Interesting Statement by Annie2

Aquinian wrote: Andalus wrote: Aquinian wrote: lol, you may be right, David.  All I know is, Andalus said that he supports the Jihad against Israel.  That's all I needed to know. unfortunately, you once again demonstrate that you know little, and assume much. You are transcending into equivocational problems in your thesis. Your discourse has become filled with distortions and slogans. So what does it mean if I am against the state of Israel? What does that tell you about Jihad, and how it relates to the rhetoric of some, and how doe sthat relate to my beliefs? Since not enough has been given to give an accurate reply, this is evident that you are once again filling in your conclusions with more conjecture and wishful thinking than substance. Aquinian wrote:   I think it's important to realize who this man is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni Husayni met with Hitler and discussed the removal of Jews from Palestine, with full knowledge of how Hitler was removing them from Europe (murdering them in cold blood and without provocation). Because the arabs collaborated with Hitler, they lost all rights to their land.  That's what happens in a war.  If Hitler had won, the arabs would have gotten what they wanted: annihilation of the Jews. And now the discussion further detracts from the orginal thesis you claimed. Your course of constant obfuscation is noted, and it is essential that we are all very clear that your intention is not to discuss, but to simply throw out red herrings. Face it, you have failed to prove your original thesis. You failed. Now you resort to dishonest tricks to maintain your bellicose nature toward Islam. SO what does your above "attempted insult" prove? What does it allow you to conclude? Keep in mind aquinian, you started out with what seemed to be a sincere belief in debate, but ever since I have asked you to come clean and prove your original thesis, you have deliberately used the thread as an opportunity to try and throw daggers (but you are thinking is too convoluted for you to know that you are really throwing water baloons), which is simply maliciouse. I will not allow you to use the forum to throw out "case by case" people who may or may not have been acting in the best cause, and were acting out of personal well being, as a way for you to try and distort my faith. There is no benefit in this course. The thread is not about people who may or may not have done questionable things, it is about the faith of Islam and your claim that it teaches people to kill innocents. Your dihonest chicanery now puts me in a position to take heavy swipes at your church, Christians, popes, etc, etc, that would send you out of the forum angry, and I would also, unfortunately, anger some of the Christians here who I like, a lot. And the funny thing is, your history is filled with vile actions taken by your very "ilk", for 2000 years. The Jewish faith derived a halacha on "suicide" due to your "ilk" force converting them. Your willingness to over look your violent actions and racist bigotry so you can bring up individuals with quesiotnable backgrounds in an attempt to malign my faith speaks volumes for your "christian character". Truly. Nothing above that you pasted has anything to do with the thread or your assertion. The next time you do this, without any discourse that connects them to a point, I will edit your thread, and if it continues, I will have your account reviewed. It is that simple.      Aquinian wrote: The Jews now have Israel because 6 million of their people were murdered.  Oh, but I'm sure the holocaust "really didn't happen" right?  I hope to God you don't say that. Is that would Jesus would do? 6 million people are killed living in Christian lands, so you kick Arab Christian and Muslims off of their land, give them the crappiest sections, and then hand out the best parts for the Euros? So when ever people are mistreated, you throw someone else off their land and give it away to the victims? That is completely ignorant, and irrational.   Aquinian wrote: So, once and for all: when you lose in a war, you lose.  Your land can be taken and there's nothing you can do about it. 1) The war is over when one side gives in. I think millions diagree with you. 2) So why did the Catholic church desire to take Spain? You are a hypocrit. So now everyone is evil who resists, except for Christians. Christian violence is piouse and noble. 3) Your world view is rather juvenile, and it tells me you have no clue as to the events that have lead up to the current conflict. Please review your history, and start a new thread as it has nothing to do with your assertion: Islam teaches the killing of innocents.   Aquian wrote: Now, we have this idea of Jihad against Israel, but that's nonsense.  The Muslims will never ever beat Israel.  Israel has the bomb.  Israel has a real military.  