Iraqi Shias protest against US troops

GeoffP said:
So...they're as bad as Hamas and Hezbollah?

K', noted. What's the actual BJP-VHP link then?
Click to expand...

Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting a foreign power.

The VHP is fighting nonHindus in India.

The BJP is the political facade, but they toned down their nationalism when they realised that most people won't go for it. They had a hard job keeping the VHP and RSS in check. VHP is the fundraiser, recruiter and organiser, RSS is the military training. They target adolescents and young adults, like boy scouts or cadets. Hindus only, of course.
 
samcdkey said:
The simplest explanation is that power requires funding.
Click to expand...

No, the simplest explanation is that there is a longstanding bias of some percentage of muslims against non-muslims. They were fighting long before the US got involved, as you full well know. So, your misconstruance does not stand the test of realism, or anything else.
 
samcdkey said:
Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting a foreign power.
Click to expand...
This is what I don't get. You understand that it is wrong for someone to come in and take their land and subjugate them - yet, when Mohammad led a cult of personality to subjugate his fellow polytheistic Arabs, well well, that OK because they were infidels and idolators. When these Muslims intern conquered more Arabs, well well, that because it united them and it's OK they now had better Laws bla bla bla... then these Muslims go and conquer a people already united and civilized, the Persians, well well that's perfectly fine as well and really I don't think I've ever read that book ... then these Muslims subjugate Northern India, well well I think you're mistaken.

:bugeye:


Is it wrong or isn't it?


Was it wrong for Mohammad to lead people to kill polytheistic "idolitors" or wasn't it?

Yes or No


Now, whatever your answer is to that question is what ever your answer is to whether it is wrong for Americans to stay and occupy the conquered Iraqis. The basis of this thread.

consistency my dear Samantha consistency ....

;)
Michael
 
samcdkey said:
Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting a foreign power.
Click to expand...

I thought you characterized it earlier as a domestic struggle, in that you preferred a "single-state" solution? Right of return and all that?

The VHP is fighting nonHindus in India.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, they say they're fighting the powers of interests foreign to India, and the Hindu religion. So essentially they're the same as Hezbollah and Hamas then? They haven't killed as many people, though. And I don't know that they're into genocide, or attacks on people outside India - which some islamic terrorists are; i.e. the attacks in Bali and Argentina.

The BJP is the political facade, but they toned down their nationalism when they realised that most people won't go for it. They had a hard job keeping the VHP and RSS in check. VHP is the fundraiser, recruiter and organiser, RSS is the military training. They target adolescents and young adults, like boy scouts or cadets. Hindus only, of course.
Click to expand...

As islamic terrorists target young adult muslims; of course. No one would be particularly surprised by this. In that sense they would be similar to Hezbollah and Hamas and IJ and so forth. But do you have a link expressly indicating this association? I'm not denying it but would like to see some relevant evidence for a change.
 
samcdkey said:
If the American people and the Iraqi people want the US out of Iraq, why are they still there?
Click to expand...
Because the majority of "the American people" and the majority of "the Iraqi people" don't want the US out of Iraq just quite yet.

You're opinion can't change the ground truth.
 
Oh yeah, that from the poll. Personally, I don't much care for the opinions of anyone - I think the US should get out tomorrow. But it doesn't support Sam's point at all.
 
Wow, 4 page derail.


Ahem.
I don't understand how Sam can make the silly argument that "Muslims who act non-peacefully aren't Muslim, ergo, all Muslims are peaceful."
If it walks like a Muslim, talks like a Muslim, wipes its ass with its left like a Muslim, it's a Muslim. Doesn't matter how many times its gone on jihad, kissed the Kaaba, or thrown stones at Israeli tanks. Still a Muslim. May be a 'militant' Muslim, or 'radical' Muslim, but a Muslim all the same.

Just how Prince James, Baron Max, and tiassa are all Americans. One may be a texan, another a secret homo, and the other enjoy a good deep dicking every now and again, but they're all 'mericans.

Wait, did I just equate nationality with religion? Guess I did. Maybe that's a bad analogy.

Alright. Catholics and Protestants. Sunnis and Shias. Same shit, different names.
 
Michael said:
This is what I don't get. You understand that it is wrong for someone to come in and take their land and subjugate them - yet, when Mohammad led a cult of personality to subjugate his fellow polytheistic Arabs, well well, that OK because they were infidels and idolators. When these Muslims intern conquered more Arabs, well well, that because it united them and it's OK they now had better Laws bla bla bla... then these Muslims go and conquer a people already united and civilized, the Persians, well well that's perfectly fine as well and really I don't think I've ever read that book ... then these Muslims subjugate Northern India, well well I think you're mistaken.

:bugeye:


Is it wrong or isn't it?


