Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 2:19 AM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Heathen, PaulK (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Terrorism in London
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 271 of 313 (223313)
07-12-2005 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by CanadianSteve
07-11-2005 3:45 PM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
Overall, we'll just have to agree to disgree.

I have no problems doing this on any subject where the evidence is agreed upon and logic allows a number of relatively equal conclusions, or is inconclusive itself.

But this is not the case.

But as i also said, they are "abrogated" in isalmic theology by later pasages they conflcit with. Thus, the violent, imperialist, Jihadist, intolerant passages supercede the earlier ones.

This is also true of Xianity and Judaism. There are conflicting passages within the main texts as well as in latter supplementary texts. This is what leads to different sects, schisms, and movements within all of the world's organized religions. None are different than Islam, where there is some sect or movement which stress the passages related to gaining power or aggressive defense through arms.

I am certainly not claiming that there is not a movement like this within Islam. Indeed there may be more than one. But you appear to be trying to say that is "real" Islam, and then when the same kinds of movements are found within Judeo-Xianity you write them off as not being "real" Xians. That is hypocritical and a logical error to boot.

I have also now repeatedly said, as Muslims will have to go into collective denial as their faith in order foriberal democracy to arise in their homelands, it's just as well that they see those earlier passages as havinmg equal or, even better, more weight than those that abrogated them. That is, they'll either have to deny abrogation, or they'll have to rationalize, as you and others here are doing, that the War Verses and sharia Law don't really mean what they in fact do.

This is the kind of "no True Scotsman" fallacy I am talking about. Who are you to say what is correct "abrogation" under Islam? How would you know? You have also repeatedly misquoted passages of the Koran, taking them out of context. Bounding those passages are comments that people should not engage in aggressive wars, and when the enemy desists that fighting should end. You ignore this as some of the militant sects have ignored it.

And there is some irony in all of this. Jesus was a jew as was Paul yet they decided that latter ideas and texts abrogated earlier ones. Xianity as a religion contains multiple different movements. Some say Mosaic Law still holds in some states, meaning that OT is stronger than NT, while others say that while Jesus in the NT may have said something, Paul's words should hold more significance than Jesus's words.

I don't think you'd want me to tell you who "real" Xians are, and so it is just as insulting for you to tell muslims who the "real" muslims are and so which texts take precedent in their religion.

And as far as democracy goes, there is no reason for followers of Islam to accept it. Unlike Judaism and Xianity the texts stress that there is no one between you and God, even if there are some supplementary texts and movements which have said there are. I have already stated twice now that one important document along the road to the ressurection of democracy in the West came from Islam.

Unlike Islam, both Jews and Xians are awaiting the arrival of a King to establish a kingdom. This cannot be "agreed to disagreed" on. That is fact. And if that is a fact then no matter what passes now as far as democracy goes, the end result is a return to feudal ideals.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 3:45 PM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 10:50 AM Silent H has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 313 (223317)
07-12-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by jar
07-11-2005 9:24 PM


Re: Christian church take a stance against creationist
Again, just because you have not heard of such a church, you should have run into Christians here at EvC that have decried such behavior.

Oh, of course. But that wasn't what I said. There's no doubt that there are progressive Christians who will take a stand against the zealots in their own churches. But that seems to be something churches as a whole are very reluctant to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 07-11-2005 9:24 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by jar, posted 07-12-2005 11:04 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 273 of 313 (223319)
07-12-2005 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Modulous
07-11-2005 6:01 PM


pretzel with cheese
I did that? I didn't mean to. When did I do that?

You suggested what I claimed I had as evidence did not in fact exist. You also switched around what you said so as to misrepresent what I said.

Right the IF Blair did x to prevent y, and y happened then Blair failed. However, Blair didn't do x to prevent y.

Yes, we have already established that he in fact did not do that. I doubt he even ever thought that he in fact had done that. That is not the problem. The fact is that after what he did do was shown to be a failure, he has since begin to contrive, invent, post hoc rationalize why he did what he did... that is the F'ing problem I am pointing out!

So try to stay with this. He did not do X to prevent Y. We both agree that if he had done X to prevent Y that would have been stupid. Yet post X he has been publicly stating that it was and has helped prevent Y. He has gone as far as to back the idea (publicly with Bush) that since Y has not occured, that shows that X was successful.

That alone should have been, and indeed was as I have shown, lambasted by the British. You yourself should be critical of it. And now Y does happen, removing his post hoc reationalization completely.