I would be surprised if any of the arab countries ever tried to nuke Israel because they would be annihilated. Oh wonderful! We now have the luxury of recieving Aquianians opinions. I feel much more enlightened about everything, thanks to Aquianian's opinions, Thank you so much. Everything is so much more clear. Christian war is good. Taking land is good. Once a Christian takes your land, then too bad. Fighting back is bad, for non-Christians, who should just except their plight. Praise Jesus!   Jihad is nonsense, but Israeli persecution is "ok", because Jihad is nonsense. How old are you Aquinian? Seriously? You are turning out to be more of a waste of time the further I read. Opinions, assertions, conjecture,.....yaaawn. Yes, Israel has a real military because the west gave it to them, along with the Nukes. So now what? They are free to do whatever they want to people? I though Christians aborred violence and injustice. Like most Christians, you are simply showing your true colors. Only Christian violence is pure and wholesome! (by the way, the topic of Israel is in a different section. I will edit your reply if you attempt to further deflect from your claim about the teachings of Islam) The rest of your convoluted sophistry is nothing more than childs talk about comic book heros, "if spider man ever spun his web against superman, he would do.......". If you want to have an adult discussion, then I ask you to refrain from your games and rantings and contribute substance relevant to the topic. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that Islam teaches people to kill innocents? Aquin wrote:   But to get to the point: jihad against Israel is an offensive gesture, not a defensive one.  Allah allowed the Jews a homeland because of the actions of arab Muslims; namely, their support for the holocaust. The zionists posture was offensive, not defensive, as was the Christian British. Their "jihad" was offensive, and mimicked the slaughter Jesus had ordered them to do in the Torah (according to your faith). It was not defensive. And it still is not defensive. Amazing. You know what Gd thinks. And what was Gd's punishment to Christains for allowing the holocaust to happen? Afterall, it happened in Christian lands. Your atempt to blame Arabs is extremely funny. More Church posturing. Aquin wrote: Notice, Israel gives the Palestinians land just recently and what do the stupid bastards do?  They kidnap an Israeli soldier.  Disgusting. 1) Refrain from abusive statements. I realize you are unable to provide proof of your claim, but your abuse of people who are living in poverty and dirt due to your "pious" foriegn policy, and the "pious" actions of the Zionists, will not be tolerated. This is your first warning. 2) You are extremely ignorant and your statement reflects your uneducated position about what was given and what was not given. The problem is that your lack of grey matter has not yet figured out the difference between "propoganda" and truth. Like most westerners, you are intellectually complacent and simply believe whatever you are told to beleive. It is not the Palestinians who are stupid, but they are angry and rightly so, but you are not smart enough to figure out why. Aquinian wrote: Andalus, by saying you support the jihad against Israel, you are saying that you support suicide bombings.  The only weapon of Palestinians is suicide bombing.  Throwing rocks at soldiers does nothing.  So, if you support suicide bombings and you are a fully indoctrinated Muslim, as you have claimed, then suicide bombings must be okay in the theology of Islam. No, by supporting the struggle against the opression does not lead to the conclusion you are drawing. Like 99% of everything you put up, you make waaaaay TOO many assumptions. Read my opening reply. If you are unable to answer my questions, then you do not have enough information to draw your conclusions. Aquin wrote: If suicide bombings of women and children are okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is a violent religion. You have not provided evidence to supprt the bases of your conditional statement. This is what you have been avoiding the entire time, and now here you are, trying to make the assumption in a conditional statement. Look Aquanian, I do not care what you think about Israel, or the PLO, or Madonna, I do not care what you favorite beverage is. You stated that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. I aksed you to provide evidence. You have not provided a schred of relevant evidence. Please provide proof for your opening of the above conditional. This is what I have been waiting for. Aquin wrote:   If suicide bombings are not okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is not a violent religion.  Which is it?  In order to have Islam be a religion of peace, you must concede the following: the jihad against Israel is being carried out incorrectly.  No suicide bombings should occur.  If you agree with suicide bombings, then Islam is not a religion of peace. See above. You have used an unproven assumption in your conditional. It is therefore erroneous. Aquin wrote: I notice that you immediately reverted to arguments against Israel and the jews when I made arguments against the Palestinians, but that in no way proves me incorrect about your faith.  