Al-Qaeda-linked New York jihad plotters tried to rent a U-Haul truck

To: Virgil

Stopping muslim immigration to the US would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks since none of the attackers were immigrants.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia, 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

ref: http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motive

To: Virgil

Stopping muslim immigration to the US would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks since none of the attackers were immigrants.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia, 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

ref: http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motive

To: Virgil

Stopping muslim immigration to the US would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks since none of the attackers were immigrants.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia, 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

ref: http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motive

To: Virgil

Stopping muslim immigration to the US would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks since none of the attackers were immigrants.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia, 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

ref: http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motive

To: Virgil

Stopping muslim immigration to the US would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks since none of the attackers were immigrants.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia, 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

ref: http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motive

To: Virgil

Stopping muslim immigration to the US would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks since none of the attackers were immigrants.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia, 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

ref: http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motive

To: Virgil

Stopping muslim immigration to the US would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks since none of the attackers were immigrants.

What motivated Osama Bin Laden to declare "war" on the US govt ?

Here are the main motivations in chronological order :

(a) Osama Bin Laden read about the US govt. fire and atom bombing Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July of 1944 when Tojo resigned and Japan was negotiating concessions to the communists but FDR did not care about communists either killing tens of millions of civilians or that the crushing of Japan enabled communism to expand in Asia resulting in hundreds of thousands of US soldiers either dying horrifying deaths or being maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life during the cold war.

(b) Osama Bin Laden must have read about US/Allied POWs in Japan and hundreds of thousands of Japanese children being terrorized, tortured and burned alive in the US fire and atom bombings of Japan and must have concluded that if the FDR/Truman did not care about the plight of their own US soldiers captive in Japan and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, why should Osama bin Laden care about lives when strategic goals were more important.

(c) Osama Bin Laden read about the US government in the 50s overthrowing a democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran and eventually the Shah terrorized his own people in Iran, thanks to the military support given by the US government

(d) He read about the US government in the 60s, arming the Israeli government that used those very US weapons to collaterally kill palestinian children and babies

(e) He saw the US government in the 70s using napalm, agent orange and carpet bombing Vietnam and Cambodia, collaterally killing hundreds of thousands or even millions.

(f) He saw the US government in the 70s supporting cruel, murderous dictators like the Shah of Iran.

(g) He saw the US government in the 80s siding with the "christian" militias in Lebanon, the very christian militias that massacred muslims.

(h) He saw the US government in the 80s supporting cruel dictators like Saddam Hussein.

(i) He saw the US government in the 90s imposing cruel sanctions on Iraq resulting in UN reports stating that half a million Iraqi children died prematurely due to the sanctions.

(j) He saw that the cruel Saudi dictatorship was being supported by the US government , the very dictatorship that tortured dissidents who opposed the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

(k) He saw that the US government never left any country in which it had troops in ( example; US troops still present in Germany and Japan, even after the war had ended decades ago).

(l) He saw that warnings to the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia were ignored.

(m) He saw that the only way to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia was to launch a terror campaign.

(n) He saw that his terror campaign against the US had failed and US troops still remained in Saudi Arabia, 9 years after the gulf war had ended.

(o) He saw that the only sure way to get the US government to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia was to launch an attack on the US homeland on 9/11/01.

(p) He saw that the US government finally gave into his demands to withdraw troops, only after the 9/11 attacks, and US troops finally left Saudi Arabia in 2003, almost 13 years after the gulf war had ended

ref: http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Motive

SORRY ABOUT THE MULTIPLE POSTINGS DUE TO WEBSITE PROBLEMS THAT GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE POSTINGS DID NOT GO THROUGH

It's a friendly gesture towards Muslims, don't ya' know.

Besides, the little icons look like color negatives of lily pads.
Perhaps it's supposed to have a calming affect on the brain.

Dumbledoresarmy stated :

the alleged 'grievances' that drove a pure and innocent Osama Bin Laden to attack the Great Satan, the United States.

Comment :

Osama Bin Laden is not pure and innocent and neither is the US the great Satan.

The US govt. was wrong in stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and Osama Bin Laden was evil in murdering 3000 Americans on 9/11/01.

Dumbledoresarmy stated :

Osama Bin Laden's *real* motives, as expressed to fellow Muslims in Arabic communications, were and are purely Islamic.

Comment :

Everything Osama Bin Laden does is purely Islamic and the attack on 9/11 was an islamic jihad against the "infidel US govt" that "occupied "holy" Saudi Arabia "

Here are Osama's exact words regarding President Bush and Osama's motive behind 9/11 : "Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?"

ref :
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html

Osama Bin Laden tells it like it is. There is no reason for Osama Bin Laden to disguise his motives because when muslims have been on a jihad, they tell you the reason for the jihad

He clearly started his terror campaign against the US right after the US stationed its troops in Saudi Arabia.

Yes, he does want non-muslims to convert to islam but that is not the reason behind his terror campaign.

His terror campaign or jihad was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Dumbledoresarmy stated :

America is targeted by the Mohammedans today, for the same reasons that Byzantium and India were targeted by Mohammedans way back when: because it is the biggest and fattest and richest non-Muslim entity, with the most prospective booty for the 'sons of allah' (as Oriana Fallaci called them, sarcastically).

Comment :

In history, every country that has conquered another country has almost always to do with money and power. So its not surprising that muslims would conquer another country due to money and power.

In the case of the US govt's imperial conquests from its original 13 colonies, the story of power and money is always the same as the muslim conquests while using religion or ideology as an excuse for both the conquests by the US govt and the conquests by the muslims

To Hesparado;

Concerning the two faces of Al-Qaeda, I would discuss the issue if I thought the references were authentic and from Osama Bin Laden.

if you are drawing conclusions based on written texts, those texts could be written by anybody other than Osama Bin Laden.

To : dumbledoresarmy

There are no denying the facts :

(1) The fact still remains that there have been more murders by the hundreds of millions in non-muslim lands than in muslim lands

ref : http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

(2) I do not believe that Islam is more powerful than Christianity and just as you admit that "christians" do not obey Christ as evidenced by the dismal record of "christians" against non-christians, there is ample evidence that Islam is not more powerful than christianity and thus muslims, just like christians, do not follow their own religion.

(3) Because Islam has the same power as christianity does, muslims are not able to obey islam, just as christians are not able to follow christ

(4) The main reason why muslims are not able to follow the Koran/hadith regarding jews or christians is because muslims know those references to jews and christians refer to those jews and christians during the time of Muhammad and do not pertain to jews and christians living today

(5) A very small number of muslims apply those koranic/hadith references to jews and christians today but that is the exception to the rule

(6) Osama Bin laden could only find 19 muslims who wanted to commit murder on 9/11 and could not get the millions of American muslims to attack America on 9/11 because almost all muslims do not take Koranic/Hadith references to treacherous non-muslims as applying to non-muslims today

Foolster41 stated :

There may well be more MURDERS (killings not sanctioned by the government) in non islamic counties, but there are far more unjust beatings and brutal murders within Muslim countries for being non-Muslim, not conforming to strict Muslim Morales, dressing in a western fashion, etc. Why do you think that is? Do you think fascism is a superior model of goverment to democracy because it is better at preventing crime?

Comment :

Its a fact that in non-muslim countries, more than a hundred million people have died from genocides compared to the genocides in muslim countries

ref : http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

Beatings and brutal murders for being non-muslim ? do you have a reference ?

Non-muslims are allowed to wear skimpy clothing and drink in all of the Sharia states in Malaysia.

Foolster41 stated :

(2) I don't know what you mean about Islam being more "powerful". Islam However by virtue of it's tenets seem to focus more on power(as it is currently practiced in Islamic countries mind, modern Christians and Jews don't enforce the laws of the torah on non-beleivers).

Comment :

I said that Islam is not more powerful than Christianity.

What islamic laws are enforced on unbelievers ?

Foolster41 stated :

(3)This is a confusing point and seems to be there just to confuse. True both Christians and Muslims may claim the name of their faith and not follow it. However, when a Christian disobeys it is the order "love thy neighbor as thyself" and when a Muslim disobeys it is disobeying things like "If anyone leaves their faith, kill them." and verses that comment emenity(sp?) with non-believers, which they use to justify persecution of non-believers. Ah! before you object, please look at what the religious leaders of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are saying and you will see they are following this.

Comment :

Persecution of non-believers ? do you have a reference ?

Since Islam has the same power as christianity does, muslims are not able to obey islam, just as christians are not able to follow christ.

Religious leaders saying stuff does not mean anything unless they back up their saying with action.

So what is actually happening in muslim countries ?

how many muslims are actually following references to killing in the Koran/Hadith ?

Foolster41 stated :

(4)True, Muslims in WESTERN countries may not follow these commands, but you at least have to actknowledge they are there. Also, this commands are alive and well in Islamic countries as I said in point (3).

Comment :

There are the genocidal jewish texts ( eg Deut. 20:16), christian texts where Jesus said He has come to bring the "sword" and all the violence depicted in the Book of Revelations and also there is violence depicted in islamic texts

but it does not mean the followers of Christ or Jews or muslims will follow their religious texts that pertain to violence

Foolster41 stated :

(5) [Citation Needed]

Comment :

A very small number of muslims apply those koranic/hadith references to jews and christians today but that is the exception to the rule.

The citation is what happened on 9/11. Out of 1.5 billion muslims, Osama Bin Laden could only inspire 19 muslims to commit murder

Foolster41 stated :

(6) He only needed 19. Hundreds of Muslims cheered and evidently agree with Osama Bin Ladin's idea of "True Islam".

Comment :

Osama Bin Laden was not being "generous" on 9/11 and wanting to kill only 3000 Americans.

If Osama Bin Laden could get a million American muslims to commit murder on 9/11, he would have but he could only get 19 muslims to commit murder on 9/11.

The fact is that Al-Qaeda is a tiny organization living in caves with a very limited budget, no war planes, no tanks and no nuclear weapons.

The reason no muslim country will ever hand over nuclear weapons to Al-Qaeda is the same reason why the Soviet Union never handed over nuclear weapons to the custody of Cuba and that reason is wanting monopoly on power; no dictator will ever want to share power with Al-Qaeda because dictators by nature are selfish and want all power to themselves and would never want to share power by handing over nuclear weapons to a non-state terrorist organization.

I assure you, that the chances of an earth destroying asteroid hitting the earth is more likely than Al-Qaeda taking over the world.

