Do Republicans want another attack?

July 11th, 2007 7:44 am · 46 comments

It’s been a while since we heard from former Pennsylvania Sen. Tricky Ricky Santorum, who’s been biding his time at a new think tank dedicated to keeping an eye on America’s enemies, and who popped out of his burrow recently to go on the Hugh Hewitt radio program and declare that “unfortunate events,” i.e. terrorist attacks, are likely to occur within the next year, and that this will change the country’s perception of the war in Iraq.

“Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view.”

One might wonder how the former Senator speaks so authoritatively on this, how he seems to know for certain that the attacks are coming.

For indeed, we’ve heard a lot of this from the right. Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff has a “gut feeling” there are going to be attacks. There’s a certain desperation to this - as if Republicans realize that the only thing that can lift their fortunes now is for there to be another attack here in the United States.

As if they are actively hoping for an attack here in the United States.

For then - in their minds - they will be proven right; the war in Iraq, the broader war on terror (and wouldn’t it be convenient if the attack/attackers were traced back to Iran) will have been proven a sage and necessary strategy against the barbarians who menace us.

But Republicans ought to be careful of what they hope for. Because if there is another attack in the United States - and if Iraqis, or those trained in the cauldron of Iraq played a role in it - then we may say, accurately, that the the war in Iraq helped precipitate the attack. That the war in Iraq, and those who engineered it, bear some culpability. The public, rather than rallying behind the war party, may turn on the war party, saying - You have helped cause this.

Let’s be clear: It’s entirely possible, even likely, that there are going to be additional attacks on this country, be it this summer or sometime down the road. Those attacks may or may not be a direct result of what’s happened in Iraq; without Iraq, they might have happened anyway. And regardless of who will be responsible for the attack, they are certain to invoke Iraq. It provides a convenient excuse for what they wished to do anyway.

Nevertheless, when you kick over the hornet’s nest, as we have done, you can expect to get stung. It’s rather sickening to see that Republicans are already trying to spin this as validation of all they have done these past six years.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  46 comments  Tags: Terrorism · Wingers · War on terror · War in Iraq

There are currently 46 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
bigstew
7/11/07
10:36 AM
Or maybe Cheney sent halliburton to steal Iraq's oil, then cheney will take the money from the profits and hire al qaeda to bomb america so he can say "told ya so". Then after he declares himself emperor, he will start construction of the death star, contracted to halliburton, of course. He will eat Al Gore and RFK jr before destroying the planet, then him and his oil buddies will live in paradise in space on the blood and bones of Iraqis. lol_evil.gif



sarcasm.gif

Sameoldameold
7/11/07
11:48 AM
Do Republicans want another attack?

Is the pope catholic?
AmishFriend
7/11/07
12:06 PM
Do Democrats want to surrender to Islam? There won't be another attack in the US until Hillary is elected- then they'll be a daily happening.

Pericles
7/11/07
12:10 PM
QUOTE(AmishFriend @ Jul 11 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]303582[/snapback]
Do Democrats want to surrender to Islam?



Is the Pope Catholic?
Goldilocks
7/11/07
12:22 PM
Gil, Accusing the Republicans for hoping for a terrorist attack is merely based on your emotional hatred for them. You are reading far more into what they are saying. I would be inclined to believe that those in government know more than what we do about the inside workings of the terrorists and also looking at what happened in England. More than likely they are basing their statements on that info, and not because they are hoping for it too happen.

Accusing Republicans of hoping for a terrorist attack is based on mere emotional speculation, no more. Think with your brains, Gil, not your emotions. Your emotions are blinded by your disdain for Republicans and conservatives and that makes you look like a ninny journalist.

harv1
7/11/07
12:25 PM
We've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by fanatical Christians than any other group. Olympic bombing, abortion clinic bombings, doctors and nurses murdered in cold blood, Oklahoma City bombing, The unibomber... the list goes on.
Goldilocks
7/11/07
12:27 PM
QUOTE(harv1 @ Jul 11 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]303596[/snapback]

We've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by fanatical Christians than any other group.