Was it wrong for Mohammad to lead people to kill polytheistic "idolitors" or wasn't it?

Yes or No


Now, whatever your answer is to that question is what ever your answer is to whether it is wrong for Americans to stay and occupy the conquered Iraqis. The basis of this thread.

consistency my dear Samantha consistency ....

;)
Michael
Click to expand...

You have to first show that he killed polytheistic idolators.
 
GeoffP said:
I thought you characterized it earlier as a domestic struggle, in that you preferred a "single-state" solution? Right of return and all that?



Interestingly, they say they're fighting the powers of interests foreign to India, and the Hindu religion. So essentially they're the same as Hezbollah and Hamas then? They haven't killed as many people, though. And I don't know that they're into genocide, or attacks on people outside India - which some islamic terrorists are; i.e. the attacks in Bali and Argentina.



As islamic terrorists target young adult muslims; of course. No one would be particularly surprised by this. In that sense they would be similar to Hezbollah and Hamas and IJ and so forth. But do you have a link expressly indicating this association? I'm not denying it but would like to see some relevant evidence for a change.
Click to expand...

Sorry thats a false argument. The VHP are fighting Indians. In India. They also target Dalit Buddhists and Dalit Christians and Muslims who have converted to escape persecution.
 
Roman said:
Wow, 4 page derail.


Ahem.
I don't understand how Sam can make the silly argument that "Muslims who act non-peacefully aren't Muslim, ergo, all Muslims are peaceful."
If it walks like a Muslim, talks like a Muslim, wipes its ass with its left like a Muslim, it's a Muslim. Doesn't matter how many times its gone on jihad, kissed the Kaaba, or thrown stones at Israeli tanks. Still a Muslim. May be a 'militant' Muslim, or 'radical' Muslim, but a Muslim all the same.

Just how Prince James, Baron Max, and tiassa are all Americans. One may be a texan, another a secret homo, and the other enjoy a good deep dicking every now and again, but they're all 'mericans.

Wait, did I just equate nationality with religion? Guess I did. Maybe that's a bad analogy.

Alright. Catholics and Protestants. Sunnis and Shias. Same shit, different names.
Click to expand...

Don't say they are not Muslims. But an American fighting in Iraq is not a radical Christian even if he were Christian. I object to the nomenclature.
 
Mr. G said:
Because the majority of "the American people" and the majority of "the Iraqi people" don't want the US out of Iraq just quite yet.

You're opinion can't change the ground truth.
Click to expand...

No, the minority don't, the ones who have vested interests.
 
samcdkey said:
Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting a foreign power.

The VHP is fighting nonHindus in India.
Click to expand...

I was going to let this go and then it occurred to me: islamicist gunmen are "fighting" non-muslims pretty much over the entire islamic world. So there are more similarities than initially appreciated, I think.
 
samcdkey said:
You have to first show that he killed polytheistic idolators.
Click to expand...
That's still not consistent for a number of reasons
1) It may be that he personally killed people, with blood on his own skin. Maybe not (although some Muslim friends of mine said yes he was a great warrior for God and killed many evil people - because God wanted him to). But, that is besides the point, leading armies against other people because of their personal believes is what is wrong.
It was wrong of Alexander
It was wrong of Julius
It was wrong of Mohammad
It was wrong of Changis
It was wrong of Nobunaga
It was wrong of GW Bush Jr
All of these people lead wars of aggression. All of them said it was in "defense" and all of them seem to think they are doing the will of the God(s). [well maybe not Changi or Nobunaga - they probably didn't believe in such nonsense and were honest enough, or societies acceptingly of, to say they fought for control and power)

Were they all wrong or weren't they?

2) I have heard you ,on many occasions, lay the responsibility for the war in Iraq at the feet of Bush and Cheney. Though they haven't personally killed anyone, they are indeed accountable. The same would be true of Mohammad.

Again are you consistence with your assertion or not?

3) Occupation of Iraq for wealth is no different then the occupation of Medina and Mecca for there wealth. (Or post-Mohammad: Persia or India ect... ) Mohammad could have tried to build his own city somewhere in the sands of Arabia. But it was much easier to accuse someone else of "idolatry" and take their wealth for his, and his armies, own. Well, Bush is doing no different. Well, I think you'd agree, to do no different he'd also have to say God is leading him, take POWs as slaves (unless they could teach English) force the people to believes in Christ or die and accept Bush as the Last Prophet, copy 70% of the Torah and blend it with Protestant-Amercia-folklore and take many Iraq women as his many wives, which only he has so many of (because again God wants Bush to have many many women - go figure - one of which could be promised to him as a pre-teen [you know how that irks]).



For me it seems simple, they were/are both wrong. But as they say, excuses are like arseholes, everyone's got one. So if you ever wonder why Americans support Bush and want to liberate Iraqis and give them an American style government and let them love Jesus and bla bla bla simply think of the reasons why you think likewise about Mohammad and there in lies your answer.