The way to marginalize Al-Qaeda even further is to change US foreign policy and bring our troops back home while covertly taking care of Al-Qaeda through our rendition programs

Foolster41 stated :

"I could not find any beatings or brutal murders specifically for being a non-muslim."

You didn't really do much searching then. LThere IS a search bar on the right you know. I'll do your research for you. The following are stories of Muslims mistreating people in general, including some stories of persecution of non beleivers.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/spencer-muslims-persecute-christians.html

Comment :

I am surprised that none of the muslim publications are coming up with a daily "western world" watch, a counterpart to jihad watch.

There is plenty of goings-on in the western world that probably will dwarf anything happening in a similar non-war zone setting in the muslim world. (example : American man beats up woman while spewing racial slurs : http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/09/black-woman-gets-beaten-in-public-and.html )

The targeting of innocent minorities for alleged crimes/sins perpetrated by others is common everywhere, including the US : In 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, Arab Americans, Muslims, and Sikhs were victimized in nearly five percent of the total number of hate crimes reported that year (481 out of 9,730), a seventeen-fold increase over the prior year.

ref : http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/arab-americans.html

All your references are in war zones or near war zones ( Pakistan, Egypt and Sudan ).

Do you have any references from Malaysia or Turkey or 45 other muslim countries where muslims and non-muslims live in peace ?

While reading my response, please keep in mind that

I am not justifying any form of violence, whether it be a war or terrorism.

No matter what the justification, war or violence is never the answer.

If I suggest a motive, it does not mean I am justifying the actions resulting from that motive

Here are the main points regarding the killings of christians in Pakistan, followed by comments:

(1)
Rumors of a Qur'an desecration at a Christian wedding in the eastern village of Kurian led to violent demonstrations

(2) Pakistani authorities said the Qur'an desecration allegations were unfounded (so the authorities were not on the side of the mob )

(3) A banned Sunni extremist groups in the area had incited the attacks ( since the Sunni group was banned, the Pakistani govt is not totally pro-extremist )

(4) Nothing happened to the Christians and human rights groups who protested the killings as Christian schools nationwide closed for three days in symbolic protest. ( here again, muslims did not stop the protest )

(5) Violence against Christians in the Punjab is sadly nothing new: observers mark over 30 group incidents against Christians since September 11, 2001. ( so its not an every day occurrence ...average of one every three months and only in the Punjab region of Pakistan )

(6) Pakistani TV and online media spread the news widely enough to spark national outrage. ( the media did not bury the story and so the media is not totally anti-christian )

(7) Pakistan's Parliament issued a unanimous condemnation of the violence. ( the Pakistani politicians are not totally anti-christian )

(8) Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani pledged to review laws "detrimental to religious harmony,"

(9) "(Pakistani) People were shocked to see the brutality committed by a handful of people

(10) Gojra's Christians refused to bury the dead quickly. Instead they used coffins containing the burned bodies to block the town's railway track until police filed a report against the local residents and officials involved in the attack. ( Christians in Pakistan have the power to protest and influence the police )

(11)
Incidents such as Gojra will happen again unless changes are made to existing laws and their enforcement, said Asma Jahangir, chairperson of the Lahore-based Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. ( Muslims are part of the human rights movement in Pakistan )

(12) Observers believe a sizable number of Pakistan's Muslims agree that existing blasphemy laws should be repealed or at least amended. ( Pakistanis are not entirely anti-christian )

(13) Christians in Pakistan are viewed by many local Muslims as agents of American military action in the region, and thus become targets of revenge because they are accessible and vulnerable while the U.S. is not, observers said.

ref : http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/augustweb-only/131-51.0.html

CONCLUSION :

The reference did not show that the killings was because of being a christian but rather rumors of desecration of the Koran.

If a muslim desecrated the Koran, he would have met the same fate, so it was not because of a person's religion but the rumor concerning the desecration.

Also, Pakistan is a part of the war zone, as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are present in Pakistan and any group suspected of being affiliated with the US can be targeted.

In a war, the innocent pay with their lives. ( example : the US fire and atom bombing of numerous Japanese cities, even though the hundred of thousands of children who were terrorized, tortured and burned alive by US fire and atom bombs had nothing to do with the crimes of the Japanese govt.)

So likewise, in any war zone, any group that is suspected to be affiliated with the invader is subject to killings. Even in non-war zone America, innocent minorities were targeted by Americans after the attacks on 9/11.

ref : http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/arab-americans.html

All indications is that a small group of muslims were incited by a banned extremist group to kill those responsible for the alleged Koran desecration and not because the victims were christian. The same thing would have happened to a muslim if he desecrated the Koran.

Here are the main points regarding a deadly riot that happened in the US :

53 people died and thousands more were injured during the Los Angeles riots of 1992 because the rioters did not agree with a court verdict. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once every minute at some points.

A new group of protesters appeared at Parker Center, the LAPD's headquarters, by about 6:30 p.m., and 15 minutes later, the crowd at Florence and Normandie had started looting, attacking vehicles and people, mainly whites.

Typically the innocent victims have some affiliation to the alleged perpetrators of the crime and in this case the affiliation was based on race.

CONCLUSION :

People riot according to their belief system and that belief system can be based on religion, ideology or race, so both the riots in Pakistan and the riots in the US have one thing in common : a belief that there was an injustice or sin involved and taking the law into their own hands to rectify the perceived injustice or sin

Its the same reasoning employed by mobs when they lynched thousands of blacks and whites in the 1890s and lynchings continued until the 1960s.

If peaceful America can create deadly riots, is it surprising that in war zone Afghanistan/Pakistan that riots can arise due to striking out at perceived allies of the US ?

The following is about the belief systems of murderers in the US who believe that they are above the law and they can brutalize their own family due to their belief that power and might makes right :

We have read about numerous cases in the US in which loving fathers in our non-war zone and trauma-less America have nonetheless terrorized, tortured and killed their own children or pregnant wives, either through suffocation, drowning, hanging, beheading, stabbings or shootings,

so is it surprising that in Iraq or Afghanistan today, in the trauma of a war zone, where numerous victims see their loved ones being killed or blinded, maimed, deformed or paralyzed or disfigured for life due to either US bombings or sectarian violence, that those victims are vulnerable to Al-Qaida's propaganda which is able to influence the victims to take revenge and kill Muslims allied with the US or collaterally/accidentally kill Muslim children in the process of attacking US forces or Shia militias ?

Foolster41 stated :

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/church-firebombed-in-egypt-after-opposition-from-muslim-neighbors.html

Comment :

There was no beatings or murders involved here for being a non-muslim.

The church is an old church, so why burn it now ?

In fact, the fire only started after the christians left the church and not during the church service

Possible motives behind church fire carried out by possibly two men:

(1) The Muslims (neighbors) complained that when weddings were held at Church, the number of invited guests with cars, led to traffic congestion."

(2) on going humanitarian disaster in neighboring Gaza and christians in Egypt might be perceived to be in alliance or sympathetic with the israeli govt.

ref : http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2009/s09090066.htm

In peaceful, non-war zone America :

An Indiana man hostile to Christianity has been sentenced to 42 years in prison for arson : attacks at more than two dozen U.S. churches in the mid- and late-1990s.

ref :
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+church+arsonist+(Jay+Scott+Ballinger)+sentenced+to+42+years:...-a030577116

Foolster41 stated :

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/random-jihad-in-egypt-muslim-murders-christian-shopkeeper-stabs-two-others.html

Comment :

Here again, was the motive because the victim was a christian or was it something else ( according to the police, the attacks were started by a mentally deranged man )

Clashes between Christian and Muslim Egyptians are rare, but tensions sometimes erupt in disputes over women or land, particularly for religious buildings.

The incident sparked clashes between the christians and muslims.

The christians in Egypt have the power to retaliate and two days of street clashes between Muslims and Christians erupted at a funeral, leaving one Muslim man dead, 40 Egyptians of both faiths wounded and dozens more arrested

ref : http://www.topnews.in/egyptian-christians-murder-sparks-sectarian-tension-2214897

What about the other side of the world :

Why the spree killing in non-war and peaceful western countries ? :

There are more spree killing incidents in the western world than in the muslim world :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

So why do people in the US go on spree killing ? its based on a belief system that power and might makes right which gives rise to more spree killings, compared to islamic based societies

Foolster41 stated :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/sudan-woman-arrested-for-wearing-pants-spared-lashes-told-to-pay-fine.html

Comment :

The incident did not involve beatings or murder of a non-muslim.

Al-Hussein, who was arrested in July for wearing pants deemed too tight and a blouse considered too sheer, will appeal to the constitutional court ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/sudan-woman-arrested-for-wearing-pants-spared-lashes-told-to-pay-fine.html )

A non-muslim girl can wear skimpy clothing in all of the Sharia states in Malaysia, so the incident in Sudan was probably a muslim woman wearing indecent clothing

There are decency laws in the US too but the decency laws in muslim countries are stricter for muslims.

I rather live in country where there are stricter decency laws as they have in the American school system.

Foolster41 stated :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/232-sudanese-slaves-liberated-from-jihadi-overlords.html

Comment :

The reference relates to a war zone in which the most despicable things happen because of the unending cycles of violence.

Tensions started due to the classic British strategy of "divide and rule ".

The "christian" south rebelled against the government of Sudan which resulted in the cycles of violence.

As I said before, the innocent always pay for alleged war crimes, just as the US govt made the hundreds of thousands of Japanese children pay dearly for the war crimes of the Japanese govt when the US govt terrorized, tortured and burned alive or maimed, disfigured, deformed, blinded or paralyzed for life, hundred of thousands of japanese children in the fire and atom bombings of Japan in 1945 when Japan was already defeated as early as July 1944 when Tojo resigned and the Japanese govt was negotiating concessions to the communists.

The targeting of innocent minorities for alleged crimes/sins perpetrated by others is common everywhere, including the US : In 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, Arab Americans, Muslims, and Sikhs were victimized in nearly five percent of the total number of hate crimes reported that year (481 out of 9,730), a seventeen-fold increase over the prior year.

ref : http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/arab-americans.html

Foolster41 stated :

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/misunderstanders-of-islam-gather-in-iran-i-am-sure-millions-of-people-who-love-islam-and-the-koran-w.html

Comment :

In this reference, there are no beatings or murders of non-muslims for being non-muslim.