Cite your sources.

harv1
7/11/07
12:27 PM
See above.
Shawn
7/11/07
12:35 PM
QUOTE(Goldilocks @ Jul 11 2007, 12:22 PM) [snapback]303594[/snapback]
Gil, Accusing the Republicans for hoping for a terrorist attack is merely based on your emotional hatred for them. You are reading far more into what they are saying. I would be inclined to believe that those in government know more than what we do about the inside workings of the terrorists and also looking at what happened in England. More than likely they are basing their statements on that info, and not because they are hoping for it too happen.

Accusing Republicans of hoping for a terrorist attack is based on mere emotional speculation, no more. Think with your brains, Gil, not your emotions. Your emotions are blinded by your disdain for Republicans and conservatives and that makes you look like a ninny journalist.





I think you are giving "those in government' way too much credit, which is very dangerous. The different agencies are still not communicating effectively with each other, and there is no means practical means for information sharing. They couldn't even stop the guy with TB from entering our country. If terrorists were smart, instead of committing suicide by bomb or crashing planes, they would simply infect themselves with highly contageous fatal diseases and start flying on airplanes. They wouldn't even have to cross our borders to wreak havoc.



Later...Shawn

dodgecrew
7/11/07
12:43 PM
QUOTE(harv1 @ Jul 11 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]303596[/snapback]
We've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by fanatical Christians than any other group. Olympic bombing, abortion clinic bombings, doctors and nurses murdered in cold blood, Oklahoma City bombing, The unibomber... the list goes on.
These were all Christians?????
Goldilocks
7/11/07
12:52 PM
QUOTE(harv1 @ Jul 11 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]303596[/snapback]

We've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by fanatical Christians than any other group. Olympic bombing, abortion clinic bombings, doctors and nurses murdered in cold blood, Oklahoma City bombing, The unibomber... the list goes on.


I got to give it to you Harv. Either you have astounding clairvoyant abilities or you are god, that you could look into the hearts of those terrorists and determine they are true Christians.

People can say anything, even that they are Christians, but that doesn’t make them one.

In Matthew Jesus said, Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Translated, that a person’s actions is far more a determining factor if one is a Christian, not their words. Would a true follower of Christ harm people , when Jesus commanded to love their fellow man, including your enemy?

Your statements come extremely close to stereotyping all Christians in the same category as the people who perpetrated those attacks. People that by their "fruits" indicate they probably weren't even Christians, but you labeled them as such. I find that extremely offensive against the Christians who would never harm anyone. Christians who are reaching out in mighty ways to the people in their neighborhoods and around the world.


harv1
7/11/07
12:55 PM
I was responding to the comment: "Do Democrats want to surrender to Islam?"

Perhaps mainstream Muslims feel exactly the way you do when they read something like that.

Take this last paragraph of your last post and substitute the word "Muslim" for the word "Christian:"

Your statements come extremely close to stereotyping all Christians in the same category as the people who perpetrated those attacks. People that by their "fruits" indicate they probably weren't even Christians, but you labeled them as such. I find that extremely offensive against the Christians who would never harm anyone. Christians who are reaching out in mighty ways to the people in their neighborhoods and around the world.

My point is that if we are going to start saying that Islam itself is behind this, then we need to take an honest look at the far greater number of terroristic attacks here that have been perpetrated in the name of Christ.
Shawn
7/11/07
1:01 PM
QUOTE(Goldilocks @ Jul 11 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]303608[/snapback]


I got to give it to you Harv. Either you have astounding clairvoyant abilities or you are god, that you could look into the hearts of those terrorists and determine they are true Christians.

People can say anything, even that they are Christians, but that doesn't make them one.

In Matthew Jesus said, Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Translated, that a person's actions is far more a determining factor if one is a Christian, not their words. Would a true follower of Christ harm people , when Jesus commanded to love their fellow man, including your enemy?