Please take a basic course in logic. What I demonstrated was typical Christain hypocrisy: a fallacy of a case of special pleading. 1) In no way did I affirm or deny anything you put forth about individuals who happen to be Muslim. I simply put forth examples of your own "ilk" to see just how intellectually honest you were. You failed. 2) Your charges you provided did not provide any evidence to prove your claim. They were examples of individuals who happen to be Muslim, and not a source of teaching that defines the Islamic faith. 3) If Islam is wrong becuase of the actions of some individuals, then your faith is of the devil due to the examples I provided. Since you do not think so, then this is proof of "special pleading". I hope this helped? Aquin wrote:   You have much the same philosophy as the CIA: Deny everything, admit nothing, and make counter-accusations.  Your consistent counter accusations against Christianity have no relevance.  Your religious beliefs are the ones that we are arguing about.  If Islam does not condone violence, why is the jihad against Israel so violent?  Why the killing of women and children? More empty rhetorical nonsense. 1) You have been caught making a case of special pleading. (hence you are shown to be intellectually dishonest). 2) Your evidences only show that some Muslims can make questionable decisions. Not that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Aquin wrote:   The killing of the first born in the Old Testament passover is the work of God.  I suggest that you not question why God did it.  Who are you to question the methods of God?  Only God can judge who lives or dies. Who said anything about the first born? Jesus ordered the massacre of babies by the sword (according to your bible and theology). And yes, like I said you would say, according to Christians, Christian violence is piouse and wholesome and full of loving goodness. Praise Jesus! (and this is another case of special pleading that you have been caught in) Aquin wrote: God also killed the entire earth except for Noah during the floods.  Why would you question it?  It is God's will: you should submit. Jesus also ordered the executions of babies by the sword. Is that the will of Jesus? I though Jesus loved everyone? I always see those funny comparisons that evangelicals love so much to put out: Who is better Jesus or Prophet Muhammad? They said Jesus could commit no violence? But there were babies who would disagree (according to your bible and theolgy of course, Islam is not violent like that) Aquin wrote: We do not take it upon ourselves to decide who lives or dies.  That is God's will.  I find it interesting how you think that because Jesus is God and God killed human beings, you think you are capable of deciding who should die and who should live. Except when you are busy taking land in war? And you are now saying, as I stated you would say, "Violence is piouse as long as Jesus puts his stamp of approval on it". Thats what you are now trying to appeal to. You are simply out of gas. So you are saying: Muslims commit violence and they are evil. Christains commit violence and "it is all good". Nice Aquinian. Aquin wrote: You attempt to make yourself like God when you claim that Jesus' perception of who should die is equivalent to yours.  His perception is much greater because he is God and I thank you for acknowledging that. Now you are rambeling. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and it does not relate to anything I have stated. Aquin wrote: In conclusion, we have make some startling realizations here: Man is not capable of deciding who should die.  However bloody or violent the method of God killing man, only God can make the judgement. ????????????? And this has to do with the thread????? exactly how??? And Moses gave law that allowed judges to decide who should die. So what of that? You said 6 million people died, so their relatives had the right to kill peopel for land? When did Gd do the killing? Aquin wrote: Those who claim that they have the right to jihad and kill Israelis are making themselves into gods.  They are deciding who lives or dies. Like the Jews and Christians who took the land? They decided who died? And yet another case of special pleading. Aquin wrote: As any good Muslim should, I suggest that you submit to Allah and accept his judgement rather than make your own judgements upon your brother. I have no idea what you just said? I have an idea that you also have no idea what you just said?   Andalus, I suggest you take a course in logic again.  Your failure to follow my thoughts is a clear indication of ignorance of logic.  This "theory of special pleading" is complete nonsense and I would appreciate it if you'd stop using it as a means of not responding to my posts.  That is all you are doing.  You are not making any effective defense of your religion.  It is obvious that you make counter accusations so that the violence of arab Muslims does not look as bad.