I said "its silly to say x" and you said "Thanks, for supporting my position", and I say "So you think x is silly?"

And you do it again... You did not say it is silly to say X. You said it was silly to do X to prevent Y. That is if we are still using the same X as above and you haven't switched it to something else. It was silly to do X to prevent Y, and even a post hoc rationalization that X was to prevent Y would be silly.

You tried to turn it around into it being silly to say that he would have said that.

what it clearly shows is that "I've never heard that self-defence rationale used by anyone, including Blair". I was totally open to it having been used. I was trying to demonstrate that the self-defense rationale hasn't been particularly championed in the UK...he certainly failed to reach me with that message, and I do tend to keep my eyes open.

What a way to try and back out of a position. Look there is no escaping the fact that the above means you THOUGHT no one had used that rationale. You keep your eyes open and you have never heard anyone say it, it never reached you. That means you THOUGHT no one had used it. Yes you COULD be wrong, but you did not THINK you were wrong. You thought that I was.

That's why you "had" to ask for evidence.

Prepare to be darned

???? I said I'd be darned if your statement could be read any other way, and what you did is talk about what Blair has said. The two have nothing to do with each other. Though I must admit with some humor that you are now admitting that what you were doubting he had said, he in fact has been saying.

To me, prevent seems to be a fairly 100% thing, perhaps there lies our confusion? If a vaccine prevents me from getting a disease, I won't (or would be very unlikely to) get it. However, a condom only helps prevent STDs.

Yes, this would be a point of confusion. And I'm glad you brought it up. Bush has said "prevents" and "prevented", Blair backed Bush. It is meant to create the illusion of 100% stopping of something doesn't it? Yet without actually giving a real guarantee.

Its called marketing and propaganda and pure snake-oil salesmanship. When Iraq proved not to be a protection against Hussein at all, he tried to spin it into a something that would prevent Y. But prevent doesn't actually mean stop, which means what good is it exactly? (an obvious answer would be a reduction in risk, but we will get to that later).

You suggested that Blair should resign.
Why, was asked.
Because, you said, this is evidence of yet another mistake in a long line of mistakes.
Huh?
Well, you replied, Blair said that being in Iraq has the advantage of protecting us from terrorist acts because it acts as a front line.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

1) I didn't say he should resign. I said IF he was DECENT he WOULD resign. I have even gone on to state that if I was going to discuss why he SHOULD resign, it would not involve this event.

2) I did not say this was evidence of another mistake in a long line of mistakes. I said that he had made numerous mistakes and this was a symbol of his mistaken statesmanship. Yes it was evidence that something had gone wrong, and that his recent metaphor was graphically undercut, but that is not saying this happened so we now have evidence of another mistake.

3) To a question of "huh"? I would have told you that you misrepresented my position in both points previously. He has offered post hoc rationale because his actions had already failed. One was a hyperbolic metaphor wholly preposterous to this kind of conflict and meant to give people a false sense of security so that they will forget the failure of that other disaster (which in fact had no connection to their security). This was a symbol that there is still risk, there is no such things as "front lines" in this conflict, and so his use of that metaphor to sell Iraq was a sham. It also then should be a symbol (to himself) that he is winging his actions and arguments for action.

Now, this leaves one of two options.

And so the strawman continues... however I will agree that this leaves Blair only two options on how to spin his metaphor. I do find it funny that you are spending so much time worrying about my opinion and use of the word "protect" or "prevent", than a statesman's use of that same imagery to cover a massive error, and you chalk that up to politics, oh well.

Iraq is the most visible position in the war on terror. It is a 'front line'. Fighting can (often does) occur behind the front the lines (Britain would be behind the front line that is Iraq). Indeed, Iraq would be the front line, the USA the second, and Britain the third. Britain was distracted with several big events and it got attacked.

This reminds me of those trying to help the Bush administration spin away the "last throes" statements by Cheney and Rumsfeld, based on what "throe" means? What I can't figure out is how you went from saying it was never said, to now trying to redefine what they meant.

1) A front line is not a "first" line, where you can say this is the first and that is teh second and that is the third. If they are equal or relatively equal sites of legitimate attack, then they are all the front line. Even the ease of hitting one area over another does not make one "front".

2) If that is what they meant then the metaphor was useless in the way they were using it. They were clearly trying to use the "most forward" and not the "most visible".