Your statements come extremely close to stereotyping all Christians in the same category as the people who perpetrated those attacks. People that by their "fruits" indicate they probably weren't even Christians, but you labeled them as such. I find that extremely offensive against the Christians who would never harm anyone. Christians who are reaching out in mighty ways to the people in their neighborhoods and around the world.




Now you know how Muslims feel when members of their religion are generalized as terrorists, even though a true follower of Islam could never be a terrorist. An example of such a characterization can be found above by the person who wrote:



QUOTE


Do Democrats want to surrender to Islam? There won't be another attack in the US until Hillary is elected- then they'll be a daily happening.




Later...Shawn

harv1
7/11/07
1:09 PM
Shawn: I consider myself fortunate to have a number of friends who are practicing Muslims and who abhor the violence committed in their religion's name. I also feel fortunate to live where they can publicly take out their prayer mats in public and say their prayers and not be branded potential terrorists.
Goldilocks
7/11/07
1:18 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jul 11 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]303611[/snapback]

Now you know how Muslims feel when members of their religion are generalized as terrorists, even though a true follower of Islam could never be a terrorist. An example of such a characterization can be found above by the person who wrote:




Later...Shawn


Have you seen me accuse all Muslims of being terrorists?

I fully understand that there are many that embrace peace and wouldn’t harm people. I have a brother who spent months in Indonesia building houses after the tsunami. The people were so kind, friendly and wonderful. These people constantly reminded the CAM (Christian Aid Ministries) workers that they are not like the terrorists. The area my brother was in was under Sharialaw and no one was allowed to speak to the natives about Christianity, unless asked, which they willingly complied to. However because of the CAM people’s actions and deeds the natives asked all the time. They were astounded that people would come half around the world to help them, working in the heat and the bugs, living in less than good conditions while there, etc. They wanted to know what motivated the workers to come help them. The CAM workers response was that they came out of Christian love for their fellowman.


grieker
7/11/07
1:20 PM
QUOTE(harv1 @ Jul 11 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]303596[/snapback]
We've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by fanatical Christians than any other group. Olympic bombing, abortion clinic bombings, doctors and nurses murdered in cold blood, Oklahoma City bombing, The unibomber... the list goes on.


We've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by fanatical Christians

I don't believe the 911 murderers were christian!



Republicans aren't hoping for another attack. If there is one, they get blamed for not protecting us, if there isn't one, they are blamed for blowing everything out of proportion.

Shawn
7/11/07
3:06 PM
QUOTE(Goldilocks @ Jul 11 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]303616[/snapback]


Have you seen me accuse all Muslims of being terrorists?





I didn't mean to imply that you did. Just that you and they have something in common when it comes to feeling unjustly judged as a result of your religious affiliations. That being said, I have not seen you respond in defense of muslims when other posters here imply that all muslims are terrorists. Maybe you did though and I just didn't take notice.



Later...Shawn

bigstew
7/11/07
3:38 PM
QUOTE(harv1 @ Jul 11 2007, 12:55 PM) [snapback]303609[/snapback]
I was responding to the comment: "Do Democrats want to surrender to Islam?"

Perhaps mainstream Muslims feel exactly the way you do when they read something like that.

Take this last paragraph of your last post and substitute the word "Muslim" for the word "Christian:"

Your statements come extremely close to stereotyping all Christians in the same category as the people who perpetrated those attacks. People that by their "fruits" indicate they probably weren't even Christians, but you labeled them as such. I find that extremely offensive against the Christians who would never harm anyone. Christians who are reaching out in mighty ways to the people in their neighborhoods and around the world.

My point is that if we are going to start saying that Islam itself is behind this, then we need to take an honest look at the far greater number of terroristic attacks here that have been perpetrated in the name of Christ.




Worldwide???



Funny I never see you arguing with someone who generalizes christians.

