|
Author
|
Topic: Terrorism in London
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
quote:
What evidence have you that the US has gained control over international oil markets for advantage over users?
I never claimed that the US has gained control over the international oil markets. I'd reply to the rest of this post, but I'll let you reread the previous post first to see if you can figure out what I did, in fact, say.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: Muslim dissent
We might very well be talking past one another. Let me remind you where this particular line is talking about. In this post you made the claim that as a result of the invasion of Iraq "Arab intellectuals are no longer afraid to speak about democracy". You seemed to feel it is so important that you repeated it in this post. I merely used Iran as an example where people were speaking about democracy well before the gulf war, despite the threat of retaliation, and where the government has cracked down harder on dissent after the invasion. Of course I realize that Iranians aren't Arabs, but since your concerns seem to be about Islamist regimes I thought Iran would be a good enough example. My point stands. I am merely asking why you think that "Arab intellectuals are less afraid to speak about democracy". Are there more pro-democracy newspapers being published? More pro-democracy statements being broadcast? More pro-democracy speeches being made at political rallies? What evidence do you have that there is less fear to promote democracy? Furthermore, if there is less fear to promote democracy (and as far as I know that could very well be true -- I just want to see some evidence that it is), what evidence links this to the US led invasion of Iraq?
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: ability to carry out attacks
I have no idea what you are talking about. We are not speaking of Republicans in general, nor are we speaking about "good about a nation", whatever that is supposed to mean. We are discussing the current president of the United States and his administration, and the invasion of Iraq that he implemented. In particular, in this line we are discussing your claim that it is because of this invasion that there have been no further terrorist attacks in the US. You made this claim in this post and repeated it in this post. I have given sufficient reason to doubt this statement. Terrorist attacks have occurred in the UK and in Spain. Clearly terrorism has not been prevented by the invasion of Iraq, and I see no reason why the invasion has made the US especially immune. In this post you merely repeated this claim, and gave a fanciful scenario as to why it was true, but you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever for anything you said in this post. In this post you gave several alternate reasons that there has been no further attacks in the US, some I disagree with, at least one I agree with, and one or more I think might be possible. But then you again simply repeat your claim that the invasion is largely responsible for preventing terrorism on US territory, repeated your reasons why this would be the case, and again failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that any of this is true. All I am asking for is evidence that the invasion of Iraq has prevented terrorism from occurring on US territory. Since the UK and Spanish incidents show that the invasion has not prevented terrorism, it seems that it is at least as plausible, if not more so, that there have been other reasons that there have been no further terrorist incidents in the US.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
quote:
You made a weak, obfuscatory argument, one so vague that you can deny having said anything you did, because you didn't actually say anything....
And now let me remind you what started this line of converstation. In this post you made the comment:
What motivated 9/11 was that the US was in the Islamists' way with respect to their plans to take over islamic nations. They thought they could scare the US out of the Middle East so they'd be freer to march on, as they had been. In reply I made this statement:
And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production. The US thought that they could scare the regimes of the middle east into being more conducive to US interests so they would be freer to march on. You seem to missed that I merely took your wording, simply substituting different persons in the subjects. It is interesting that you refer to this statement as obfuscatory. My statement is an exact mirror of your statement. It is no more nor no less obfuscatory. -
quote:
time for the homegrown conspiracists to move on too, and find another batch of rationalizations for their hate-on for Bush and conservatives.
Since your entire schtick has been to rant about a world-wide Islamist conspiracy to put the entire world under Sharia law, including quoting others who clearly share this paranoid delusion, I suspect that the reader of this post are highly amused by this. -
quote:
Warning: History will judge you badly for that....
Why would history judge me for the fact that you cannot substantiate a single claim that you have ever made? If there is some sort of Islamic conspiracy, I think that you are an Islamic plant whose mission is to lull the rest of us into complacency by making the idea of an Islamic threat seem ridiculous.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 126 of 313 (222801)
07-09-2005 11:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 123 by CK
07-09-2005 9:19 AM
|
|
Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
In the US, it was ocasionally mentioned in passing. The main selling point was that Hussein had WMD and that he was actively supporting Al Qaeda. Then, sometimes, as an afterthought, someone might mention in passing, "Oh yeah, he's a tyrant, too." But the overwhelming message was WMDs and Al Qaeda. The human rights issue was not a real issue until it became clear that there were no WMDs or substantial links to Al Qaeda. Remember, the important point is that Hussein was a threat to American lives -- Iraqi lives were never much of a consideration.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 123 by CK, posted 07-09-2005 9:19 AM | | CK has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: Muslim dissent
quote:
Yes, there is a great deal more published and broadcast information on democracy now in the Arab world.