3) Fighting behind a front line is infiltration and sabotage work and not actual combat along the lines of conventional warfare. That is what terrorists work with almost exclusively, which is why talk of a front line at all in a war against terrorists is the height of stupidity. Even as a metaphor it is an oxymoron when one combines it with geographical conflicts.

4) How on earth can you even consider Iraq the most visible part of this war? It is practically invisible. Look at the amount of "visibility" this relatively small attack by Iraq standards generated within Western media. It dominated everything for a day, and is still front page material. 50+ dead in an Iraq bombing barely gets noticed anymore.

How does this show that?

I said that this showed a security threat still exists and that Iraq has not diverted any real resources. Forgetting for a moment you agreed that the terrorists were probably already in England, and so Iraq was not going to be able to prevent them from attacking, you cannot wipe away my comment with an appeal to potential attacks diverted.

This does show that a risk still exists, and that Iraq has not diverted and real resources. They were able to put into effect a very real attack.

Right so there were no AQ assets before the invastion. Are there any now? If there are, would they be there if we weren't? If there were none before, and some afterwards, that seems like a decent indication that at least some resources were diverted to Iraq.

You asked this question in about three different ways within your post, but I'll confine my answer to just this phrasing of it.

Unconventional Asymmetric warfare does not work like this. I would love to have a quote from Rumsfeld on this but I'm not going to bother hunting it down right now.

These organizations work in covert operation models. Single or multiple agents within a nation, recruit members and resources within a nation who in turn grow their own cells. The cells are almost independent and autonomous. In this model there is little concept of "diverting" resources to a whole other conflict.

They may very well get recruits from other nations, which will move into a third nation. That is different than drawing off manpower from one area to another. For example it is a bizarre stretch of the imagination that Syrian, Iranian, and Saudi members of the AQ-branch growing in Iraq, were originally AQ agents destined for a mission in the US.

They may get funding from some more central links, but that is not always necessary, and in most cases are not funded in such a way as to limit other prospects. Physical resources are not even always purchased but may be stolen. They are generally obtained within the country they will be used in.

For example 911 did not involve much money at all and used stolen resources within the US to inflict damage. The madrid bombings were also cheap and from what I saw on a CNN spot, involved legal explosives within Spain. It would not be surprising to find that is the same for the London bombings (even if the materials were less than legal). As the Iraq War began the head of Homeland Security in the US announced that it was unlikely anyone would bring chem-bio weapons into the US, and were more likely to just come in and manufacture it here.

Iraq provided AQ with much military equipment to plunder and use. I don't have to see AQ manifests to know this, it is stated by US officials based on what they are finding. It is also true that some potential WMD material has been pilfered by someone and could easily move into AQ hands in Iraq... and if one believes in exporting resources then moved out of Iraq to hit the US or Britain.

If we make Iraq a Shangri-La then perhaps that would show the futility of the efforts the terrorists are going through, possibly making it difficult to convince them to give up their lives for a lost cause. It wouldn't mean all terrorists would give up, but it might make recruitment more challenging.

Yeah. IF... Shangri-La, THEN. Shangri-La is a myth, so is Bush and Blair's reasoning. Hell if it they can turn Iraq into that, why can't they do it at home?

Terrorists moved in to Iraq, since they moved to Iraq, they are moving out of other places...they need to spend money on bombs and weapons and probably wages, food, bribes etc for operations in Iraq. That money is not being spent on operations in the west.

Unless they are new recruits, including Iraqis themselves, and they get bombs from munitions lying all over Iraq, and they steal or sell stolen goods to make money. I grant that they may have some money and small resources come in from outside, but then they are not going to be from already existing operations, or in any amounts likely to alter future operations in the US and Britain (or the rest of the world).

All Iraq did is open up a new source for resources, a new base to work from, and stuffed our military and diplomatic personal in a fish bowl for terrorists to attack them.