I am sorry that you have not been able to keep up with the basic principles of critical thinking. Not only have you committed the fallacy of speical pleading, but 99% of all evangelical polemics commit the fallacy.

Keep in mind it is not my job to educate your intellectual deficiencies, but I will do it as an act of charity in this case.

Special Pleading:

 

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.ht ml

 

You commit this fallacy on such a regular bases that the keys on my key board are becoming worn.

I hope this helps you, and I hope you enrich yourself with a basic logic course. I can refer you to some really good books for beginners. Now that you see that my claim is not only valid, but directly applies to the juvenile diatribe you have tried to sneak forth.

Aquin wrote: I love how you respond to the holocaust by saying "so that makes it okay to steal the arabs' land?"  YES YES YES YES.  It is okay to steal their land because they supported the holocaust.

 

1) They is a generalization that is the tool of racists, biggots, and all who have beliefs based upon irrational thought. You listed on man who had certain ideas. Since the one man does not define every person who lived in the Middle East, your conclusion is like the 99% of everything else you put forth: illogical, juvenile. sophomoric.

2) Since Christian Germany supported the Nazi party, I ask, who should steal their land? Since the US turned thei rbacks on the Jews, and sent back a great deal of them trying to leave Germany, then who should steal the US? Who should steal the vatican?

Another case of speical pleading.

Aquin wrote:   I'd say that land is a cheap price for the lives of 6 million jews, wouldn't you?

I would say that you are unable to provide even a crude argument that makes any real sense in a normal "forum setting".

Oh, by the way, your question is also a fallacy. Your question is a "complex question". Look it up.

Aquin wrote:  Just admit it: you don't think the holocaust really happened, do you?

Although irrelevant, as everything else is youhave put up, to your original thesis you have failed to prove: Islam teaches the killing of innocents.

I am puzzled at your question. You have been able to deduce my thoughts on the holocaust? Once more, you show your irrational use of thought. Your conclusions all seem to be derived from generalizations. You know that I have some view on the holocaust how?

Aquin wrote:  If the arabs had not supported the holocaust, they would not have lost their land.  TOO BAD.  I'm sorry you are failing to grasp this simple aspect of war, but maybe when the arabs win a war, they can set terms that are good for them.

Arabs did not support anything. Again you use the racist mentality of generalizations. Some did support the Nazis, as a way to get rid of the Christian oppressors, who supported by Holocaust by letting it happen. The holocaust happened in Christian lands. It is amazing that you feel Arabs have so much influence in the politcs of Europe.

So, in conclusion, we have learned from you that:

1) If Arabs have anyone from their population who supported the Nazis, then Christians are allowed to punish them by giving their lands away, and allowing thousands to perish and entire villages to be wiped off the map. (Is that Holy Ghost endorsed? Is that something Jesus, the Lamb, would do?) 

2) If Christians contirbuted to the death of Jews during this same period, then........(of course nothing happens, this was a pious mistake because it is a Christian mistake, or maybe the Christian atoned by giving away land that was not theirs?)

3) If someone wins a war, the loosing party has no rights, and may be wiped out, mistreated, etc, etc. (THis is what Jesus did in your OT yes? According to Christian theology and your bible? Right? This is a CHristian teaching?)

This is too easy Aquinian.

Aquin wrote: Just because the Israelis kill a Muslim does not make it okay for a Muslim to kill Israelis.  OH WAIT, YES IT DOES.  In your religion "eye for an eye" is okay right?

Not at all. This actually stems from Jesus in the Torah. Jesus was the first to initiate such laws. He was a pioneer! So the Jews believe in it also. The Church claims they have gone past it, but their actions differ. 

So lets review again:

According to Aquinian, if someone is oppressed by Israelis, and if that person had someone from their race support the Nazis, then Christians are allowed to give their land away, and any killing and opression that follows must be taken with respect and calm.

Your world is that of a teenager who has experience little of it. Your belief that Palestinians should sit quitely and live the lives they have been put in, and just ignore Israeli opression and injustice, because someone from their race made a deal with the Nazis has to be the most ignorant thing I have vere heard in my life. And that you really beleive it is beyond all rationality.    

