclaimer: I didn't just voice support for 9/11, I merely presented their point of view and of course ignoring the false flag attack scenario).

An argument which is 'apologist', on behalf of terrorists ??

Saddam used a WMD against the Kurds. In 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, terrorists fought WITH Saddam's forces, AGAINST US soldiers.

But perhaps you'd forgotten that ??


Glad you know the definition of terrorism. It is a purely political tool.

Purely that ? So, no savagery is involved ? No subhumanity ? No bloodlust ?

But never mind. I'm sure that there are terrorists out there who'd argue just as you have.


Do you, as a Christian submit to God?

As opposed to submitting to Islam and its tyrannies, you mean ? I would say so, yes.

[Drummond]

Happy is irrelevant. All I ever post is truth. ;):laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh ::laugh::laugh2::laugh2:

[fj1200]

https://p.gr-assets.com/540x540/fit/hostedimages/1390515240/8235958.gif

Fixed that for ya. :poke:

[Drummond]

Fixed that for ya. :poke:

Terrible likeness. Looks nothing like that POTUS you periodically defend, Obama ...

[fj1200]

Terrible likeness. Looks nothing like that POTUS you periodically defend, Obama ...

:laugh: Now you're making me laugh. :laugh: When have I defended him? I may defend truth but that's a different thing. :slap:

[Drummond]

:laugh: Now you're making me laugh. :laugh: When have I defended him? I may defend truth but that's a different thing. :slap:

I'm not the only contributor here who's picked you up on your Obama defences, FJ. Admittedly, I've not seen any from you in a while. But I definitely HAVE seen them.

As for defending 'truth' ... yes, well. I refer you to your billing of yourself, which still persists !!! :laugh2:

[fj1200]

I'm not the only contributor here who's picked you up on your Obama defences, FJ. Admittedly, I've not seen any from you in a while. But I definitely HAVE seen them.

As for defending 'truth' ... yes, well. I refer you to your billing of yourself, which still persists !!! :laugh2:

Soooooooo, no examples then??? That's how it usually goes. ;)

[jafar00]

Innocent lives? Sure. Knee-jerk reaction? I seem to recall Bush giving the Taliban the option to turn over OBL prior instead of military action. You can't honestly expect that there would have been no reaction.

Didn't the Taliban ask for evidence that he was guilty first? Bad international diplomacy on the Bush govt's part. They should have known that the local culture forbids the handing over of a man to a 3rd party without any evidence of guilt. All Bush had to do was to give the evidence to the Taliban and he would have got his man without the carnage and bloodshed of over a decade of war and destruction.


It could be better, to be honest, Jafar. There could be more of a commitment to continue with it than there really is. Which can ONLY be good news for terrorist scum !!

You know as well as I do that the "War on Terror" has more to do with resources and bringing the population under control for political power.


You're asking me to view both what is, and what might have been. A fairly tall order ?

Not really. It seems to me that "war on terror" has achieve little and has in fact increased terrorist attacks a hundredfold. Every day there is a car bomb or suicide attack in Iraq or Afghanistan after the mess the US and it's allies have left behind.

I would consider that as evidence of a total failure. Is that worth the lives and money spent to achieve the opposite of what may have been intended?


It's reasonable to consider that, with all the terrorists that have been killed, all their bases neutralised, the effect of the War on Terror just HAS to be a very good one. With none of those terrorists killed, with all training camps left intact, with NO decimation of Al Qaeda seen, SURELY we'd have seen a many-fold increase in attacks over what has really been true.

It looks to me that for every "terrorist" killed along with 10 innocents has only created more "terrorists" in his place.


A great effect of the War on Terror has been to keep the enemy off-balance. Left unmolested, who can believe that terrorists wouldn't be deploying WMD attacks by now ?? Overall, then, the fear factor has to be less .. this compounded by the alertness levels intelligence agencies are governed by, thanks to all the work done, even behind the scenes, to effectively combat terrorist plannings and deployments.

If anything they have grown, become more determined and better organised and funded. The creation of Al Qaeda to fight the Russians all those years ago has well and truly come back and bit you in the arse which comes right back to their reason for being. Foreign meddling in Middle East and Asian affairs without thinking of the consequences.