And of course all of this is to ignore the fact that some of the fighting we are engaged in, in Iraq, is with Iraqi nationals not aligned with AQ as well as criminal organizations. Obviously they are getting resources within Iraq itself, why do you think AQ in Iraq needs massive support from outside, if they don't?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 07-11-2005 6:01 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Modulous, posted 07-12-2005 1:42 PM Silent H has responded

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4673 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 274 of 313 (223362)
07-12-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Silent H
07-12-2005 6:13 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 6:13 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 11:14 AM CanadianSteve has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31096
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 275 of 313 (223366)
07-12-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by crashfrog
07-12-2005 7:28 AM


Re: Christian church take a stance against creationist
But many of the churches have taken a stand, and at the highest levels. One example that I have often quoted here is the Pastoral Letter from Bishop Sims, the Episcopal Bishop of the Atlanta Diocese. Not only is that a public statement of position of the Church, it is also one that is transmitted to every individual and parish in the Bishopric. A Pastoral Letter must be read at every church within the diocese.

We're getting way OT here so I will drop it for now. But there is opposition within the Christian Communion to people like Fred Phelps.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 07-12-2005 7:28 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 276 of 313 (223371)
07-12-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by CanadianSteve
07-12-2005 10:50 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The first thing I did is explain the only criteria on which people can agree to disagree and we do not fit that criteria.

We disagree, but you clearly do not have all of the facts, and what facts you do have you are avoiding putting in logical order.

I can agree that you are wrong.

This message has been edited by holmes, 07-12-2005 11:15 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 10:50 AM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM Silent H has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6708
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 277 of 313 (223372)
07-12-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by CanadianSteve
07-11-2005 5:09 PM


Re: War in the Qur'an
quote:
i don't care whether you believe me or not, and, in any event, it is clear that you won't.

I don't know why I should believe you when you have never given me any reason to believe you. For those who are tuning in late, this particular exchange starts with this post and use the reply links to read forward. The claim is that it is a natural part of the Islamic faith to force people into compliance, and that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity. These verses were supplied to support this claim. I will first of all note that in this list what is claimed to be Surah 2:91,93 are actually 2:191,193 -- a minor typo that has little to do with the argument.

I will only mention in passing the passages in the Christian Bible ordering genocide and the murder of people worshipping pagan gods. That was brought up by other people and ignored. So much for Christianity be inherently more peaceful than Islam.

I will also point out that many of the verses cited in the post were of the "God hates idolators" and "unbelievers will burn in Hell" type -- which are also found in the Christian Bible. Why these particular verses portray Islam as more prone to violence than Christianity when Christianity also has the same verses I don't understand -- CanadianSteve has chosen not to comment on this.

CanadianSteve quotes 2:191,193 to show that Muslims are ordered to make war on unbelievers. I supplied translations to these verses that are completely different than what he supplied. Strangely (but not so strange -- it does seem to fit a pattern), CanadianSteve never mentioned these verses again, again ignoring an inconvenient fact. That is, until I found a translation that matches his, and I brought it up. Suddenly, CanadianSteve's interest in these verses is renewed -- my conclusion to this is that if a something is not on frontpage or CanadianSteve's other hate-group sources then he has no idea what to do. At any rate, he then claims that his translation is the majority of translations without explaining how he knows this or supplying any reference to this, and he claims that the majority of Islamic authorities agree with this translation without telling us who these authorities are or why we should believe that they represent the majority.

But this is not all. CandadianSteve's quotation of 2:191,193 leaves out 2:190,192. When 2:190-193 are read together, it is clear that this passage is speaking of a defensive war. Even in the worst possible translation basically says, "Don't start a war yourself, but if someone insists on a fight annihilate them completely." This is quite a bit different than the misquoted portion which seems to say, "Fight the pagans and annihilate them completely." CanadianSteve has never explained why his source quotes 1:191,193 without including 2:190,192 which are crucial in understanding the passage.

Finally, I discussed Surah 9. Surah 9 talks of breaking a treaty with the pagans and fighting them until none of them are left. It also mentions that prisoners of war must not be mistreated until they have an oppurtunity to hear of Islam and convert, in which case they are to be freed (say -- I wonder if the prisoners at Gitmo have that opportunity?), but that is not entirely relevant here. Again, what is missing is the context of this Surah. I explained (and found sources to back this up) that this Surah was "revealed" at the time of the battle of Makkah. There was a treaty of peace between the pagans and the Muslims, but the pagans were violating the treaty and endangering the Muslim community. This passage was to reassure the Muslims that breaking the treaty would not be wrong on their part, and that a war to eliminate the threat is justified. Far from being a passage that advocates war as a means of conversion, it makes the sensible provision that one is not bound to honor a treaty that the other side is not honoring. CanadianSteve, again, does not say anything about this commentary -- presumably because his sources do not mention this commentary and he hasn't had time to make something up himself.