Foolster41 stated :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/pakistan-muslim-groups-threaten-more-violence-against-christians.html

Comment :

This is the same incident reported earlier, so please read my comments above

Foolster41 stated :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/pakistan-eight-christians-burned-alive.html

Comment :

Same incident as referenced earlier, so please read my comments above

Foolster41 stated :

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/07/egypt-muslims-burn-church-police-arrest-christians.html

Comment :

This another case of alleged crimes and not for being a non-muslim

Two possible motives :

(1) a film shown by Christian Copts. perceived as derogatory to Muslims.

ref : http://www.copts4freedom.com/new_page_6.htm

(2) "One (Egyptian ) police guard went to the neighboring village asking for reinforcement, saying the Copts ( christians) demolished a mosque and killed two Muslims." The security forces came to the village, and placed a curfew only on Copts. They arrested 11 Copts and 5 Muslims. "Our biggest loss is the emotional hurt," said Rev. Shahata, "we lived all our life peacefully together, and now this happens from our Muslim neighbors."(end)

ref : http://www.aina.org/news/20090708140417.htm

Notice the Reverend said that muslims and christians have been living in peace "all our lives " so this incident was a rarity, at least in his experience.

Conclusion:

Here is what happened in the US :

Within a recent three-week period, three small, predominately black churches were destroyed by fire in Greene County, Ala., an isolated area of the state not far from the Mississippi line. Those apparent arsons, which occurred in late December and early January, followed several other attacks on black churches within the past year both in adjoining Sumter County, Ala. and in nearby Tennessee.

In Knoxville last month, police said they found racial slurs spray-painted on the charred walls of a church after it had been attacked with a Molotov cocktail. It was the fifth suspicious fire reported at a black church in Tennessee within the past year.

ref : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/churches/reaction.htm

The treatment of Copts pales in comparison to the treatment of blacks in the US in the past. You will not find stories of Copts being packed like sardines inside the claustrophobic bowels of ships as the black slaves were, many suffocated to death

ref : http://www.essortment.com/all/historyofslave_rmpw.htm

SOLUTION :

The solution is dialog, intelligent debate, diplomacy, security assurances and financial incentives to the Egyptian security forces that instigate the riots.

Foolster41 stated :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/07/pakistan-muslims-torture-christian-on-false-blasphemy-charges.html

Comment :

here again, the alleged crime of burning the Koran and not because the victim was a christian.

The incident occurred because of jealousy over the victim's successful business and his business competitor accused the victim of burning the Koran when the victim was actually burning waste paper.

Christians and Muslims have lived in a peaceful way for decades in that area and had never registered incidents of this nature.

Poverty, envy in business affairs and the economic crisis may have exacerbated tensions, causing confessional hatred.

ref : http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15685&size=A

Mob rule is no different from what happened in the US when riots broke out due to a verdict that was perceived to be unjust.

Both mob crimes in the US and in Pakistan was due to perceived injustice or sin and not because of the person's religious affiliation.

Foolster41 stated :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/pakistan-muslims-accuse-mentally-challenged-girl-of-blasphemy.html

Comment :

here again, there was no beating or murder because the girl was a christian.

She was alleged to have burned the Koran and later released by police when she was found to be mentally unstable and she was not beaten.

ref : http://www.persecution.org/suffering/ICCnews/newsdetail.php?newscode=10318&title=muslims-accuse-mentally-challenged-girl-of-blasphemy

Foolster41 stated :
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/islamic-hate-sites-threaten-jews-and-bloggers.html

Comment :

Here again, no beatings or murder due to being a non-muslim.

The reference are threats that have been made but no actual actions involved.

Threats have to be taken seriously by the FBI and investigated.

If you look at the numerous postings on youtube, you will find a free-for-all of threats from Americans and foreigners on all kinds of subjects.

Here is a white supremacist who advocates violence :

http://newsaxon.org/forum/posts/id_4507/title_Do-these-facts-disturb-you/

Threats that are backed by actual actions have to investigated by the FBI but so far the reference is to somebody who is making threats without any concrete action.

Foolster41 stated :

Did you already forget mumbai? It didn't happen that long ago.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/mumbai-jihad-leader-the-manner-of-your-death-will-instill-fear-in-the-unbelievers-this-is-a-battle-b.html

Comment :

Here again, the murders were not committed because the people were non-muslims.

The mumbai attacks was a direct result of human rights violations in Kashmir by the Indian army.

International Human Right Groups have accused the Indian army of committing grave Human rights violations in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir

As mentioned earlier, war creates cycles of violence and each cycle of violence is brutal and involve the killing of innocents who are in anyway affiliated to the Indian army just as the innocent children of Japan had to pay for the war crimes of the Japanese govt.

War dehumanizes human beings on both sides.

Here is an example of bringing out the worst in some of our soldiers due to war :

US soldier shot and killed a 14 year old Iraqi teen girl's mother, father and baby sister, then became the third US soldier to rape her before shooting her in the face. Her body was set on fire March 12, 2006, at the teen's rural home outside Mahmoudiya, Iraq, about 20 miles south of Baghdad.

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings

Does the above incident mean that all US soldiers are bad ? off course not, so likewise, the bad acts of some muslims does not mean all muslims are bad

Foolster41 stated :

"Also, Muslims did help Jews during the holocaust"
Now you're using your old falacy backwords. That SOME muslims helped jews during the holocaust doesn't mean that in general the MAJORITY who were the mainstream of Islamic thought didn't. All four schools of thought agree with the supression of non-muslims!

Comment :

Muslims helping Jews during the holocaust shows that Muslims are capable of caring, just as some muslims are capable of evil acts.

If a muslim chooses to be good, he can find plenty of verses in the Koran to help him and if a muslim chooses to be evil, he can find verses in the Koran to justify his evil, so the Koran by itself does not force a person to do either good or evil, just as a gun does not force a person to do good or bad.

When you mean supression, what exactly do you mean ?

Here is what was allowed by Muhammad :

(1) non-Muslims under Islamic Shari`ah do possess special rights irrespective of whether they constitute a minority or a majority.

(2) Islam makes it clear that Muslims are not allowed under any circumstances to burn holy places or books of non-Muslims or to abuse them.

(3) Muhammad extended to religious minorities, rights that are guaranteed to them in the Qur'an.

(4) a real and actual social contract agreed upon by Muslims, Jews and others, stipulating that they all would be treated as equal citizens of Madinah, giving the non-Muslims the right of choosing a legal system they wished their affairs be governed by, be it Islamic or Jewish law or pre-Islamic Arab tribal traditions.

(5) the principle of “no compulsion in religion”, freedom of expression and religious practice was open to everyone.

(6) Muhammad gave the people the right of protection, security, peace and justice; not only to Muslims, but also to the Jews who lived in the City of Madinah, as well as the allies of Jews who were non-Muslims.

(7) Muhammad recognized Jews as a separate political and ethnic minority, and allowed them to practice their religion quite freely.

(8) In fact, Jews were considered on an equal basis as Muslims under the Islamic State.

(9) Muhammad entered into many alliances, many treaties with the Muslims and the non-Muslims, securing peace and tranquility for the Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

(10) There is no compulsion in Islam to accept Islam as your faith.

(11) Muhammad provided excellent facilities for non-Muslims. For instance in his time, the monks of Mount Sinai were given protection. The monasteries were protected, the monks themselves were protected from any attack or persecution.

(12) Churches could not be pulled down to be replaced by mosques or to build houses. They were seen as a place of sanctuary and protected by the Islamic state.

(13) The Jews were given a free hand to practice their faith.

(14) their right to have a holiday, the Jews on a Saturday, and the Christians on a Sunday. Under an Islamic state, Shariah stipulates that if a Jewish person or a Christian person wishes to have a holiday, to have time off on their particular religious day, they should be given that.

(15) There also exist the rights of non-Muslim minorities. They would be protected from any external threat from any other nation.

(16) Non-muslims would be protected from internal threat, persecution and prejudice.

(17) Muhammad said : "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them in more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will, I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment."

(18) Non-Muslim minorities, in certain matters of personal law, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance would be able to implement their own religious laws and would not be subject to Shari`ah-law.

(19) Non-muslim right to consumption of alcohol and pork

ref : http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503545930&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar

If the above rules by Muhammad are not followed by muslims, it would not be surprising, since christians do not follow the pacifism of Jesus either

Foolster41 stated :

"Today, many Muslim majority countries have signed international human rights treaties, but the impact of these largely remains to be seen in local legal systems." Which countries? When did this happen? What is the specific text of these decerations?

Comment :

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights.

here are the contents :

(1) The Declaration starts by forbidding "any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations".

(2) It continues on to proclaim the sanctity of life, and declares the "preservation of human life" as "a duty prescribed by the Shariah".

(3) In addition the CDHRI guarantees "non-belligerents such as old men, women and children", "wounded and the sick" and "prisoners of war", the right to be fed, sheltered and access to safety and medical treatment in times of war.

(4) acts of terrorism are violations of human rights.

(5) Women are given "equal human dignity", "own rights to enjoy", "duties to perform", "own civil entity", "financial independence", and the "right to retain her name and lineage"

(6) The Declaration makes the husband responsible for the social and financial protection of the family.

(7) The Declaration gives both parents the rights over their children, and makes it incumbent upon both of them to protect the child, before and after birth.

(8) The Declaration also entitles every family the "right to privacy".

(9) It also forbids the demolition, confiscation and eviction of any family from their residence.

(10) The Declaration protects each individual from arbitrary arrest, torture, maltreatment and/or indignity.

(11) Furthermore, no individual is to be used for medical or scientific experiments

(12) It also prohibits the taking of hostages of any individual "for any purpose" whatsoever.

(13) Moreover, the CDHRI guarantees the presumption of innocence; guilt is only to be proven through a trial in "which he [the defendant] shall be given all the guarantees of defence".

(14) The Declaration also emphasizes the "full right to freedom and self-determination", and its opposition to enslavement, oppression, exploitation and colonialism.

(15) The CDHRI declares the rule of law, establishing equality and justice for all.

(16) The CDHRI also guarantees all individuals the "right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs".

(17) The CDHRI also forbids any abuse of authority 'subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.'

(18) "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah."

(19) "Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah."

(20) "Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."

(21) "It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination."

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_of_Human_Rights_in_Islam

Conclusion :

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a step in the right direction and to further human rights, the US govt needs to co-opt all muslim govts and have them on the CIA payroll so that human rights can be further advanced in muslim states

Foolster41 stated :

I know of one, it's called the CAIRO DECERALTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS which undermines the REAL declaration by the UN.
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
Notice that Shia'ra law, a brutal law is still kept in it's high place.

Comment :

Aspects of Sharia could be regarded as brutal but if somebody learns the rules of living under Sharia, there are advantages in living under Sharia : its pro-life, anti-abortion and anti-pornography.