Magnus
7/11/07
5:56 PM
QUOTE(harv1 @ Jul 11 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]303596[/snapback]
We've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by fanatical Christians than any other group. Olympic bombing, abortion clinic bombings, doctors and nurses murdered in cold blood, Oklahoma City bombing, The unibomber... the list goes on.

Following that logic, harv, you could also state that we've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by white people with bad haircuts than any other group.

It would also seem to be a more valid assertion.
harv1
7/11/07
6:34 PM
Terror attacks on the Olympic park venue, abortion clinics, doctors and nurses are perpetrated by people who self-identify as Christian. If there has been an attack by a non-Christian group on abortion clinics, please cite those.

I feel no need, as a Christian, to argue with anyone who generalizes Christians - there are enough activists on this board who are more than happy to. My response here was to someone who was generalizing Islam.

Goldi can attest to the fact that I respect her form of Christian faith, although I disagree with it, because she is anti-war and her beliefs are both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I see her faith, at the very least, consistent. I could not imagine her becoming an "onward Christian soldier" in some bloody crusade. I believe what she says about her faith. Perhaps you should believe what many mainstream Muslims have to say about their faith.

I just feel that there are very few people here who know true Muslims as friends and so it is easy to generalize. As you probably know, many of the Saudi men who trained for 9/11 lived in Phoenix and trained there. Some of them happened to train in the same building as my spouse worked. And never EVER were one of them seen taking time to pray during the day or profess their great faith. Very different from the devout folks I know and hardly a representative of mainstream Islam.
ihavehorns
7/11/07
6:40 PM
QUOTE(Goldilocks @ Jul 11 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]303598[/snapback]

Cite your sources.


Sources? I think he just did.
harv1
7/11/07
6:45 PM
I just don't recall folks doing the bombings in the name of mullets dry.gif



By the way, here's a source list I should have posted earlier. There are many more. But it's dinner time:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence

justplainjoe
7/11/07
7:58 PM
now just a doggone minute here...

first they say that there hasn't been an attack here since 9/11 and that proves jr is doing a great job.

now they are saying an attack is coming.does that mean jr isn't doing a great job?

if we are attacked will it then be jrs fault for not protecting the border, for not protecting the ports, for not going after osama and his crew?

we are less safe thanks to the idiot so if we are attacked does slick rick expect us to run to the idiot for protection?

helll no!!!!!!



QUOTE(dodgecrew @ Jul 11 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]303605[/snapback]
These were all Christians?????


well maybe not good christians.LOL



QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 11 2007, 05:56 PM) [snapback]303680[/snapback]

Following that logic, harv, you could also state that we've had more terroristic attacks on our soil by white people with bad haircuts than any other group.

It would also seem to be a more valid assertion.


the flaw in your logic is that those white folks with bad haircuts didn't kill folks because they wanted everyone else to have bad haircuts like them.



Magnus
7/11/07
9:06 PM
QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Jul 11 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]303699[/snapback]
the flaw in your logic is that those white folks with bad haircuts didn't kill folks because they wanted everyone else to have bad haircuts like them.

No, the flaw in Harv's logic is identifying a broad spectrum of American killers by the fact that they said they were Christians. By their fruits you will know them ...

Middle Eastern terrorists are identified as Islamic because they are doing that which is Islamic, and commanded in the Koran. Kill the infidels ... you and I are infidels.

Welcome to the club.
harv1
7/12/07
12:04 AM
And many MANY Christians went to war during the Holy Crusades and many MANY "infidels" died during the Inquisition because of their belief that the Bible compelled them to do so in the name of Christ. The bible has been used to justify such behavior and, on the whole, by many more Christians who saw it that way than Muslims who interpret the Koran that way.

I was talking to a devout Sunni Muslim about Amadinijahd (sp?) of Iran and his 'forecasting.' My friend said that one of the basic tenets of the Koran is that you cannot predict. That predicting is considere blasphemy and that only Allah has that ability. He said that it is even considered presupposing to predict what you are going to have for dinner, let alone what will happen to an entire community such as Israel.
erstwhile
7/12/07
1:47 AM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 11 2007, 09:06 PM) [snapback]303710[/snapback]

...
Middle Eastern terrorists are identified as Islamic because they are doing that which is Islamic, and commanded in the Koran. Kill the infidels ... you and I are infidels.

