2 Decades Of American Blood and Treasure Gone Almost In Minutes, Thanks Joey Bibs!

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That may or may not be true but what is true is that the Taliban would not live up to any condition-based withdrawal.

describes the Communist DPST party to a 'T'!

[oeb11]

your points are lies of teh communist DPST narative -

Comrade Xi is looking over your shoulder - patting it - 'good minion"!

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Actually you reinforce my point very clearly.

The reality is this was a very stupid decision near 20 years ago. Just as with VN, a stupid decision is made by one administration and then the subsequent ones seem incapable of extracting from it without a disaster. True in Nam, true now.

ALL the administrations over those 20 years are at fault, especially the one that started it. This is not a Dem or Rep thing, it's a screwed up US thing. But it is posts like yours that ONLY see the times the Dems were in charge and pretend the Reps (at least Trump) is a pristine cherub. That is the RWW BS I was referring to. Trump couldn't fix it if he had had three terms--and that is not a hit on him. Neither could Biden. But too many RRWs are genetically incapable of saying any such thing. To them everything bad (and everything they can spin as bad) must be a Liberal Commie Plot otherwise the universe will end today.

And no, that does not support your points.

War should have ended with the capture and killing of bin laden. What was that 10 years ago now?

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yet Islamaphobia runs rampant.

Islamaphobia is not a thing. Nobody has a fear of Islam. Plenty of people consider it a nutty cult but use of that word is an attempt to convey an attribute to those you disagree with that is inaccurate in the hopes of making your own ideals more palatable.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have visited the primarily Muslim countries of Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, and Malaysia. At no time did I feel unsafe and at no time was I ever treated without the utmost in courtesy and respect.

Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey. Same same. But that's got nothing to do with whether Islam as a whole divides the entire world into two houses... the house of Islam (Submission) and the house of War (Dar al-harb) The later is simply the part of humanity that has not yet been subjugated by the house of submission.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Does the Quran say to kill Non-Muslims?

Yes it does. And if you had read the Quran and understood it, you'd understand the term abrogation. See the Quran is essentially the opposite of the Bible. the New Testament in many ways supercedes the Old Testament. Rather than animal sacrifice and a host of other activities, the way to get to Heaven is through belief in Jesus who instructs His followers to treat others as they wish to be treated.

When you understand abrogation, you will understand that the early parts of the Quran where Momo advocated peace with Jews and Christians when they were a powerless minority were abrogated by later verses in the Quran when Islam had become a powerful force in the region that advocates killing the Jews wherever you find them, lying in an effort to spread the faith, and generally slaughtering people to obtain submission.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The fact, however, is that a Muslim will be punished in this world under the law for killing someone.

I guess all those Imams need to study harder... because even killing another Muslim is okay... because they just get to go to Paradise that much sooner.

You can study the Quran for years but until you're studying it in Arabic, you're just reading interpretations... much like the KJV of the Bible vs. the Aramaic of the original. The primary difference is that the Bible explicitly states that it is separate from the State... render unto Caesar and all that... Islam is both a way to live and govern.

1.8 Billion Hajjis you say?.... hmmm let's say .05% interpret Wahhabist Islamic tradition... that's 900,000 Moslems who think you are a mortal enemy and deserve death. In Iraq estimates are that we were fighting no more than about 20K hard core Islamic fundamentalists....

See the problem?

[royamcr]

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."


In the Quran violence is generally recommended only as self-defense, whereas in the Bible "[t]here is a specific kind of warfare laid down ... which we can only call genocide.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by royamcr

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."


In the Quran violence is generally recommended only as self-defense, whereas in the Bible "[t]here is a specific kind of warfare laid down ... which we can only call genocide.

So you haven't actually read it yourself?

You understand the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament right? I mean you KNOW why Christians are called Christians and not Jews Right?

The old testament is history... The New testament tells one how to be saved.

I swear, it's like NOBODY fcuking reads anymore.

[royamcr]

I fall asleep when reading anything religious. Don't give a fuck about any of that bullshit. I say ban all religions. And fuck those tax exempt statuses for churches in the US. Tax them all, see how many fall.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by royamcr

In the Quran violence is generally recommended only as self-defense, whereas in the Bible "[t]here is a specific kind of warfare laid down ... which we can only call genocide.

All of what you are referring to is in the Old Testament, which describes in great detail the brutality that “the children of God and Abraham” dashed out.

One particular episode was the events that came to be called The Battle of Jerhico. In Sunday schools across the Country, we learned about it, there is even a rather catchy tune “Joshua Took The Battle of Jerhico”. A real toe tapper.

The events were genocide on a grand scale. “Leave no living thing alive” was the order, and everything alive was killed.

That was the Old Testament. The New Testament of Jesus Christ is diametrically opposite.

Whether the followers of Muhammad want to admit it or not, their Prophet was a genocidal mass murdering pedophile.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by royamcr

I fall asleep when reading anything religious. Don't give a fuck about any of that bullshit. I say ban all religions. And fuck those tax exempt statuses for churches in the US. Tax them all, see how many fall.

Ah, so you're another expert who hasn't read the source material... You're just so smart you just KNOW stuff.

Sooper genius...

[royamcr]

Never claimed to be an expert genius. I just don't give a fuck about religious bullshit. 99% of the world's problems are religion related. The reality is as Neil Degrass-Tyson states, in the grand scheme of the universe we are all space dust.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

banning religion is totalitarian

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

banning religion is totalitarian

Bullshit, what if religion never existed in the first place? That totalitarian?

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Bullshit, what if religion never existed in the first place? That totalitarian?

Ah Libtards... always wanting to live in their little utopia.. and willing to kill as many of the "unbelievers" as necessary to get there.

You realize your fervent belief in their being no God is just as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism?

[royamcr]

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Bullshit, what if religion never existed in the first place? That totalitarian?

Huh?

Banning religion is totalitarian.

There's no possible way religion could have never existed.

If you plan on going backward in time and assassinating anyone who had a religious belief, then I would say that may not be necessarily totalitarian but widely inappropriate.

You would still have to control people in a tyrannical sort of way in order to ensure no one would create any religious beliefs moving forward.