There are many muslims states that have not adopted Sharia and are secular states :

Burkina Faso
Chad
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
Somalia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgystan
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
Turkey

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Secular_states_with_majority_Muslim_populations

Conclusion ;

Secular muslim states shows that Islam can reform and can move away from Sharia

Foolster41 stated :

And why aren't they giving civil rights then in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, pakistan and Egypt?

Comment :

Same reason why the US only gave full civil rights to blacks only in the 1960s and since islam is supposed to be the equivalent to 15 th century christianity, one should conclude that islam has been much more progressive than 15 th century christianity, the century in which there was the excruciating tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, Joan of Arc was burned alive by the state, the expulsion of all Jews from Spain unless they converted to christianity and the century in which the Pope decreed that the non-christian world belonged to Spain and Portugal.

Foolster41 stated :

You claim Islam has in general rights, but I have shown they have not in at least four or five Islamic countires. By the way there ARE bank robberies in LA.
ref: http://www.labankrobbers.org/

Comment :

There are over 50 muslim majority countries and you would expect those countries which are far away from war zones to have more civil rights that are respected than the countries in war zones or next to war zones.

As I said previously, war dehumanizes even the good guys ( the American soldiers ).

Foolster41 stated :

What you need to understand is the teachings behind Islam (The quran) and it's influence on Muslim thinking which is NOTHING like what is being currently taught and practiced by Christians and Jews.

Comment :

Islam cannot influence people anymore than christianity can make a christian a pacifist like Jesus was.

The radicalism of some muslims or jews or christians is due to their own violent nature and not because their religion made them become violent, just as a gun does not make a person violent but rather the violent nature of the person with a gun is what makes a person violent.

A violent person will take verses from the Bible or Koran regarding violence and have an excuse to commit violence, whereas a pacifist will take the pacifist passages in the Koran or Bible and lead a life of non-violence.

Foolster41 stated :

Ref: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html See point 4 (Frequently asked questions) points b (If Islam is violent, why are so many Muslims peaceful?)
and g (Is it fair to paint all Islamic schools of thought as violent?).

Comment :

The following statistics of hate crimes in the US does not mean all Americans are involved in hate crimes, just as hate crime statistics in jihad watch does not mean all muslims are involved in anyway in hate crimes :

As documented by the FBI's 2007 HCSA report:

Approximately 51 percent of the reported hate crimes were race-based, with 18.4 percent on the basis of religion, 16.6 percent on the basis of sexual orientation, and 13.2 percent on the basis of ethnicity.

Approximately 69 percent of the reported race-based crimes were directed against blacks, 19 percent of the crimes were directed against whites, and 4.9 percent of the crimes were directed against Asians or Pacific Islanders. The number of hate crimes directed against individuals on the basis of their national origin/ethnicity increased to 1,007 in 2007 from 984 in 2006.

For the fourth year in a row, the number of reported crimes directed against Hispanics increased — from 576 in 2006 to 595 in 2007.

Though the overall number of hate crimes decreased slightly, the number of hate crimes directed at gay men and lesbians increased almost six percent — from 1,195 in 2006 to 1,265 in 2007.

Religion-based crimes decreased, from 1,462 in 2006 to 1,400 in 2007, but the number of reported anti-Jewish crimes increased slightly, from 967 in 2006 to 969 in 2007 — 12.7 percent of all hate crimes reported in 2007 — and 69 percent of the reported hate crimes based on religion.

Reported crimes against Muslims decreased from 156 to 115, 8.2 percent of the religion-based crimes. This is still more than four times the number of hate crimes reported against Muslims in 2000.

In contrast to the FBI's HCSA data, the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2005 reported sharply higher numbers of hate crimes committed in the U.S.:

An annual average of 210,000 hate crime victimizations occurred from July 2000 through December 2003. During that period an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents involving one or more victims occurred annually. Victims also indicated that 92,000 of these hate crime victimizations were reported to police. These estimates were derived from victim reports to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

ref : http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/nature-and-magnitude.html

Foolster41 stated :

"The reference did not show that the killings was because of being a christian but rather rumors of desecration of the Koran."
Can you find what's wrong with this sentence?

Comment :

Killing for any reason, other than purely self defense is wrong but the question was " was the killing because the person was a non-muslim or because of the alleged offense of burning the Koran ?".

The discussion was : Do non-muslims get killed for a reason or for just being non-muslim ?

The answer is obvious :

if non-muslims were being killed for just being non-muslim, there will not be any non-muslims living in muslim countries, because they would have been killed long time ago, just as the genocidal commandments in Deut 20:16 commands that all non-jews be killed including women, children and babies.

Muhammad at no time ever killed any non-muslim for just being non-muslim. The reason for killing was always treason.

I am not justifying killing for any reason, other than for purely self defense but saying a non-muslim is being killed for just being non-muslim is just not true.

CONCLUSION :

What justification can muslims have for killing non-muslims ? there is no justification.

Killing minorities is as old as civilization and has happened everywhere and muslims are not unique in killing minorities.

Americans and muslims are not much different when it comes to justifying terrorism either (here are the findings of Gallup ):

When we (Gallup) asked Americans, we found that 6 percent thought it was completely justifiable to deliberately target civilians and 24 percent said that bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are often or sometimes justified.

We (Gallup) asked how many people ( muslims ) condone the 9/11 attacks and found that the vast majority condemn the attacks; only 7 percent thought it was completely justified. We also asked about attacks on civilians in general, the moral justifiability of sacrificing one's life, and about the moral justifiability of attacking civilians as an individual or as a military. We asked those 7 percent about why they felt the attacks were justified and, surprisingly, not a single one offered a religious justification. Instead, the responses sounded like revolutionaries; they talked about American imperialism. Instead of piety motivating their responses, it was politics.

ref : http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/03/14/inside-the-minds-of-muslims+.html

SOLUTION :

As I have said before, the only way to end this cycle of violence from muslims and from non-muslims is to prevent conflict in the first place and this can be done through covert rendition operations, dialog, diplomacy, intelligent debate, financial incentives and security assurances

Foolster41 stated :

"on going humanitarian disaster in neighboring Gaza and christians in Egypt might be perceived to be in alliance or sympathetic with the israeli govt."
This couldn't be because of documented anti-semitism in the muslim world, could it?

Comment :

Its not anti-semitism; its more to do with anti-zionism.

here is a jewish man who says Zionism is the cause of the problems :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2mTgq-jw8M&feature=related

If muslims were truly anti-semetic, the muslim rulers of Palestine in the 1800s would not have allowed thousands of Jews to immigrate to Palestine and if muslims were truly anti-semitic, Jews would not have wanted to move to muslim lands but the record shows that Jews did move in large numbers to muslim lands ( eg Morocco)

Foolster41 stated :

notice the weasely "humanitarian distastor". It's a disastor because HAMAS led gaza doesn't want to live in peace with Isreal and contenues to attack its citizens and Isreal responds to defend itself.

Comment :

Both sides are at fault but if you are referring to the rocket attacks, that particular cycle of violence was actually started by the Israeli govt.

The evidence clearly shows that the present conflict was not provoked by the Palestinians or at least not to the extent to which the Israeli government reacted to the very first rocket incident.

In fact, The Bush administration expressed their deep concern to the Israeli government (over the Israeli government's over reaction to the first benign rocket incident in 2002)

ref : http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/11/mideast/index.html

The question we have to ask is " would the present cycle of rocket fire have started in 2002 if the Israeli government ,in co-operation with the Hamas government, brought to justice , the militant who fired the very first rocket into Israel which landed harmlessly in a field, 6km from the Gaza border ?"

What would you do if one of your neighbors slaps somebody in house A across the street and then people from house A start shooting at your neighbor and those bullets hit your loved ones; would you blame your neighbor for the injury or permanent disfigurement or paralysis of your loved ones or would you blame the people from house A for over reacting and shooting your loved ones ?

and would you just stand by and be humiliated by people from house A when they injured your loved ones ?

I am a pacifist, so i would not do anything to people from house A, but most people think about honor more than I do and they might take the law into their own hands and start shooting at house A for shooting at your loved ones.

So cycles of violence are born that way,

somebody does something benign, like a militant shooting a rocket into an empty field in israel and the israeli government over reacts by injuring 200 palestinians to which even the Bush administration criticized israel for its over reaction, instead of treating it as a criminal act and negotiating with hamas to bring the criminal to justice.

The wiser of the two parties should come to their senses and the Israeli government is supposed to be the wiser of the two, but I am afraid the Israeli government has a plan for the Palestinian people and Hamas is playing right into that plan

ref : http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30437

these rockets started with the very first rocket in 2002 and just like a bush on fire, Israel could have just put out that one fire instead of ending up with a forest on fire

but when the Israeli government over reacted in 2002 due to the single rocket incident which did not kill anybody or do any kind of damage

and when the israeli government unleashed missiles in reaction to that benign rocket incident and injured 200 palestinians;

could Hamas have stopped every loved one of those victims from themselves being part of militant squads that subsequently unleashed rockets from Gaza to start the cycle of violence in which for the past 7 years, 5000 palestinians were killed by the israeli government in retaliation for 13 israelis being killed by rockets since 2002, the start of the cycle of violence ?

ref : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWFl45GnJY8&sdig=1

If you were in charge of hamas and 200 of your fellow citizens were injured or badly injured, would you tell the loved ones of those victims that the one to blame was the militant who fired the "harmless" rocket in the first place or would you say the israeli government should not have over reacted and injured 200 of your fellow citizens ?

Even if Hamas wanted to, as they tried during the cease fire period, Hamas could not possibly stop every one of those militants who got recruited after 200 of their loved ones got injured by the Israeli government for over reacting to the very first benign rocket incident.

Now, if the rocket was fired by those 200 people and even if the rocket did not cause any injury or property damage and if the Israeli government had fired in the direction of those 200 people, it still would not be right because what if there were children among the 200 people and they were innocent ?

So whichever way you look at it, the Israeli government just does not care because of its ultimate plan for the palestinian people

ref : http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30437

If some guy from texas fired a homemade rocket and it landed harmlessly in a field in Mexico, would you want Mexico to fire back missiles at the US and what if one of those missiles hit your house and badly maimed your loved ones, would you blame the guy from texas or would you blame the Mexican government for over reacting ?

So its not easy to stop cycles of violence once it gets started. The best way to stop the cycle of violence is to not start it in the first place and sadly the over reaction from the Israeli government is what started this cycle of violence which started in 2002.