Incidently, for those who tuned in late and don't want to read the previous posts can find the translations I have used and their commentary at this link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 5:09 PM CanadianSteve has not yet responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4673 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 278 of 313 (223373)
07-12-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Silent H
07-12-2005 11:14 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
We'll also have to agree to disagree about who is in command of the facts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 11:14 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 11:45 AM CanadianSteve has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 279 of 313 (223394)
07-12-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by CanadianSteve
07-12-2005 11:23 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
We'll also have to agree to disagree about who is in command of the facts.

I cited actual passages. Are you calling me a liar or what? How can I agree to that?

This is part of my point on the agree to disagree thing. If you believe that I am not in command of the facts then there is no agreeing to disagree. One can only do that when the facts are accepted and yet can be inconclusive.

What it sounds like you are arguing is that I should agree to stop saying you are wrong, and let you slink out as if that is okay. Well its not. You put forward a position and I have responded with credible arguments.

If you don't wnat to answer them, then just stop responding, but don't try and white wash your hasty exit with a layer of "agree to disagree".


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 11:23 AM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 11:52 AM Silent H has responded

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4673 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 280 of 313 (223395)
07-12-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Silent H
07-12-2005 11:45 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
Again, and again, and again, we'll have to disagree about the reasoning, the facts, the sources, and whatever else. Neither of us will convince the other of anything, including the greater credibility of our respective sources.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 11:45 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 12:34 PM CanadianSteve has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 281 of 313 (223406)
07-12-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by CanadianSteve
07-12-2005 11:52 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
We will disagree, but we will not agree to disagree. I am adamantly against your statements of fact and logic. If I see them I will continue to post against them because they are factually and logically errant.

Hence I will not agree to disagree. You ARE wrong.

Neither of us will convince the other of anything, including the greater credibility of our respective sources.

Mine came out of the Koran (as far as Islamic teachings from teh Koran go), and history texts as far as history goes, where did yours come from?

This message has been edited by holmes, 07-12-2005 12:35 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 11:52 AM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-12-2005 12:42 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 283 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 12:53 PM Silent H has responded

  
CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4673 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 282 of 313 (223408)
07-12-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Silent H
07-12-2005 12:34 PM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
From the Koran.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 12:34 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3877 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 283 of 313 (223410)
07-12-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Silent H
07-12-2005 12:34 PM


Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
Muslim scholar: Killing civilians OK
Head of Islamic center in London responds to attack

"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law," said Hani Al-Siba'i, head of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London.

Al-Siba'i, in an interview with the Arab news channel al-Jazeera, elaborated, "There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not."

Dar Al-Harb refers to the Muslim concept of the world being divided into two "houses," the House of Islam and the remaining territories, the House of War, or Dar Al-Harb...

"If al-Qaida indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it," he said. "It rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud."

But al-Siba'i said British Prime Minister Tony Blair "made a grave error when he spoke before the investigation and claimed that the perpetrators of these acts were acting in the name of Islam."

The Muslim leader said "the possibility that it was done by the intelligence agency of another Western country hostile to Britain" should not be ruled out.

He also conjectured it could have been done by "some Zionist Americans who wanted to overshadow the G-8 summit."


I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong

Do you know what your DNC stands for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 12:34 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Meeb, posted 07-12-2005 1:01 PM Tal has responded
 Message 287 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 1:59 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 289 by Chiroptera, posted 07-12-2005 2:45 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 292 by Jazzns, posted 07-12-2005 5:14 PM Tal has not yet responded

  
Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 313 (223413)
07-12-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Tal
07-12-2005 12:53 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
Would you perhaps prefer the term "collateral damage"?

BTW. The site you are quoting is advertising a book about the Bible Codes ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44348 )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 12:53 PM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 1:04 PM Meeb has not yet responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3877 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 285 of 313 (223415)
07-12-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Meeb
07-12-2005 1:01 PM


Re: Naw..its not Islamic religious law...
What's wrong with advertising a book about the bible codes?

I first heard this story from the news on the Radio. It is legit, unlike the Koran flushing story.

This message has been edited by Tal, 07-12-2005 01:07 PM

This message has been edited by Tal, 07-12-2005 01:17 PM

This message has been edited by Tal, 07-12-2005 01:18 PM


I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong

Do you know what your DNC stands for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Meeb, posted 07-12-2005 1:01 PM Meeb has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019