 

Aquin wrote: I made the following argument very succintly: If Jesus is God and God ordered the killing of someone, then it is justified because only God is capable of giving someone life or death.

So you accept violence as long as it it Christian violence, piouse Christian violence. This is called, "special pleading".

Here, lets review again.

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

You have done this in your attitude about land, about theology, and everything thus far. I suppose you are just a "special pleading" kind of guy!

So lets review: Killing babies is ok, as long as Jesus has said so.

I think we have that covered now.

 

Aquin wrote: Because Islam is unprovable and untrue, the Quran does not have justification for representing the will of God in any form.

The fallacy of proof by assertion, and more special pleading.

1) Violence is ok for Aquinian as long as Jesus does it because the violence is from Gd.

2) Violence is wrong by Muslims, and Islam is evil, because Islam cannot be proven true.  

Conlcusion: Aquinian accepts the murder of babies, so for him violence is ok. So prove your bible and religion are true? Prove that Islam is false?

And beyond this, for the sake of argument, lets say yoru faith can be proven true. Then your argument against Islam is not that it has vilolence, but that it cannot be proven true, since now you have admitted you accept violence as an appropriate action. WHy you accept it is irrelevant.

So now you only reject Islam because it cannot be proven true?

So now, prove your faith is true, and prove Islam is false.

Aquin wrote:    Therefore, when Muslims kill, they kill because a book that does not represent the will of God tells them to kill.  These killings are then unjustified. If Christians kill according to the law of the Bible, then they do so justifiably because the Bible is the true word of God. So, my argument is this: Islam is unprovable; therefore, killings performed in jihad are unjustifiable.

Lovely special pleading.

Lets review!

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

Do you get it now?

Prove Christian is true. Prove Islam is false. Proof by assertion is not proof.

Aquin wrote: I am not assuming anything, but resting on you to prove that Islam is a real religion and not just a method for arab conquest.

Actually, you assume a great deal in your posts. You assert a great deal in your posts. You also use the fallacy of generalizations, or "sweeping generalizations", as a way to provde a reason to accept Israeli violence on Palestinians.

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalizatio n.html

Everyone has piouse vilence to give out but Christians and those they see fit. Nice Aquinian.

 

And now you are switiching topics. The topic was your evidence that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Now you want me to prove the Islam is true?

Since you have made the assertion that Islam cannot be proven true, and your acceptance of violence rests on this point, and you  accept violence by Jesus, then please prove that Christian can a) be proven true and b) is true.

Aquin wrote: Also, Annie offered evidence that Muhammad encouraged the killing of women and children, but you glossed over that, just as you've glossed over all of my arguments in favor of repetition and mass text.

Strange claim you are making. Since my repliy was a "gloss over", then perhaps you can show the forum the problems with it, specifically? I look forward to your input.

Aquin wrote: Here are some quotes from your prophet and Koran.  Go ahead and explain (sidestep) why each and every one is not a clear reason for explaining the violence of Islam:

This is called "dumping". You went to your favorite polemical website, and then copied and pasted this list. You have neither read any of this material, nor are you serious about discussing it. Dumping is a dihonest rhetorical trick. Either I spend a lot of time with each one, or I do not. Usually intellectual cowards appeal to this form of debate because they take the chance that no one will actually cover the whole thing. This allows them to continue pushing it around as factual. Now you have moved into the realm of dishonesty.

None of these verses proves that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. Many of the verses were not historical accounts, some were during war time, etc, etc, some you took completely out of context.

I would be happy to debate any of the points on the list. But at this point, I can only recoginize a person who hates Islam, and will never reply with anything decent or rational. You are now abusing the forum, and so far, you have used every reply to send polemical garbage, which has nothing to do wtith the point ot topic of the thread. Your "dumping" of more polemical garbage, none of which proved your orginal claim, and none of which you actually discussed, is the last straw. Consider your account under review, and this thread closed.  

 

Aquinian, I suggest you adopt your namesake's methodology of 'si et non', and draw up a table of both evidences both or and against your thesis.