The Israeli government needs the militants to be provoked by the actions of the Israeli government because if the militants turn the other cheek ( my advice) then the Israeli government will be pressured to proceed with the peace plan but the Israeli government is not interested in peace with the Palestinians but rather the Israeli government has a plan for the palestinians which does not include a two state solution

ref : http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30437

ref : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAgyv2MKyI&feature=related

ref : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUaeID9Lap0&feature=related

Foolster41 stated :

"Here again, was the motive because the victim was a christian or was it something else ( according to the police, the attacks were started by a mentally deranged man )"
An easy claim to make that he was only "mentaly deranged". Seems to be happening quite a bit with Muslims going ape and killing people (like in seattle last year).

Comment :

Killing sprees are more common in the west than in muslim countries.

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer

A person with a violent nature will use any kind of excuse to kill and if islam never existed, there will still be killings in the middle east today

The top 12 countries in terms of murder rates are non-muslim majority countries and several muslim countries have lower murder rates than in the US.

ref : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Conclusion :

Being a muslim does not necessarily mean having more of a tendency to commit murder than being a non-muslim, even though the statistics show that murder is at a higher rate in many non-muslim countries compared to muslim countries.

Foolster41 stated :

"There are decency laws in the US too but the decency laws in muslim countries are stricter for muslims. I rather live in country where there are stricter decency laws as they have in the American school system."
It's not a fine we're talking about here like in the US. You're justifying LASHES FOR WEARING SKIMPY CLOTHING. That should be a red flag right there!

Comment :

I am not justifying lashes for wearing skimpy clothing.

I was justifying the dress codes at American schools.

I rather see the same dress codes for the general population in America but lashes is not part of my idea of enforcing the law.

If Sharia laws are so strict, how do you explain a non-muslim girl allowed to wear skimpy shorts in all of the Sharia states in Malaysia ?

I have seen skimpy clothing worn by non-muslim girls while visiting Malaysia.

Foolster41 stated :

"http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/misunderstanders-of-islam-gather-in-iran-i-am-sure-millions-of-people-who-love-islam-and-the-koran-w.html
In this reference, there are no beatings or murders of non-muslims for being non-muslim."
No, but there is anti-semitism, which seems to keep poping up with Muslims (Remember the "kill the juice" sign and "Hamas Hamas Jews to the Gas" chants?) Woudn't you agree that is bad?

Comment :

Both sides are at fault here.

A letter from a Jewish child to a Palestinian child, said, “I hope you and your family will burn in hell.”

ref : http://www.bearpit.net/lofiversion/index.php/t4757.html

How do you explain Israeli soldiers wearing T-shirts that depict the killing of palestinian civilians and babies ? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mJp5d3ffP8&feature=channel

How do you explain Israeli children throwing stones at those trying to help palestinians :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaiUE-wkE4U&feature=related

Foolster41 stated :

"Two possible motives :

(1) a film shown by Christian Copts. perceived as derogatory to Muslims.

ref : http://www.copts4freedom.com/new_page_6.htm

(2) "One (Egyptian ) police guard went to the neighboring village asking for reinforcement, saying the Copts ( christians) demolished a mosque and killed two Muslims." The security forces came to the village, and placed a curfew only on Copts. They arrested 11 Copts and 5 Muslims. "Our biggest loss is the emotional hurt," said Rev. Shahata, "we lived all our life peacefully together, and now this happens from our Muslim neighbors."(end)"

Was this report true, did a mosque get demolished and two muslims murdered? If not, then both motives are bad; either censorship (CAN you justify violence for critisism?) or outright riot-incitement to murder.

Comment :

Why would violence erupt from mere criticism since the Reverend clearly stated that there was peace among christians and muslims throughout his life, so the reaction from the musilms had really nothing to do with the christians being non-muslim.

Some criminal had to incite this violence.

The targeting of innocent minorities for alleged crimes/sins perpetrated by others is common everywhere, including the US : In 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, Arab Americans, Muslims, and Sikhs were victimized in nearly five percent of the total number of hate crimes reported that year (481 out of 9,730), a seventeen-fold increase over the prior year.

ref : http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/arab-americans.html

The 1992 riots in LA did target whites not because they were white but those whites resembled the police officers acquitted in the trial, so likewise, the christian coopts in Egypt must have been targeted, not because they were christian but because they must have been perceived to be affiliated with those who did wrong.

Conclusion:

As I said earlier , the targeting of minorities is as old as civilization and it does not happen only in muslim societies or that islam in some way brings out the worst in people.

Foolster41 stated :

"http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/07/pakistan-muslims-torture-christian-on-false-blasphemy-charges.html

here again, the alleged crime of burning the Koran and not because the victim was a christian."
If she was You're mising the important point that this is a false accusation of "blashphamy" can get you tortured in a Islamic country. Are you saying this person deserved it?

Comment :

Nobody deserves to be tortured or killed or beaten.

Just as hate crimes should not exist in America , hate crimes should not exist in muslim countries.

Every western and islamic society have their advantages and disadvantages.

I do not see islamic society superior to western society but at the same time, I do not see western society superior to islamic society due to the fact that murder rates and killing sprees are higher in western societies than in islamic societies

The disadvantage of being in a muslim country is unjust laws and the disadvantage of living in a western country is violent crime.

The advantage of living in a muslim country is knowing that it is pro-life, anti-abortion and anti-pornography and the advantage in living in a western country is laws on the whole are just

Foolster41 stated :

"http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/islamic-hate-sites-threaten-jews-and-bloggers.html
Here again, no beatings or murder due to being a non-muslim." No, but again it is anti-semitism.

Comment :

Anti-Zionism is more rampant than anti-semitism.

Muhammad never targeted Jews for being Jews but for treason and even Jews that were charged with treason, Muhammad spared the lives of the Jewish women and children which is very different from the treatment that non-jews received in Deut. 20:16 when all non-jew men, women, children and babies were commanded to be killed from the region of israel to the region of Iraq.

Foolster41 stated :

"Aspects of Sharia could be regarded as brutal but if somebody learns the rules of living under Sharia, there are advantages in living under Sharia : its pro-life, anti-abortion and anti-pornography."
A praiser of Shiara law, the brutal law the commands floggings and amputation. You're not even denying it's brutal! Are you sure you're not an extremist?

Comment :

If i lived under Sharia, I would probably be happier than living under western laws since kids under Sharia grow up to be more innocent, compared to kids living in a western society where anything goes.

Not all Sharia is bad.

I do not agree with the parts that pertain to the cutting off hands for criminals and stoning.

Its a barbaric practice to stone even a criminal.

Sharia laws should be amended just as the US constitution was amended over time.

Because certain aspects of Sharia are cruel, its not surprising that several muslim countries do not follow Sharia which shows that muslims are able to move away from Sharia

Foolster41 stated :

"Killing for any reason, other than purely self defense is wrong but the question was " was the killing because the person was a non-Muslim or because of the alleged offense of burning the Koran ?"."
You're deflecting. The reason this person was ACCUSED of "blasphemy" (a ridiculous open-ended law that allows persecution) was because he was non-Muslim. The very existence of blasphemy laws is a blemish on civil rights in muslim countries.

Comment :

In all my responses, I am explaining human nature and not condoning any acts of violence because I believe the only time one can be violent is only in self defense.

Example : When the Japanese govt. attacked Pearl Harbor, it was justified when the US military in Hawaii tried to defend themselves but what the US govt did after the attack was not justified since it did not involve bringing the people who committed the crime to justice since the main criminal Hirohito was not indicted but rather hundreds of thousands of japanese children paid dearly with their lives for the crimes of the Japanese govt.

If a person is killed just because he is non-muslim, is it not logical to conclude that no non-muslims will be living in muslim countries since all non-muslims would have been killed for just being non-muslim, as the jews did to non-jews according to the command in Deut. 20:16 ?

Laws concerning blasphemy are wrong and numerous muslims will agree with you and that is why many muslim countries do not have Sharia or at least the strict Sharia laws :

Burkina Faso
Chad
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
Somalia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
Turkey

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Secular_states_with_majority_Muslim_populations

Observers believe a sizable number of Pakistan's Muslims agree that existing blasphemy laws should be repealed or at least amended.

ref : http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/augustweb-only/131-51.0.html

Foolster41 stated :

"The evidence clearly shows that the present conflict was not provoked by the Palestinians or at least not to the extent to which the Israeli government reacted to the very first rocket incident."
That's revisionist nonsense. http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/

Comment :

Read the Israeli govt.'s over reaction to a rocket being fired from Gaza which landed harmlessly in a field 6km from the Gaza border :

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/11/mideast/index.html

From the article above : The Bush administration expressed its deep concern to the Israeli government Monday over its attacks on Palestinian Authority facilities, a State Department official told CNN.

The official said U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer met with Israeli officials Monday "about the manner in which they have carried out attacks in heavily populated areas," the official said, adding "it is very messy the way they are doing this." (end of excerpt)

The recent cycle of violence did start due to the Israeli govt over reacting to a rocket falling harmlessly into an Israeli field 6 km from the Gaza border in 2002.

If your neighbor slaps somebody from house A across the street and those in house A start shooting in the direction of your neighbor's house and some of those bullets harmed your loved ones, what would you do ?

Would you blame your neighbor for slapping the people who lived across the street or would you blame the people from across the street over reacting by using deadly force ?

Does the Israeli govt. instigate some palestinians to retaliate ?

Israel has failed to press charges in 90 percent of recent cases involving Palestinian complaints of assaults or vandalism by Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank, an Israeli rights group said

ref : http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL0833759

The Israeli govt. specializes in instigation policies and from the very beginning in the late 1800s Zionists instituted a plan to colonize Palestine and eventually subjugate the Palestinians to their authority.

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_and_Palestinian_Arab_attitudes_before_1948#The_Arab_response_to_Zionism

How would you react if illegal Mexicans came over to the US in large numbers and than petitioned the UN to partition the US because the SW United States used to be part of Mexico ?

And then on the day of independence, Mexican militias went on a rampage to either evict dissident Americans or to massacre innocent Americans as revenge for some Americans violently rebelling against Mexican rule ?

Would the rest of America react violently to the actions of the illegal state of Mexico in the SW United States ?

Foolster41 stated :

There are plenty of self-hating Jews. That one or even a Jew blames "Zionism" isn't really proof that Israel is doing something wrong. And Bush was hardly a model president in my mind. You provided subjective opinions, not historical fact.

Comment :

The reason that some Jews hate Zionists is because they view Zionists as the problem that caused the violence between Jews and Arab muslims.