Welcome to the club.




Ummmmm, isn't this saying the same thing?




Deuteronomy 17


1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

.............................................................................................

Isn't this telling the Hebrews and by extension, the Christians who followed them the commandment to kill anyone who doesn't believe in the god of Abraham? Why do non-Moslems consistenly ignore the exhortations of murder in their own holy book while pointing at the holy book of Islam? Who gets to decide when a biblical commandment is to be ignored anyway? Or do they lie in wait until they become useful again?





Goldilocks
7/12/07
6:49 AM
QUOTE(erstwhile @ Jul 12 2007, 12:47 AM) [snapback]303742[/snapback]

Ummmmm, isn't this saying the same thing?
Deuteronomy 17
1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the LORD thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evilfavouredness: for that is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

.............................................................................................

Isn't this telling the Hebrews and by extension, the Christians who followed them the commandment to kill anyone who doesn't believe in the god of Abraham? Why do non-Moslems consistenly ignore the exhortations of murder in their own holy book while pointing at the holy book of Islam? Who gets to decide when a biblical commandment is to be ignored anyway? Or do they lie in wait until they become useful again?



When Jesus came, He fulfilled those Old Testament laws

In Mt 5:17 Jesus said, “think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

The ancient Greek word for "fulfil" is "Pleroo", meaning to satisfy, complete or finish.

We live in a New Testament dispensation, making those Old Testament laws inapplicable.


Magnus
7/12/07
7:03 AM
QUOTE(harv1 @ Jul 12 2007, 12:04 AM) [snapback]303726[/snapback]
And many MANY Christians went to war during the Holy Crusades and many MANY "infidels" died during the Inquisition because of their belief that the Bible compelled them to do so in the name of Christ. The bible has been used to justify such behavior and, on the whole, by many more Christians who saw it that way than Muslims who interpret the Koran that way.

I was talking to a devout Sunni Muslim about Amadinijahd (sp?) of Iran and his 'forecasting.' My friend said that one of the basic tenets of the Koran is that you cannot predict. That predicting is considere blasphemy and that only Allah has that ability. He said that it is even considered presupposing to predict what you are going to have for dinner, let alone what will happen to an entire community such as Israel.

Interested that you use the term "the Bible has been used ..." There's truth in that. The Bible has been used to justify many things. The distinction is this:

The Koran justifies [fill in the blank].


QUOTE(erstwhile @ Jul 12 2007, 01:47 AM) [snapback]303742[/snapback]
Ummmmm, isn't this saying the same thing?

Deuteronomy 17

Isn't this telling the Hebrews and by extension, the Christians who followed them the commandment to kill anyone who doesn't believe in the god of Abraham? Why do non-Moslems consistenly ignore the exhortations of murder in their own holy book while pointing at the holy book of Islam? Who gets to decide when a biblical commandment is to be ignored anyway? Or do they lie in wait until they become useful again?

Goldi covered it perfectly ... nothing more to add.
QUOTE(Goldilocks @ Jul 12 2007, 06:49 AM) [snapback]303756[/snapback]
When Jesus came, He fulfilled those Old Testament laws

In Mt 5:17 Jesus said, "think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

The ancient Greek word for "fulfil" is "Pleroo", meaning to satisfy, complete or finish.

We live in a New Testament dispensation, making those Old Testament laws inapplicable.

hahaha
7/12/07
7:17 AM
Speaking of citing things.

Are there any Christian nations that kill people because the follow a different religion?

Are there any Muslim nations or non-religious nations that kill people because the follow a certain religion?
cyberscribbler
7/12/07
9:12 AM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 11 2007, 09:06 PM) [snapback]303710[/snapback]
Middle Eastern terrorists are identified as Islamic because they are doing that which is Islamic, and commanded in the Koran. Kill the infidels ... you and I are infidels.