Sadly, the bombs couldn't have known of him (!). However, I'm sure they were also effective against their intended targets. And tell me .. this 'humanitarian aid' Do we have any guarantee that terrorists definitely didn't profit from it ?

Your friend must've known he was in a war zone. He took his chances. He chose to.

It still doesn't excuse the fact that thousands of innocents have paid with their lives in the "war on terror". Some of their families who were peaceful are likely to have become the "terrorists" you despise in response. I know if I was an Afghan and my home had been destroyed with half my family in it including children, I would be willing to take up arms against the foreign invader that had wiped out my family in cold blood.

I'm sure you would too!


Saddam used a WMD against the Kurds. In 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, terrorists fought WITH Saddam's forces, AGAINST US soldiers.

But perhaps you'd forgotten that ??

Who sold the WMDs to Saddam with a friendly handshake? Perhaps you have forgotten that?

And where did the ridiculous notion come from that terrorists fought with Saddam? He brutally suppressed them because they were a threat.

[fj1200]

Didn't the Taliban ask for evidence that he was guilty first? Bad international diplomacy on the Bush govt's part. They should have known that the local culture forbids the handing over of a man to a 3rd party without any evidence of guilt. All Bush had to do was to give the evidence to the Taliban and he would have got his man without the carnage and bloodshed of over a decade of war and destruction.

Not exactly what we were looking for.

Bush Rejects Taliban Bin Laden Offer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm)

JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.President Bush quickly rejected the offer.
"The president has been very clear, there will be no negotiations," White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said. Washington has repeatedly rejected any negotiations or conditions on its demands that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.
The statement by Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir did not break new ground. But its timing and the fact it was made to foreign reporters by such a senior figure – the Taliban's third most powerful figure – could indicate the movement was desperate for a way out of the crisis after more than a week of punishing airstrikes.
Kabir said that if the United States gave evidence bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and halted the bombing, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country" – a country, he added, that would never "come under pressure from the United States."
"If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate," he said. "Then we could discuss which third country."
Before the start of the air campaign, the Taliban had demanded evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the attack and had offered to try him before an Islamic court inside Afghanistan – proposals that the United States promptly rejected.
Kabir's offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed a "second chance" given by Bush for the Islamic militia to surrender bin Laden to the United States. In a blistering statement, Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand over anyone" and accused the United States of killing Afghans.
The United States launched the airstrikes Oct. 7 after weeks of pressing the Taliban to give up bin Laden unconditionally

[Drummond]

You know as well as I do that the "War on Terror" has more to do with resources and bringing the population under control for political power.

Oh, rubbish !!!

This'll be that 'it's all about the oil' rot that I've been hearing from Lefties for a minimum of ten years !

Take Iraq. In Gulf War #1, Saddam's forces boobytrapped some Kuwaiti oilfields, and just 'detonated' a great many more. Such a tactic, therefore, was known to have been favoured as an Iraqi tactic of choice, WELL before 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion.

BUT .. the invasion happened, ANYWAY.

This speaks for itself.

'Bringing the population under control for political power' ... this sounds way too much like the now-discredited 'Power of Nightmares' fiction the BBC came up with once. The BBC even had to release a countering series of programmes, designed to supply far greater balance !!

If you're going to try and make such a case stick, you'll need to present a clearer case and lots of evidence. Not BBC rot - EVIDENCE.


Not really. It seems to me that "war on terror" has achieve little and has in fact increased terrorist attacks a hundredfold. Every day there is a car bomb or suicide attack in Iraq or Afghanistan after the mess the US and it's allies have left behind.

This is despite Al Qaeda being decimated in the initial Afghanistan carpet bombing ?

You advocate NO terrorist deaths ? NO incarcerations ? NO attacks on bases, strongholds, weapons caches ?? And you think, if so, that 'through the goodness of their hearts', terrorists would refrain from attacking anyone ???

Terrorists do recruit. It's a sad fact of life. But then, attacked or not, they STILL recruit !! Al Qaeda was strong just before 9/11. Then 9/11 happened, BEFORE the War on Terror, and we saw where INACTION led America and the West.

To suppose that terrorists would've been pacifistic by comparison had the War on Terror not happened, is frankly .. insane.

I would consider that as evidence of a total failure. Is that worth the lives and money spent to achieve the opposite of what may have been intended?