Your last post was closer to screed than argument.  Nobody could possibly respond intelligently to such a diatribe.

Aquinian wrote: lol, you may be right, David.  All I know is, Andalus said that he supports the Jihad against Israel.  That's all I needed to know.

unfortunately, you once again demonstrate that you know little, and assume much. You are transcending into equivocational problems in your thesis. Your discourse has become filled with distortions and slogans. So what does it mean if I am against the state of Israel? What does that tell you about Jihad, and how it relates to the rhetoric of some, and how doe sthat relate to my beliefs? Since not enough has been given to give an accurate reply, this is evident that you are once again filling in your conclusions with more conjecture and wishful thinking than substance.

Aquinian wrote:   I think it's important to realize who this man is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni Husayni met with Hitler and discussed the removal of Jews from Palestine, with full knowledge of how Hitler was removing them from Europe (murdering them in cold blood and without provocation). Because the arabs collaborated with Hitler, they lost all rights to their land.  That's what happens in a war.  If Hitler had won, the arabs would have gotten what they wanted: annihilation of the Jews.

And now the discussion further detracts from the orginal thesis you claimed. Your course of constant obfuscation is noted, and it is essential that we are all very clear that your intention is not to discuss, but to simply throw out red herrings. Face it, you have failed to prove your original thesis. You failed. Now you resort to dishonest tricks to maintain your bellicose nature toward Islam.

SO what does your above "attempted insult" prove? What does it allow you to conclude? Keep in mind aquinian, you started out with what seemed to be a sincere belief in debate, but ever since I have asked you to come clean and prove your original thesis, you have deliberately used the thread as an opportunity to try and throw daggers (but you are thinking is too convoluted for you to know that you are really throwing water baloons), which is simply maliciouse. I will not allow you to use the forum to throw out "case by case" people who may or may not have been acting in the best cause, and were acting out of personal well being, as a way for you to try and distort my faith.

There is no benefit in this course. The thread is not about people who may or may not have done questionable things, it is about the faith of Islam and your claim that it teaches people to kill innocents.

Your dihonest chicanery now puts me in a position to take heavy swipes at your church, Christians, popes, etc, etc, that would send you out of the forum angry, and I would also, unfortunately, anger some of the Christians here who I like, a lot. And the funny thing is, your history is filled with vile actions taken by your very "ilk", for 2000 years. The Jewish faith derived a halacha on "suicide" due to your "ilk" force converting them. Your willingness to over look your violent actions and racist bigotry so you can bring up individuals with quesiotnable backgrounds in an attempt to malign my faith speaks volumes for your "christian character". Truly. Nothing above that you pasted has anything to do with the thread or your assertion. The next time you do this, without any discourse that connects them to a point, I will edit your thread, and if it continues, I will have your account reviewed. It is that simple. 

 

 

Aquinian wrote: The Jews now have Israel because 6 million of their people were murdered.  Oh, but I'm sure the holocaust "really didn't happen" right?  I hope to God you don't say that.

Is that would Jesus would do? 6 million people are killed living in Christian lands, so you kick Arab Christian and Muslims off of their land, give them the crappiest sections, and then hand out the best parts for the Euros?

So when ever people are mistreated, you throw someone else off their land and give it away to the victims? That is completely ignorant, and irrational.

 

Aquinian wrote: So, once and for all: when you lose in a war, you lose.  Your land can be taken and there's nothing you can do about it.

1) The war is over when one side gives in. I think millions diagree with you.

2) So why did the Catholic church desire to take Spain? You are a hypocrit. So now everyone is evil who resists, except for Christians. Christian violence is piouse and noble.

3) Your world view is rather juvenile, and it tells me you have no clue as to the events that have lead up to the current conflict. Please review your history, and start a new thread as it has nothing to do with your assertion: Islam teaches the killing of innocents.

 

Aquian wrote: Now, we have this idea of Jihad against Israel, but that's nonsense.  The Muslims will never ever beat Israel.  Israel has the bomb.  Israel has a real military.  I would be surprised if any of the arab countries ever tried to nuke Israel because they would be annihilated.