Welcome to the club.

First off you're referring to wahabbist, specifically, not all muslims.

Secondly, by that logic Muslims would be hell bent on killing Christians since the founding of their religion, correct? I remember something about not allowing other religions in the muslim holy cities of Mecca & Medina. Where in the koran is this commanded?



Magnus
7/12/07
9:24 AM
QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jul 12 2007, 09:12 AM) [snapback]303798[/snapback]
First off you're referring to wahabbist, specifically, not all muslims.

Nope, referring to Islam. Don't infer my refer.

QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jul 12 2007, 09:12 AM) [snapback]303798[/snapback]
Secondly, by that logic Muslims would be hell bent on killing Christians since the founding of their religion, correct? I remember something about not allowing other religions in the muslim holy cities of Mecca & Medina. Where in the koran is this commanded?

Been in touch lately??

Rhetorical question: Are there Christians who don't follow the Bible word for word?

Are there Muslims who don't follow the Koran word for word?



Goldilocks
7/12/07
9:35 AM
QUOTE(hahaha @ Jul 12 2007, 06:17 AM) [snapback]303772[/snapback]

Speaking of citing things.

Are there any Christian nations that kill people because the follow a different religion?




Good questions. If there would be Christian nations that kill people who follow a different religion, IMO, than they wouldn't be a "Christian" nation.

QUOTE
Are there any Muslim nations or non-religious nations that kill people because the follow a certain religion?


In light of the fact that government persecution of Christians is rampant in some countries, the answer to that would be, yes.

cyberscribbler
7/12/07
9:37 AM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 12 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]303802[/snapback]

Nope, referring to Islam. Don't infer my refer.
By that token, all Christians now equals Westboro Baptists, so sayeth Magnus.

QUOTE
Rhetorical question: Are there Christians who don't follow the Bible word for word?

Are there Muslims who don't follow the Koran word for word?

Of course there are, they've regrouped because we went after a heathen named Saddam.
Been in touch lately, yourself?
Magnus
7/12/07
10:00 AM
QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jul 12 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]303809[/snapback]
By that token, all Christians now equals Westboro Baptists, so sayeth Magnus.

Dizzy yet? You should be, with that kind of spin.

True Christians follow the Bible. Don't follow the Bible? Not Christian [Christ-like].

True Muslims follow the Koran. Don't follow the Koran? Not Muslim.

It's a holy war, and the target is painted on you and me. Deal with it, or die not trying.
cyberscribbler
7/12/07
10:09 AM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 12 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]303817[/snapback]
True Muslims follow the Koran. Don't follow the Koran? Not Muslim.

QUOTE
Middle Eastern terrorists are identified as Islamic because they are doing that which is Islamic, and commanded in the Koran. Kill the infidels
So they're not true Muslims, because they're purposely misinterpreting verses of the Koran to justiify an aggressive jihad.

DUH

They're called wahabbists, their base of operations has been in the Afghan tribal regions.
justplainjoe
7/12/07
10:30 AM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 12 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]303802[/snapback]


Rhetorical question: Are there Christians who don't follow the Bible word for word?



yep, most of 'em

Are there Muslims who don't follow the Koran word for word?

yep, most of 'em



Magnus
7/12/07
10:31 AM
QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jul 12 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]303822[/snapback]
So they're not true Muslims, because they're purposely misinterpreting verses of the Koran to justiify an aggressive jihad.

DUH

They're called wahabbists, their base of operations has been in the Afghan tribal regions.

You're going to get nauseous if you keep up the spinning.

True Muslims read the Koran as it is written in order to justify jihad, agressive or not. No interpretation needed.

Base of ops is also in Riyadh, Darfur, Islamabad, NYC, Philadelphia, etc.