That may very well be true. But you have supplied not statistical information to that effect, nor have you demonstrated that the invasion of Iraq is responsible for this. -
quote:
A reformer in government or running fopr office was someone pre-approved by the mullahs to run for office (after they rejected all the true reformers, or simply imprisoned or killed them).
This, again, is simply a claim that you have not been able to demonstrate. It directly contradicts the record of Khatami and the Iranian parliament which passed reform legislation only to see them vetoed by the Revolutionary Council. It also has little to do with the fact that before the war reformers and pro-democracy activists were struggling against the oppressors in speaking for democracy and attempting to publish newspapers. Finally, this is a side-issue, used as an example against your claim that suddenly intellectuals are less afraid to speak for democracy. Not only have you not successfully refuted this example, you still have only asserted that there is more open discussion of democracy, and that this can be attributed to the invasion of Iraq.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: ability to carry out attacks
quote:
You are immune to reason, frankly, on this matter.
Actually, you have been the one immune to reason in this entire discussion. Both jar and I have given some good reasons to think that the invasion of Iraq has not prevented terrorism, in the US or anywhere else. I am not asking for proof. I am simply asking for a good reason to think that the invasion of Iraq has prevented terrorist acts on US territory. Your claims that you understand how Osama bin Laden thinks is not a good reason. Edited to add a comment. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 09-Jul-2005 04:20 PM
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
quote:
The islamists flat out tell you that they intend to takeover the world for islam.
So do the fundamentalist Christians. So what? People who believe that they have the one true faith always claim that it is their duty to convert the entire world. The issue is not boiler-plate rhetoric that gets tacked onto the sermons -- the issue is whether there is an organized conspiracy to take control of the state institutions in every country of the world in order to impose their religion on the citizens. -
quote:
As for: "And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production." Yes, that's what you said, and that is what i replied to.
I guess the point of my comment still goes over your head. Let me repeat the gist of my post: In this post you made the comment:
What motivated 9/11 was that the US was in the Islamists' way with respect to their plans to take over islamic nations. They thought they could scare the US out of the Middle East so they'd be freer to march on, as they had been. In reply I made this statement:
And what motivated the invasion of Iraq was that Hussein was in the way of the US plans to exert control over international petroleum production. The US thought that they could scare the regimes of the middle east into being more conducive to US interests so they would be freer to march on. You seem to missed that I merely took your wording, simply substituting different persons in the subjects. My comment is simply the mirror image of your comment. It requires no more evidence on my part than your comment does. I don't see what you can possibly object in my comment. The only valid objection that I see is that I haven't tried to provide evidence to support it. But you haven't provided evidence to support a single one of your assertians either. I feel that I have demonstrate that your comment is entirely vacuous, without meaning, and without supporting evidence. Unless you actually attempt to support your assertian with some sort of evidence I will allow you to have the last word on this matter.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Empty rhetoric and a lost cause.
quote:
Again, I say, had this been Gore, you'd be cheering.
Another claim for which you have no evidence whatsoever. The only possible reason you could make this claim is that you recognize that you will blindly following your leaders anywhere they go, and so everyone else must have leaders whom they will follow blindly. When you feel compelled to make comments of this sort you must recognize, deep down, that you have lost the argument.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 162 of 313 (222883)
07-09-2005 9:25 PM
|
|
|
Fred Phelps: a good Christian
Since this is, after all, a thread on the recent bombings in London, and we are talking about how good Christians are, I thought I'd share one good Christian's opinion on this issue. (Of course, I would understand if those who are familiar with Phelps decline to check out the link.)