The Israeli govt is like any other govt and has done wrong because of their "might makes right" policies.

No govt is perfect and the Israeli govt is far from perfect.

Zionist's goals in colonizing Palestine and eventually taking Palestine by force (even through terrorism ) is well documented :

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

ref :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_and_Palestinian_Arab_attitudes_before_1948#The_Arab_response_to_Zionism

Foolster41 stated :

"The question we have to ask is " would the present cycle of rocket fire have started in 2002 if the Israeli government, in co-operation with the Hamas government, brought to justice , the militant who fired the very first rocket into Israel which landed harmlessly in a field, 6km from the Gaza border ?""
Would HAMAS be willing to do so? They have stated their intention of destroying Isreal, so why would they want to?

Comment :

Well actually Hamas was not in charge at the time of the Israeli govt's over reaction to the gaza rocket that landed harmlessly in an israeli field 6 km from the Gaza border.

But when Hamas was in charge they tried to abide by agreements with the Israeli govt and even arrested militants for firing rockets

ref : http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL103182282

Conclusion :

Can Hamas prevent all rockets being fired ? With the limited resources of Hamas, Hamas needs the help of the Israeli govt to prevent all militants from firing rockets but the Israeli govt does not want to negotiate with Hamas.

Foolster41 stated :
HAMAS seems to be doing well with the media control they have because of the cycle of violence in terms of global opinion.

Comment :

Hamas was actually allowed to flourish by the Israeli govt in the Israeli govt's typical colonial attitude of "divide and rule" policies

ref : http://www.mediamonitors.net/hanania46.html

Foolster41 stated :

On Christian Copts you're dodging the questions of motives behind these attacks, and pretending that it's something that IT IS NOT. It was said outright in the story that Muslims claimed COPTS (Not Muslims, not white people, not some young people, COPT CHRISTIANS) killed Muslims and destroyed a mosque. If this claim by the Muslims in this story is untrue then wouldn't you say this is trying to incite violence against Christians?

Comment :

As I said before, if violence against christians is because they are non-muslim, there will not be any christians or non-muslims in muslim countries and non-muslims would not want to move to muslim lands but the historical fact is that non-muslims have moved in large numbers to muslim lands ( example : Morocco ).

But every muslim country has non-muslims and even conservative Saudi Arabia invites Christians to work in Saudi Arabia.

In the 1992 riots in LA where whites were targeted, was it because they were white or because those whites resembled those officers who were acquitted ?

Likewise, its not surprising that christian minorities are targeted for the alleged crimes of a few christians.

Another example : blacks were sometimes tortured during the days of slavery. Why were the blacks tortured ? was it because of their race or because they ran away or been disobedient ?

So minorities are targeted, not because they are minorities but because they were alleged to have done something wrong and off course, since they are minorites, that does not help their case since there does exist bias against minorities.

Another example : the US govt. tortured filipinos during the occupation of the Philippines. Were the filipinos tortured because they were Filipinos or because some of the filipinos rebelled ?

ref : http://rwor.org/a/138/torture_part_2-en.html

Since 6% of Americans say that targeting civilians through terrorism is justified and if those Americans find themselves in a war zone or near a war zone (as the Egyptian muslims are in ) is it possible that, just like in the riots of 1992, those Americans might engage in acts of terorism ?

ref : http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/03/14/inside-the-minds-of-muslims+.html

So likewise, it is possible that 6-7 % of muslims might engage in discrimination against minorities, especially if the minorites are thought to be in alliance with the enemy in a war zone.

If you look at how many muslims in Egypt or Pakistan actually engaged in abuse against minorities, you will probably find a number much less than 6-7% of the population.

According to the Heritage foundation, 40000 people were trained in Al-Qaeda camps. That represents 4 militants for every 150,000 muslims or 0.003 % of the world's 1.5 billion muslims.

ref : http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed102506a.cfm

So we have to conclude that less than 1% of muslims are actually actively involved in punishing the innocent non-muslim minorities for the alleged wrong doings of a few minorities

Foolster41 stated :

How would feel if it were the other way around and some Christians told a mob of Christians that some Muslims destroyed a church and killed two Christians, and then Muslims were hurt as a result? Answer the questions directly please.

Comment :

Same answer; it will not be because the muslims were muslims but rather because of an alleged crime and off course there is bias against minorities to begin with and targeting the innocent for the alleged crimes of a few people is human nature, as seen in the riots in LA where whites were targeted, not because they were white but because they resembled the white cops acquitted in the trial.

Foolster41 stated :

As for the movie, it is a case of Muslims threatening and bullying a group who dare criticize their religion and use their rights of freedom of speech, another thing that Muslims seem to not tolerate (See: Rushdie fatwa and many others). It seems you are not giving Muslims and Christians an even footing here.

Comment :

Each society is sensitive about certain things.

In American society, people are sensitive about race due to America's history of slavery and riots can ensue in America due to racial tension.

The year 1919 was particularly noted for the large number of riots in the urban areas of the North where returning white veterans of WWI competed with Southern Blacks for jobs during the post-war depression.

Again, in 1923, a racial confrontation erupted in Rosewood, Fl. There eight blacks and two whites died during the destruction of the Black community of Rosewood.

However, the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 was perhaps the costliest incident of racial violence in American history where up to 300 people died
ref : http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/departments/hpolscrv/VdeLaOliva.html

in certain european societies there are deadly riots due to soccer games

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_hooliganism

Foolster41 stated :

"If i lived under Sharia, I would probably be happier than living under western laws since kids under Sharia grow up to be more innocent, compared to kids living in a western society where anything goes."
You forgot flogging. Again, though you say you'd like Shiara to be changed, you'd prefer current Shaira to western common law.

Comment :

Current Sharia needs to be changed regarding punishment for criminals.

but if you are a law abiding citizen, you should be happy living under Sharia.

I did not come across any non-muslim in Malaysia who was less happy living under Sharia than a black minority in the US

Foolster41 stated :

Actually, I forgot what your point was in all of this. Do you beleive that Jihadwatch is "islamaphobic"?

Comment :

I believe that members of Jihad watch have not visited any muslim country and do not know any muslims.

I believe that some in America are making a good living (selling books) exploiting the fears of people who genuinely are afraid of muslims.

I believe the military/industrial complex has the need to keep the fear level high enough so that when their puppets in the US govt loot the treasury of over a trillion dollars every year , the people do not question this unsustainable level of spending on the military/industrial complex.

I believe that both muslims and non-muslims are capable of hating each other, not because of religion but because of perceived injustice but belonging to a different religion does not help matters but does contribute to bias

Foolster41 stated :
Do you beleive that until Sharia law IS changed, until equal rights are given to non-Muslims in ALL of the Muslims states and Jihadism is neutralized that speaking out against things is wrong?

Comment :

Sharia in relation to punishing criminals needs to be changed including laws regarding blasphemy.

Speaking out is good, as long as its done with the goal of helping muslims but more often than not, the western govts have used force against the middle east (eg ousting the Ottomans and taking over),

forcing muslims to accept western power over muslims ( eg promising independence to Arabs from the Ottomans but negating that promise and driving out muslims from power )

forcing muslims to accept the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel when orthodox jews were happy to live under muslim rule

and western powers have used force to deal with disputes/wars among muslim states ( eg the gulf war )

and using force to punish entire muslim populations for the evil done by a few muslims ( eg, the afghanistan war where the taliban had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11)

As long as western powers choose to occupy muslim lands, there will be jihad and during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US govt. was more than willing to help the jihadists against the communists but not when the jihadists are trying to get western powers out of muslim lands

Foolster41 stated :
Oh, and the US constitution never involved amputations for theft, stoning or taxes for unbelievers. You can find all of these in currently practiced Sharia law.

Comment :

what countries practice the "unbeliever" tax ?

Slavery lasted as a legal institution in the U.S. until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865.

And because of Slavery was a legal institution, slaves were treated as property and subject to amputations and tortures.

For striking a white man, a hand could be cut off.

ref : http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215086/slave_punishment_&_manipul.htm

Foolster41 :
You said: "But when Hamas was in charge they tried to abide by agreements with the Israeli govt and even arrested militants for firing rockets"
That's an outright lie. HAMAS has broken the cease fire, and then Israel is blamed when they react to defend themselves from the rockets by the overly liberal media.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3623096,00.html

Comment :

Hamas did not break the cease fire; it was some other militant group that broke the cease fire and
Hamas promised to rein in the Iran/Syria-backed faction that carried out the rocket attacks and pledged to remain committed to the truce that went into effect June 19 and urged restraint by all sides.

ref : http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/06/25/palestinian_rockets_threaten_truce/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+World+News

With all its enormous resources, the US govt cannot stop all criminal activity in the US, so likewise, with the limited resources of Hamas, one cannot expect Hamas to stop all militant activity unless the Israeli govt. helps Hamas control the border.

As I said before, cycles of violence are born due to perceived injustice.

If illegal immigrants from Mexico violently formed a state in SW United States, do you really think Americans will accept that and not retaliate ? especially when 6% of Americans say that terrorism is acceptable to achieve political goals ?

ref : http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/03/14/inside-the-minds-of-muslims+.html

Foolster41 :
Why would they have anti-Israel propaganda in their charter and speeches?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3623096,00.html

Comment :

Hamas has anti-Israeli govt propaganda, just as the US govt had anti-British govt propaganda before the revolutionary war.

Foolster41 :
They aren't trying to stop the rockets, they are encouraging the rockets to keep going.

Comment :

There is no evidence that Hamas is not trying to abide by agreements, just as there is no evidence that the Israeli govt is keeping its promise in all agreements.

The Israeli govt is just like the US govt in the way the US govt dealt with the American natives by going back on agreements at the time of the US govt's imperial conquests across North America.

Foolster41 :

You said: "As I said before, if violence against christians is because they are non-muslim, there will not be any christians or non-muslims in muslim countries and non-muslims would not want to move to muslim lands but the historical fact is that non-muslims have moved in large numbers to muslim lands ( example : Morocco )."
Again, you refuse to actually acknowledge it and brush it off with a vague comment. They said CHRISTIANS killed and destroyed a mosque. You think it is a coincidence and not a religious hatred? What if a white guy said "some n@$#@$$S (or even the more polite "black guys") killed two guys and burned down a church"? Wouldn't you think this was based on a racial hatred?

Comment :

Just as you tend to lump all muslims into one category of killers, some muslims in turn tend to lump all members of a minority into one category of killers even though most of the people in the minority group are innocent and not killers.