Oh wonderful! We now have the luxury of recieving Aquianians opinions. I feel much more enlightened about everything, thanks to Aquianian's opinions, Thank you so much. Everything is so much more clear.

Christian war is good. Taking land is good. Once a Christian takes your land, then too bad. Fighting back is bad, for non-Christians, who should just except their plight. Praise Jesus!   Jihad is nonsense, but Israeli persecution is "ok", because Jihad is nonsense.

How old are you Aquinian? Seriously? You are turning out to be more of a waste of time the further I read.

Opinions, assertions, conjecture,.....yaaawn.

Yes, Israel has a real military because the west gave it to them, along with the Nukes. So now what? They are free to do whatever they want to people? I though Christians aborred violence and injustice. Like most Christians, you are simply showing your true colors. Only Christian violence is pure and wholesome!

(by the way, the topic of Israel is in a different section. I will edit your reply if you attempt to further deflect from your claim about the teachings of Islam)

The rest of your convoluted sophistry is nothing more than childs talk about comic book heros, "if spider man ever spun his web against superman, he would do.......". If you want to have an adult discussion, then I ask you to refrain from your games and rantings and contribute substance relevant to the topic. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that Islam teaches people to kill innocents?

Aquin wrote:   But to get to the point: jihad against Israel is an offensive gesture, not a defensive one.  Allah allowed the Jews a homeland because of the actions of arab Muslims; namely, their support for the holocaust.

The zionists posture was offensive, not defensive, as was the Christian British. Their "jihad" was offensive, and mimicked the slaughter Jesus had ordered them to do in the Torah (according to your faith). It was not defensive. And it still is not defensive.

Amazing. You know what Gd thinks. And what was Gd's punishment to Christains for allowing the holocaust to happen? Afterall, it happened in Christian lands. Your atempt to blame Arabs is extremely funny. More Church posturing.

Aquin wrote: Notice, Israel gives the Palestinians land just recently and what do the stupid bastards do?  They kidnap an Israeli soldier.  Disgusting.

1) Refrain from abusive statements. I realize you are unable to provide proof of your claim, but your abuse of people who are living in poverty and dirt due to your "pious" foriegn policy, and the "pious" actions of the Zionists, will not be tolerated. This is your first warning.

2) You are extremely ignorant and your statement reflects your uneducated position about what was given and what was not given. The problem is that your lack of grey matter has not yet figured out the difference between "propoganda" and truth. Like most westerners, you are intellectually complacent and simply believe whatever you are told to beleive. It is not the Palestinians who are stupid, but they are angry and rightly so, but you are not smart enough to figure out why.

Aquinian wrote: Andalus, by saying you support the jihad against Israel, you are saying that you support suicide bombings.  The only weapon of Palestinians is suicide bombing.  Throwing rocks at soldiers does nothing.  So, if you support suicide bombings and you are a fully indoctrinated Muslim, as you have claimed, then suicide bombings must be okay in the theology of Islam.

No, by supporting the struggle against the opression does not lead to the conclusion you are drawing. Like 99% of everything you put up, you make waaaaay TOO many assumptions. Read my opening reply. If you are unable to answer my questions, then you do not have enough information to draw your conclusions.

Aquin wrote: If suicide bombings of women and children are okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is a violent religion.

You have not provided evidence to supprt the bases of your conditional statement. This is what you have been avoiding the entire time, and now here you are, trying to make the assumption in a conditional statement.

Look Aquanian, I do not care what you think about Israel, or the PLO, or Madonna, I do not care what you favorite beverage is. You stated that Islam teaches the killing of innocents. I aksed you to provide evidence. You have not provided a schred of relevant evidence.

Please provide proof for your opening of the above conditional. This is what I have been waiting for.

Aquin wrote:   If suicide bombings are not okay in the theology of Islam, then Islam is not a violent religion.  Which is it?  In order to have Islam be a religion of peace, you must concede the following: the jihad against Israel is being carried out incorrectly.  No suicide bombings should occur.  If you agree with suicide bombings, then Islam is not a religion of peace.