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 219 by Tusko, posted 07-11-2005 6:15 AM | | Chiroptera has replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
I actually have read the Koran, twice, and I just don't remember any of this at all.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
War in the Qur'an
I didn't forget these verses; I simply remembered the context in which they were written. Frankly, I don't quite understand why you have listed some of the verses that you have. Some of them are little different than passages we find in the Christian Bible stating how God hates idolators, how unbelievers will be damned to hell, and how at the end of the world God and his angels will wage war and kill those opposed to his will. This post will just comment one the verses speak of war against non-Muslims. One thing that no one has done yet is get a Muslim's interpretation of these verses. Not only do I find it strange that Christians are taking it upon themselves to interpret the Qur'an and to claim what Muslims must believe and follow, I think that the point of this exchange is to discuss what actual, real Muslims actually believe. For example, Sura 2 speaks of a defensive war (by the way, I think you might have your verse numbers wrong -- you list 2:91-93 but your quote doesn't match the actual verses -- I think you might have meant 2:191-193). My quotations come from this site. Verse 2:190 reads
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. Interestingly, although this should be clear enough, Marmaduke Pickthall's translation (which, by the way, is the translation that I actually own at home) is more explicit as to this advocating a defensive fight:
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. At any rate, verses 2:192,193 read,
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. This doesn't match up with your quote, but then you claim it is verse 93, but that doesn't match at all what is actually in verse 93. So perhaps the difference is in your translation? As far as Sura 9 goes, it has a specific historic context. The context is the Battle of Makkah. The pagans were violating the treaties that existed between them and Mohammed's followers (or were violating the spirit of the treaty -- it's been a while since I read it). At any rate, it is a call that the treaty, having been violated, is no longer in force, that they shall make war against this threat and that they should have no qualms about going to war or killing the enemy. I see that others have already mention the books of Joshua that command the ancient Hebrews to forcibly take territory that wasn't theirs to begin with and to slaughter the inhabitants. I didn't see whether anyone mentioned the passages in the Kings and Chronicles where they were periodically told to murder the followers of other gods. But it might be a good idea to keep these passages in the Christian Bible in mind during a conversation as to whether one religion or another advocates peace or war. Edited to change the subtitle. Sorry, Ned. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 10-Jul-2005 04:36 PM
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: War in the Qur'an
I agree, there is no interpretation -- what the Qur'an states is quite clear -- protect yourself against aggressors, but stop once the agression stops -- that's pretty explicit in Surah 2 (the part that you not only misquoted but left stuff out). It is not in dispute that there are fanatics who will interpret these verses as saying that they have a duty to kill infidels. What is being disputed is that these verses put a clear duty on Muslims to impose their religion on other people. They do not, and it is clear when they are actually read in context. I spent three years in a country that was divided evenly between Christians and Muslims. There was absolutely no religious strife whatsoever. My next door neighbor was Muslim, was were many of my other neighbors. No one tried to kill me or harm me, hell, no one even attempted to proselytize me to their faith -- despite that I fully admitted that I am an atheist. Clearly they never saw a duty to force their religion on other people. In fact, they were advocates for religious toleration. The fact is, CanadianSteve, that the Qur'an does not lay a duty on Muslims to forcibly convert others to their faith. That some choose to interpret the Qur'an in this manner is no different than the Christians who have intepreted similar verses in the Bible to do the same. You can deny the fact if you want. If you want you can take a few verses, ignore the other verses around them, ignore the historical context of the writings, ignore what Muslims actually say about those verses, but you are just going to look like a fool when people actually read the Qur'an themselves, and especially as more and more people get to know real Muslims.
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 223 of 313 (223105)
07-11-2005 9:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 219 by Tusko
07-11-2005 6:15 AM
|
|
Re: Fred Phelps: a good Christian
Do you want him? You can have him cheap, and we'll even include free shipping.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 219 by Tusko, posted 07-11-2005 6:15 AM | | Tusko has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Re: War in the Qur'an
quote:
no one can read the passages I presented, or those that faith presented, and objectively and rationally say otherwise.
What are you talking about? I just did that. But I then you are on record of accusing me of being non-objective and irrational. Incidently, you misquoted several verses from the Qur'an. In your post you quote:
Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed... fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme" (Sura 2:91-93). Here is what 2:91-93 says, in three different translations:
002.091 YUSUFALI: When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah Hath sent down, "they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us:" yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: "Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?" PICKTHAL: And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers? SHAKIR: And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers? 002.092 YUSUFALI: There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (Even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully. PICKTHAL: And Moses came unto you with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), yet, while he was away, ye chose the calf (for worship) and ye were wrong-doers. SHAKIR: And most certainly Musa came to you with clear arguments, then you took the calf (for a god) in his absence and you were unjust. 002.093 YUSUFALI: And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai): (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you, and hearken (to the Law)": They said:" We hear, and we disobey:" And they had to drink into their hearts (of the taint) of the calf because of their Faithlessness. Say: "Vile indeed are the behests of your Faith if ye have any faith!" PICKTHAL: And when We made with you a covenant and caused the Mount to tower above you, (saying): Hold fast by that which We have given you, and hear (Our Word), they said: We hear and we rebel. And (worship of) the calf was made to sink into their hearts because of their rejection (of the covenant). Say (unto them): Evil is that which your belief enjoineth on you, if ye are believers. SHAKIR: And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey. And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers. This is very, very different. I thought that maybe you meant 2:190-193, since these verses do speak of war:
002.190 YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. 002.191 YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. 002.192 YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 002.193 YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. But this, again, is very different. Do you understand why someone would doubt the good faith and honesty of your source when such a blatant error is propagated without correction or acknowledgement? Edited to add:I should add a link to the translations that I am using. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-Jul-2005 04:38 PM
|
™ Version 4.2