Why did the christian copt Reverend say : all his life, muslims and christians have been living in peace ? (so in all of the Reverend's life, muslims were not looking to kill non-muslims)

ref : http://www.aina.org/news/20090708140417.htm

Why did non-muslims move to muslims lands ? if muslims are looking to kill non-muslims ?

It does not make sense to say that muslims want to kill non-muslims, just like it would not make sense to say whites want to kill blacks

There is racial hatred in America, but just hating somebody does not result in violence.

Lets say you hate your neighbor; just hating your neighbor would not result in violence unless that neighbor does something to your loved ones.

This is how violence starts :

(1) Bias against a minority group

(2) Some members of that minority group are perceived to break the rule or law or custom

(3) A member of the majority incites violence saying that if some of the minority are bad, then all of the minority are bad

(4) Since 6-7% of people in the majority community justify terrorism ( according to the gallup poll), its easy to recruit a mob to conduct vigilante justice.

So violence against a minority group starts, not because of the existence of a minority group but what some members of that minority group have been perceived to have done.

Foolster41 :

You said: "...that does not help their case since there does exist bias against minorities."
Yes. And no where else is this more apparent than in Muslim countries, despite your claims.

Comment :

The statistics in America shows some Americans are just as biased/abusive as some people in muslim countries

The following statistics of hate crimes in the US does not mean all Americans are involved in hate crimes, just as hate crime statistics in jihad watch does not mean all muslims are involved in anyway in hate crimes :

An annual average of 210,000 hate crime victimizations occurred from July 2000 through December 2003. During that period an average of 191,000 hate crime incidents involving one or more victims occurred annually. Victims also indicated that 92,000 of these hate crime victimizations were reported to police. These estimates were derived from victim reports to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

ref : http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/nature-and-magnitude.html

Foolster41 :

"But every Muslim country has non-Muslims and even conservative Saudi Arabia invites Christians to work in Saudi Arabia."
And yet, very few Jew is allowed in Saudi Arabia, and they consider it "pollution" for Jews to fly above them? Why is this?

Comment :

Jews and Arab Israelis are allowed inside Saudi Arabia

but Saudi Arabia does not allow Israeli Jews into Saudi Arabia.

See list of airlines not allowed to fly over Europe :

http://airtravel.about.com/od/safetysecurity/a/eubl.htm

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has sent an invitation to the World Jewish Congress for an interfaith dialogue with Muslim and Christian leaders ( Israeli newspaper reports, so that is progress )

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/987206.html

I am sure if illegal Mexicans violently took the SW United States to form an independent country, the US would ban all Mexican airlines from flying over the US

Foolster41 :

"...So we have to conclude that less than 1% of muslims are actually actively involved in punishing the innocent non-muslim minorities for the alleged wrong doings of a few minorities"

conlclude is the oppertitive word here. All those numbers are meaningless guesses. You don't have to be trained by Al Quida to have extremist ideals or to think that Islam should rule above all others. Not convincing ynless you can give me hard numbers from polls, and even those arn't going to tell much since saying and thinking are two different things).

Comment :

From the Gallup poll it indicates 7% of muslims justify terrorism and 6% of Americans justify terrorism

ref : ref : http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/03/14/inside-the-minds-of-muslims+.html

Even though 6% of Americans and 7% of muslims justify terrorism, does not mean 7% of muslims are actively supporting terrorism, just as 7% of Americans are not actively supporting terrorism.

You can count all the acts of terrorism in Jihad watch and you can easily conclude that less than 1% of muslims are actively involved in supporting terrorism through funding, through providing material support , through providing safe havens or the actual murder of non-muslims.

Yes, there are 210,000 annual hate crime reports in the US, but that does not mean there are 210,000 Americans involved in hate crimes, because one person could be committing more than one hate crime

ref : http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/nature-and-magnitude.html

Foolster41 :

"Same answer; it will not be because the muslims were muslims but rather because of an alleged crime and off course there is bias against minorities to begin with and targeting the innocent for the alleged crimes of a few people is human nature, as seen in the riots in LA where whites were targeted, not because they were white but because they resembled the white cops acquitted in the trial."
Good to hear, it seems Muslim apollogists are always calling foul when muslims are attacked, and yet when non-muslims are attacked by muslims the silence is deafening.

Comment :

Here is a long list of muslim organizations who condemn terrorism against non-muslims :

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Foolster41 :

"forcing muslims to accept the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel when orthodox jews were happy to live under muslim rule" Ow. You're saying Muslims have the right to rule Jews? That the state of Isreal shouldn't exist? Your jeudenhaten is showing.

Comment :

I did not say the state of Israel should not exist; I said the the state of israel should not have been established.

since israel is already established, we have to live with that mistake.

I personally do not like to see the existence of any country on earth, like the beatles song "imagine there is no country".

I firmly believe that each town or village in this world should be its own "country" with an international police force to make sure one town does not go to war with another town ( Each police force should be made up of members from former super power countries )

Jews chose to move to muslim lands to be ruled over by muslims since European Jews were persecuted in "christian" countries

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism#Expulsions

Here is a statement from the orthodox Jewish organization ( Neturei karta international ):

All the great rabbis of the 20th century were opposed to the Zionist movement, and understood the danger it presented for the Jewish People and its relations with other peoples, especially the Arabs and Palestinians, with whom Jews have lived in peace and harmony for over 1,000 years.

ref : http://www.nkusa.org/activities/statements/nyc072003.cfm

Foolster41 :

You said: "For striking a white man, a hand could be cut off. "
And yet, IT IS NOT PRACTICED HERE ANYMORE, but it still IS in Muslim countries. It seems Muslim apologists have trouble keeping track of time periods and thinks America's in 1800s and their own countries are in the 1400s, hmm? Please stop bringing up slavery. Islamic countries practiced slavery then and STILL do so now, so this is hardly a point of comparison. (And by the way some of the biggest movers in abolishing slavery and running the "underground railroad" were Christians)

Comment :

As I said before, western countries and the US have had a 600 year head start on islam and so islam is actually equivalent to 15 th century christianity but in many aspects, it has made much more progress than 15 th century christianity, the century in which there was the excruciating tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, Joan of Arc was burned alive by the state, the expulsion of all Jews from Spain unless they converted to christianity and the century in which the Pope decreed that the non-christian world belonged to Spain and Portugal.

If Islam is not progressive, how do you explain the following countries not having sharia or the strict aspects of Sharia ?

Burkina Faso
Chad
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
Somalia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgystan
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
Turkey

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Secular_states_with_majority

Foolster41:

The fact is, there is Islamic supremisism in the Quran/Hadiths that is the root of hatred and subjegation of non-beleivers. Please read the Islam 101 page for info on this. http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html

Comment :

If it was not about supremacy, why did the Pope in the 15 th century divide the non-christian world between Portugal and Spain ?

Every religion has its supremacist message.

If the idea of islamic supremacy was so abhorrent, why did the Jews move back to muslim controlled Palestine after the Romans kicked the Jews out ?

The Jewish community in Palestine revived. under Muslim rule, is estimated to have numbered as many as 300,000 about 1000 AD, prior to the Crusades.

The "christian" crusaders in turn established their supremacy by killing most of the Jewish population of Palestine or forced them into exile, so that only about 1,000 families remained before the reconquest of Palestine by the muslim Saladin.

So what is the solution to Islamic supremacy or "christian" supremacy ?

Foolster41:

"I am sure if illegal Mexicans violently took the SW United States to form an independent country, the US would ban all Mexican airlines from flying over the US"
Hmm. an interesting ficitonal anllogy. Do you mean that the state of Isreal was taken violently from the palastinian/arabs?

Comment :

Yes, the state of Israel was born out of violence, from the Zionist terrorism against the British to the terrorism against the muslims.

The muslims were not totally innocent when they rebelled against the Zionists but is it surprising that they rebelled when Zionist movements tried to force Jewish plantation owners to hire only Jewish workers even though the Arabs were better workers at lower wages, since they worked those lands for generations as tenant farmers.

When Americans in prosperous America riot over a verdict ( in the 1992 LA riots) is it surprising that poor muslim tenant farmers who have been working the land for generations suddenly find themselves evicted ( by Zionists ) from their ancestral fertile lands that their hard work produced ?

ref : http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm

Foolster41:

Or do you mean just Gaza? (He answers this question later) Isreal is NOT occupying Gaza. That's an old lie. They have walls to protect themselves against the suicide bombers from Gaza. You keep trying to make it sound liek Gaza is trying to hold back the terrorists and can't, and you keep brushing aside the HATE HAMAS spreads against jews. Maybe you should kick back and read some TV http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/hamas-tv-show-teaches-kids-to-kill-jews.html or read again the vile filth that is in the HAMAS Charter. it is nothing short of Genocide and you keep brushing it aside.

Comment :

The Hamas charter does not have any clause advocating Genocide.

Both sides are at fault in raising their kids to hate the other side.

The Israeli govt is not militarily present in Gaza but it "owns" Gaza.

(1) Israeli government retains control of Gaza's borders,

(2) israeli government retains control of Gaza's coastline,

(3) Israeli government retains control of Gaza's airspace.

(4) Israeli government reserves the right to launch incursions into Gaza,

(5) Israeli government continues to control Gaza's economy and trade,

(6) Israeli government continues to control the telecommunications networks in Gaza

(7) Israeli government continues to control the water networks in Gaza

(8) Israeli government continues to control the electricity networks in Gaza

(9) the Israeli government continues to control the sewage networks in Gaza

(10) the Israeli government does not allow the Gazans to print their own currency but to use the Israeli currency.

(11) the Israeli government authorized the demolition of hundreds more Gazan homes along the Gaza-Egypt border in order to expand the buffer zone there.

(12) the Israeli government basically converted Gaza into an open air "prison" where the Gazans could not travel freely to Jerusalem to worship at islam's third "holiest" place.

(13) the Israeli government did not compensate the Gazan refugees from lands confiscated from them due to previous wars

According to Human Rights Watch, an international human rights advocacy organization, published in Jan. 2005 it stated :

In fact, under international humanitarian law, the steps envisioned will not end Israel's occupation of the territory, and Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza's civilian population."

ref : http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=422

Hamas charter clearly indicates they do not hate jews but they want the end of the Zionist Israeli govt.

What the Israeli govt should do is to acknowledge that they are not totally innocent in their policies against the Palestinians and to accept the 10 year truce promised by Hamas and then to work for a long lasting peace treaty.

But the instigation policies of the Israeli govt is going in the same direction as the US govt's policies that eventually pushed native Americans off their lands into reservations and I am afraid that is the inevitable plan that the Israeli govt has for the palestinians who will become "slaves" to the Israeli economy while being confined to reservations and "prisoners" in their own country.