Duh.
justplainjoe
7/12/07
10:33 AM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 12 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]303817[/snapback]


It's a holy war,


there ya have it folks, a holy war started by the head holyman in charge...george dumbya bush!!!!!!

bwahahhahhahhaha

hey magnus...yer holyman sure has a lotta blood on his hands.LOL

cyberscribbler
7/12/07
10:45 AM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 12 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]303830[/snapback]
True Muslims read the Koran as it is written in order to justify jihad, agressive or not. No interpretation needed.
What must proceed a jihad?
A fatwah
Name the Islamic cleric or scholar who has issued a fatwah calling for a jihad against infidels who support corrupt Islamic regimes?
Bin Laden.
Any others?

So true Muslims have been wrong for 500 years because they're not interpretting the Koran literally and not figuratively.

By that token True Christians read the Bible and interpret the verses justifying stoning prostitutes.
justplainjoe
7/12/07
11:15 AM
QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jul 12 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]303837[/snapback]

By that token True Christians read the Bible and interpret the verses justifying stoning prostitutes.


say that republican senator from louisiana ain't gonna like that one bit.

LOL

Magnus
7/12/07
1:27 PM
QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Jul 12 2007, 10:33 AM) [snapback]303831[/snapback]
there ya have it folks, a holy war started by the head holyman in charge...george dumbya bush!!!!!!

bwahahhahhahhaha

hey magnus...yer holyman sure has a lotta blood on his hands.LOL

Huh. You must've been hiding underground for the last 500 years.

FYI - you can keep Dubya. I can do without him.

Bwahahaha.


QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jul 12 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]303837[/snapback]
What must proceed a jihad?
A fatwah
Name the Islamic cleric or scholar who has issued a fatwah calling for a jihad against infidels ...

Mohammed.

Perhaps I should draw a caricature for you? Oh wait ... that might get me killed, huh?
cyberscribbler
7/12/07
2:32 PM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 12 2007, 01:27 PM) [snapback]303909[/snapback]

Mohammed.
In defense of Mecca & Medina. true.

Mohammed didn't write fatwah's. He wrote the book.
justplainjoe
7/12/07
2:38 PM
QUOTE(Magnus @ Jul 12 2007, 01:27 PM) [snapback]303909[/snapback]

Huh. You must've been hiding underground for the last 500 years.



well i can remember the "holy" crusades where white trash europeans invaded the middle east ostensibly for the lord although they did get to keep 40% of what they stole and i believe they were allowed to rape as long as they confessed their sins .LOL

of course that was more than 500 years ago

FYI - you can keep Dubya. I can do without him.


i am well pleased to see you are learning.i hope i have been a positive influence , my son.


Bwahahaha.



that's a beautiful laff you have.



pml
7/13/07
11:16 AM
I guarante you if we have another attack the terrorists will not be from IRAQ!!!! Of course they want another attack because then they can wag their fingers and say see only "WE CAN PROTECT YOU". Bull!! We need to heal many wounds from the Bush administration before we can truly feel safe. Bush has mad a joke out of this country. We can not keep illegal aliens who only want a free ride on our tax dollars, not to kill us. How in the world can we keep the terrorists out?
hahaha
7/13/07
11:51 AM
How do you know they won't be from Iraq? They may not be Iraqis, but they could very will be from Iraq. After all, it has been declared by the extremists, that Iraq is the central point of the war against America. They want to win and turn Iraq in to a true Islamic state. So, let's pull out now and let them do that so they can train an entire army and attack us. Brilliant strategy!
bigstew
7/13/07
1:58 PM
QUOTE(hahaha @ Jul 13 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]304302[/snapback]
How do you know they won't be from Iraq? They may not be Iraqis, but they could very will be from Iraq. After all, it has been declared by the extremists, that Iraq is the central point of the war against America. They want to win and turn Iraq in to a true Islamic state. So, let's pull out now and let them do that so they can train an entire army and attack us. Brilliant strategy!




Forget it. They can't see the writing on the wall. They act like they haven't been coming for us since the 80's and some how this all manifested from Bush.

View Topic | Comment on this blog