See above. You have used an unproven assumption in your conditional. It is therefore erroneous.

Aquin wrote: I notice that you immediately reverted to arguments against Israel and the jews when I made arguments against the Palestinians, but that in no way proves me incorrect about your faith.

Please take a basic course in logic. What I demonstrated was typical Christain hypocrisy: a fallacy of a case of special pleading.

1) In no way did I affirm or deny anything you put forth about individuals who happen to be Muslim. I simply put forth examples of your own "ilk" to see just how intellectually honest you were. You failed.

2) Your charges you provided did not provide any evidence to prove your claim. They were examples of individuals who happen to be Muslim, and not a source of teaching that defines the Islamic faith.

3) If Islam is wrong becuase of the actions of some individuals, then your faith is of the devil due to the examples I provided. Since you do not think so, then this is proof of "special pleading".

I hope this helped?

Aquin wrote:   You have much the same philosophy as the CIA: Deny everything, admit nothing, and make counter-accusations.  Your consistent counter accusations against Christianity have no relevance.  Your religious beliefs are the ones that we are arguing about.  If Islam does not condone violence, why is the jihad against Israel so violent?  Why the killing of women and children?

More empty rhetorical nonsense.

1) You have been caught making a case of special pleading. (hence you are shown to be intellectually dishonest).

2) Your evidences only show that some Muslims can make questionable decisions. Not that Islam teaches the killing of innocents.

Aquin wrote:   The killing of the first born in the Old Testament passover is the work of God.  I suggest that you not question why God did it.  Who are you to question the methods of God?  Only God can judge who lives or dies.

Who said anything about the first born? Jesus ordered the massacre of babies by the sword (according to your bible and theology). And yes, like I said you would say, according to Christians, Christian violence is piouse and wholesome and full of loving goodness. Praise Jesus! (and this is another case of special pleading that you have been caught in)

Aquin wrote: God also killed the entire earth except for Noah during the floods.  Why would you question it?  It is God's will: you should submit.

Jesus also ordered the executions of babies by the sword. Is that the will of Jesus? I though Jesus loved everyone? I always see those funny comparisons that evangelicals love so much to put out: Who is better Jesus or Prophet Muhammad?

They said Jesus could commit no violence? But there were babies who would disagree (according to your bible and theolgy of course, Islam is not violent like that)

Aquin wrote: We do not take it upon ourselves to decide who lives or dies.  That is God's will.  I find it interesting how you think that because Jesus is God and God killed human beings, you think you are capable of deciding who should die and who should live.

Except when you are busy taking land in war? And you are now saying, as I stated you would say, "Violence is piouse as long as Jesus puts his stamp of approval on it". Thats what you are now trying to appeal to. You are simply out of gas.

So you are saying: Muslims commit violence and they are evil. Christains commit violence and "it is all good". Nice Aquinian.

Aquin wrote: You attempt to make yourself like God when you claim that Jesus' perception of who should die is equivalent to yours.  His perception is much greater because he is God and I thank you for acknowledging that.

Now you are rambeling. I have no idea what you are trying to say, and it does not relate to anything I have stated.

Aquin wrote: In conclusion, we have make some startling realizations here: Man is not capable of deciding who should die.  However bloody or violent the method of God killing man, only God can make the judgement.

????????????? And this has to do with the thread????? exactly how???

And Moses gave law that allowed judges to decide who should die. So what of that? You said 6 million people died, so their relatives had the right to kill peopel for land? When did Gd do the killing?

Aquin wrote: Those who claim that they have the right to jihad and kill Israelis are making themselves into gods.  They are deciding who lives or dies.

Like the Jews and Christians who took the land? They decided who died? And yet another case of special pleading.

Aquin wrote: As any good Muslim should, I suggest that you submit to Allah and accept his judgement rather than make your own judgements upon your brother.

I have no idea what you just said?

I have an idea that you also have no idea what you just said?

 

Ummm....guys.....I counted and you have quote rectangles SEVEN layers deep in places.

Why not call this one a draw and start a fresh thread?