Foolster41:
Also, Arabs enjoy more rights inside Isreal than they do in Mulsim countries.

Comment :

Its hard to believe that Arabs enjoy more rights when in reality Israel has failed to press charges in 90 percent of recent cases involving Palestinian complaints of assaults or vandalism by Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank, an Israeli rights group said

ref : http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL0833759

Foolster41:

"From the Gallup poll it indicates 7% of muslims SAID THEY justify terrorism and 6% of Americans SAID THEY justify terrorism"
I fixed it for you. Terorrists arn't always going to openly admit they support terrorism.

Comment :

Thanks for fixing it .

Terrorists have no problems with their terrorism and openly proclaim it without acknowledging the victims of their terrorism, just as President Truman had no problem saying that he will use the atom bomb but at the same time he did not acknowledge the actual victims of his atom bomb.

You can add up all the terrorist acts in Jihad watch over the years and you will easily come to the conclusion that much less than 7% of the 1.5 billion muslim population are involved in terrorism even though 7% of the muslim population and 6% of the American population justify terrorism.

Foolster41:

CAIR!? CAIR!? You actually cited CAIR? Did you know their leader has made supremisist remarks? That they are a front for the violent Muslim Brotherhood? That they are unindicted co-conspiritors in funding terrorists? That they refuse to actknowledge HAMAS as a terrorist orginizaiton? Nice try, but it's just taquiya.

Comment :

The best way to determine whether CAIR is a terrorist organization is to have covert operations to determine that, but so far there is no indication CAIR is a terrorist organization or they would have been shut down by the US govt.

The US govt does both good and bad, does that mean that if we support the US govt we are supporting evil ? off course not.

So likewise, if I support a charity by Hamas, it does not mean I am supporting the terrorist activities of some Hamas members.

Foolster41:

"I did not say the state of Israel should not exist; I said the the state of israel should not have been established. since israel is already established, we have to live with that mistake." I see you meant the state of Isreal after all. Isreal has just as much a historical right as anyone else. Anyone who thinks Isreal has no right to exist are extremists and rascists. Ladys and gentlemen, I give you a judenhaten. You might want to talk to AM, get to know each other since you hate jews and support of Shiara's punishment in common.

Comment :

Israel has an historical right, just as Mexicans have a historical right to the SW United States.

Today, Israel has the right to exist since the mistake has already been made, just as illegal Mexicans have the right to stay in the US, since the mistake in not securing the borders has already been done.

I don't hate Jews but I am very critical of the Zionist Israeli govt.

If I criticize the US govt, does that mean I hate my fellow Americans ?

If muslims hated Jews, they would never have allowed Jews into Palestine after the Romans kicked the Jews out 2000 years ago.

Foolster41:

"I personally do not like to see the existence of any country on earth, like the beatles song "imagine there is no country"."
Or rather perhaps you mean one country under shiara law. I will fight that until my last breath.

Comment :

Not all Sharia is bad, just as not all US law is good.

Since you want to fight over Sharia laws, is it surprising that some muslims want to fight because the US govt is occupying muslim lands and causing collateral deaths of muslim kids ?

What do you think of the Sharia laws against abortion and pornography ?

Foolster41 :

The US govt continues to occupy American native lands, does that mean the US and Turkey are violating human rights ?

Foolster41:

Just because a nation does not fight openly does not mean it doe not support the larger goal of world domination. Sloppy.

Comment :

Even at the height of Islamic power, muslims did not dominate the world and the Islamic empire broke up into different muslim states.

Just as "christian" states fought other "christian" states, muslim states have been fighting other muslim states, so infighting is more of a possibility than world domination

The examples of human rights violations of countries you gave have very little to do with Sharia just as human rights violations in the US have very little to do with christianity.

I gave a list of non-sharia countries; I did not give a list of countries that honor all aspects of human rights.

Moving away from Sharia is progressive and there are muslim majority countries that do not have sharia, even though their human rights record might not be perfect.

Is the US govt's human rights, perfect ?

Does the US govt respect all human rights ? Is the US govt still occupying native American lands ? Is the US govt still aborting babies and not giving those babies the right to live ?

dumbledoresarmy :

You think children grow up more innocent under sharia? ROFLMAO. How about all those 8 and 9 and 10 year old little girls who get handed over to adult men, MUCH older men, to be ruthlessly screwed? Just because they're 'married' and money changed hands between their 'husband' and their father, doesn't make it any less traumatic for them. And made pregnant at 11 or 12 or 13? And a lot of them DIE trying to give birth? They call them the 'Brides of Death' in Yemen.

Comment :

The official age of marriage in Yemen is 17

ref : http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1233&p=front&a=1

Almost all muslim countries have marriageable ages at 16 or 18 and above, just as in Australia.

dumbledoresarmy :

Somehow I think *my* 11 year old daughter, who will NEVER be subjected to that kind of horror, is better off than any little girl her age in Yemen or Afghanistan or Mali or Northern Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or anywhere else in dar al Islam.

Comment :

Your daughter will be better off in muslim countries since almost all muslim countries ban pornography and the legal age of marriage is 16 or 18 and above

dumbledoresarmy :

I'm going to tell you straight what I think and where I stand. I'm Australian, and Christian, and no amount of taqiyya and tu quoque is going to shift me one millimetre from the following conclusions that I have gradually reached, after much reading and thinking. 1. Islam is an evil antihuman soul-destroying fascist ideology, more dangerous than Nazism or Maoism

Comment :

Its a fact that more than one hundred million people have died in genocides in non-muslim lands compared to genocides in muslim lands

ref : http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

dumbledoresarmy :

2. Sharia is hell made manifest on earth

Comment :

Sharia is hell to criminals but not all muslim countries follow Sharia

Here are muslim majority countries that do not follow Sharia :

Burkina Faso
Chad
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
Somalia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgystan
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
Turkey

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Secular_states_with_majority

dumbledoresarmy :

3. I believe that not one more mosque or Islamic 'school' should be built on Australian soil

Comment :

If Islam is that bad, why do Australians convert to Islam ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbwvwRkVtPI&feature=channel

dumbledoresarmy :

4. I believe that Australian law should refuse to recognise ANY aspect of sharia - especially those parts of it that pertain to family law (child brides, polygyny, talaq divorce, rules of inheritance)

Comment :

How do you explain this woman who seems to be happy living in Saudi Arabia :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kbvvZs_0Zc

There are indications that the practice of unilateral divorce by the husband or polygyny tend to decline with higher levels of education and better standards of living so as muslim countries develop you would see improvements in this area of Sharia.

the best way to assess islamic family law is to conduct a comprehensive survey in Islamic countries to see the results of implementing islamic family law and compare that with a survey of Americans to see whether Americans are happier living under non-Sharia laws compared to those living under family Sharia laws

dumbledoresarmy :

5. I believe no more Mohammedans should be permitted to immigrate into Australia. And 6: I am going to try to help as many other Australians as I can, to reach similar conclusions.

Comment :

Just as you lump all muslims together, even though 94% of muslims do not believe in terrorism

some muslims in turn lump all "christians" as killers. Generalizations do not help.

dumbledoresarmy :

I am utterly opposed to Islam. I pray every day for two things: for the total defeat of the Jihad, and for the liberation of Muslims from their soul-eating death cult.

Comment :

The only way to defeat jihad is for western powers to not have their military present in muslim countries.

The US govt was happy to help jihadists oust the Soviet Union forces from Afghanistan, but not willing to help Jihadists when those same jihadists want western powers to leave muslim countries

As for the liberation of muslims, that can only be done through the love of Jesus and not hating muslims

dumbledoresarmy :

Finally: here are two simple yes/ no question for you to think about.

Nonie Darwish has publicly apostasised from Islam.

1. Do you agree with the sharia rule that says she must be killed?

Yes or No?

Comment :

Over 40 muslim countries do not have the death penalty for apostasy.

Some Islamic jurists, such as Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi, Maliki jurist Abu al-Walid al-Baji, and Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah, and some contemporary Islamic jurists, such as Shafi`i Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances.

Some groups within Islam such as the Shi'a Ismaili reject death for apostasy altogether.

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Punishment_for_apostasy

dumbledoresarmy :

2. If you had the chance, and could do it without anyone knowing you had done it, would you kill her yourself?

Yes or No?

Comment :

my name "loveverybody" is not for fun.

I am a pacifist.

I do not believe in war, so how can i believe in murder ?

Jesus said to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you.

So a christian should not even have "murder" as part of a question, as the Word clearly states," whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." ( Philippians 4:8 )

Foolster41 :

I hope you know, if you're giving money to HAMAS that's funding terrorism and is ILLEGAL.

Comment :

Why is it that when people contributed to the terrorist jihadists in ousting the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, it was all perfectly legal but when a person contributes to a charity run by Hamas, it is contributing to terrorism ?

Foolster41 :
RE: the Hamas charter: You are a liar or very ignorant. http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
And that's just nonsense about Isreal.
Go here http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/ and click "what really happened in the middle east". I don't remember if the issues is addressed, but I think at the end it answers your questions about Isreal's right to exist specifically. Even if it doesn't it should be informative.

Comment :

Right to not exist, does not mean genocide; it means the termination of a political entity and not the termination of the people within the political entity

China saying that Taiwan does not have the right to exist or North Vietnam saying that South Vietnam does not have the right to exist, has nothing to do with genocide.

Hamas is more than happy to have jews live under its rule when the state of Israel ceases to exist according to the Hamas charter.

Foolster41 :

"Not all Sharia is bad, just as not all US law is good."
I'll take freedom and democracy over floggings and stoning for "apostasy" and "blasphemy" thanks. (Again, Tu quoque FAIL).

Comment :

As long as you are not a criminal, you should not worry about flogging or stoning.

As for apostasy or blasphemy, over 40 muslim countries do not have the death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy.

If you live in the following secular muslim countries, you should not worry about flogging, stoning, apostasy or blasphemy :

Burkina Faso
Chad
Gambia
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
Somalia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgystan
Tajikstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
Turkey

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism#Secular_states_with_majority

Foolster41 :

he's wrong about Turkey and those other countries being "moderite" so he then uses a TuQuoque that has nothing to do with his main point, throwing the ball over the fence and running home.

Comment :

I never said anything about muslim countries being moderate.

I gave a list of muslim countries that did not have sharia laws and were secular.

Secular does not necessarily mean moderate but it does mean that religious laws are not applied.