It looks to me that for every "terrorist" killed along with 10 innocents has only created more "terrorists" in his place.

Terrorists weren't being recruited, before 9/11 ? There weren't a lot more of them, at that time, because they'd not been carpet-bombed or meaningfully fought against ?


If anything they have grown, become more determined and better organised and funded. The creation of Al Qaeda to fight the Russians all those years ago has well and truly come back and bit you in the arse which comes right back to their reason for being. Foreign meddling in Middle East and Asian affairs without thinking of the consequences.

Al Qaeda was not created to fight Russia. The MUJAHIDDEEN was created for that purpose !! They mutated into Al Qaeda for a different purpose altogether, and AFTER that conflict.

We know what that purpose was, because it's what it now is !!!


It still doesn't excuse the fact that thousands of innocents have paid with their lives in the "war on terror".

Thousands also paid that price on 11th September 2001. THAT STARTED THINGS OFF.


Some of their families who were peaceful are likely to have become the "terrorists" you despise in response. I know if I was an Afghan and my home had been destroyed with half my family in it including children, I would be willing to take up arms against the foreign invader that had wiped out my family in cold blood.

You would NOT be willing to blame the terrorists who'd created the mess in the first place ????

Well, well ......


Who sold the WMDs to Saddam with a friendly handshake? Perhaps you have forgotten that?

Does a gun seller take responsibility for what its purchasers do with those guns ?

Saddam was culpable for his and his regime's actions. Simple fact.


And where did the ridiculous notion come from that terrorists fought with Saddam? He brutally suppressed them because they were a threat.

Everyone knows that terrorists went into Iraq because they wanted a crack at Western troops. It was a means to an end.

[Drummond]

I Fell away from Him and, thankfully I'm forgiven. So I ask your forgiveness for whatever transgressions you and I have had. But more I pray for your assistance in my walk with Christ. Please, Dispatch your pity and your sorry. Help me to serve Him.

Hello, Logroller.

I've been reviewing this thread. The above text from you particularly caught my eye.

May I comment, by saying how impressive your words appear to be ?

Considering them -- I wondered if you might care to take some time out to consider some postings of yours, from a couple of months ago. You may recall going so far as to - publicly, no less - call me a coward ?

I'd like to bring this matter to your attention now .. and, considering your far more recent offering, whether you are now prepared to apologise for that ?

A reminder --

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44210-Nelson-Mandela-facts-you-won-t-hear-from-the-Mainstream-Press&p=679202#post679202

... along with Tyr's much-appreciated support ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44210-Nelson-Mandela-facts-you-won-t-hear-from-the-Mainstream-Press&p=679206#post679206

[logroller]

Hello, Logroller.

I've been reviewing this thread. The above text from you particularly caught my eye.

May I comment, by saying how impressive your words appear to be ?

Considering them -- I wondered if you might care to take some time out to consider some postings of yours, from a couple of months ago. You may recall going so far as to - publicly, no less - call me a coward ?

I'd like to bring this matter to your attention now .. and, considering your far more recent offering, whether you are now prepared to apologise for that ?

A reminder --

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44210-Nelson-Mandela-facts-you-won-t-hear-from-the-Mainstream-Press&p=679202#post679202

... along with Tyr's much-appreciated support ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44210-Nelson-Mandela-facts-you-won-t-hear-from-the-Mainstream-Press&p=679206#post679206
Sure. I'll admit I lashed out at you and this action was not of God. Tis far better to forgive prideful rhetoric rather than engage in such myself-- for this, I am sorry. I shall refrain from doing so, yielding instead to the Glory of forgiveness. Perchance might you do the same?

[Drummond]

Sure. I'll admit I lashed out at you and this action was not of God. Tis far better to forgive prideful rhetoric rather than engage in such myself-- for this, I am sorry. I shall refrain from doing so, yielding instead to the Glory of forgiveness. Perchance might you do the same?

Well, Logroller ... the issue was never one of parity .. I never went so far as to make such an accusation against you. Nonetheless - what matters, in practical terms, is that in future debates the worth of each is judged on its own merits. Name-calling is counterproductive, status denigrations likewise. 'Prideful rhetoric' .. it's the pride itself that's the problem, I think. Objective sifting of debating-points, minus the injection of pride - or ego - will see us through.

I look forward to future debates thus constrained, Logroller.