To me its exactly the same madness, you have proven to me it is impossible (perhaps it's even genetic?) for even the most articulate educated person to see this plain fact. Either that or my head is so far up my own arse there is neigh light to be found! Is THAT it? Because I can see no other likable solution to this conundrum!

:bawl:
Michael
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
That's still not consistant. Leading armies for a number of reasons
1) It may be that he personally killed people, with blood on his own skin. Myabe not. No one answered my question. (although some Muslim friends of mine said yes he was a great warrior for God and killed many evil people - because God wanted him to). But, that is besides the point, leading armies against other people because of their personal believes is what is wrong.
It was wrong of Alexander
It was wrong of Julius
It was wrong of Mohammad
It was wrong of Changis
It was wrong of Nobunaga
It was wrong of GW Bush Jr
All of thse people lead wars of agression. All of them said it was in "defense" and all of them seem to think they are doing the will of the God(s). [well maybe not Changi or Nobunaga - they probably didn't believe in such nonsense)

Were they were all wrong or weren't they?

2) I have heard you on many occasions lay the responsibility for the war in Iraq at the feet of Bush and Cheney. Though they haven't personally killed anyone, they are indeed accountable. The same would be true of Mohammad.

Again are you consistence with your assertion or not?

3) Occupation of Iraq for wealth is no different then the occupation of Medina and Mecca for there wealth. Mohammad could have tried to build his own city somewhere in the sands of Arabia. But it was much easier to accuse someone else of "idolatry" and take their wealth for his, and his armies, own. Well, Bush is doing not different. Well, I think you'd agree, to do no different he'd have to say God is leading him, take POWs as slaves (unless they could teach English) force the people to believes in Christ and accept Bush as the Last Prophet, copy 70% of the Torah and blend it with Protestant-Amercia-folklore and take many Iraq women as his many wives, which only he has so many of (because again God wants Bush to have many many women - go figure - one of which could be promised to him as a pre-teen).



For me it seems simple, they are both wrong. Bus as they say, excuses are like arseholes, everyone's got one. So if you ever wonder why Americans support Bush and want to liberate Iraqis and give them an American style government and let them love Jesus and bla bla bla simply think of the reasons why you think likewise about Mohammad and there in lies your answer.


To me its exactly the same madness, but you have proven to me it is impossible (perhaps it's even genetic?) for even the most articulate educated person to see this plain fact. Either that or my head is so far up my own arse there is neigh light to be found! Is THAT it? Because I can see no other likable solution to this conundrum!

:bawl:
Michael
Click to expand...

I think you're possibly an idealist, defending people who are ill-treated and discriminated against and fighting for justice and social reform is very different from fighting for petrodollars and oil.

He was a Meccan, he fought on behalf of his people, with the rich and influential people of his own tribe.
 
Every person can claim such. Nobunaga was "Japanese" therefor he fought for the unity of Japan.

The Japanese were Asian, therefore in WWII they fought for the unity of Asia.

The Spanish Conquistadors were Christian and the destruction of Mexico-Tenochtitlan was a fight for the very souls of those poor backwards and Satan stained idolatry worshiping Aztecs.



The proof is in the pudding. We can see how these "saviors" of man kind got fat off the spoils. They helped themselves to the perks, extra wives, idolatry of the people they conquered, the spoils and they made themselves lords over the conquered. Mohammad didn't preach equality he preached equality for people within the cult that exhaulted him above them.

If he wanted "equality" he'd have preached Christianity as that was probably the biggest selling point of that religion, that and it is so mind-numbingly simplistic. But he didn't he wanted to be idolized as a "Prophet" and when he preached equality it shows - equal for those that accept him as their Prophet all others either eat steal or pay tax.



So which is it? Genetic or my head in my arse? I feel you're leaning towards my head is in my arse so I'm thinking genetic??? It seems quite plainly simple. Mohammad fits perfectly snug inside the mold of the many many tens of thousands of "Last Prophets" before him and the many many thousands of "Last Prophets" after him. They are all barely indistinguishable from one another. Which is why I also ask about the message. Whether there truely is something new novel and enlightening in it. There never is. They are always the same - cults of personality, whether Islam and Mohammad or modern day Kim Jun Il II and Juche theory.

They are all the same.
No different.

To see something different one must look to a person that is complete myth, like Jesus, or someone that actually reached a state of mental bliss like Buddha with his meditation technique or occasionally people with a certain type of brain cancer.


Michael
 
Michael said:
They are all the same.
No different.

To see something different one must look to a person that is complete myth, like Jesus, or someone that actually reached a state of mental bliss like Buddha with his meditation technique or occasionally people with a certain type of brain cancer.

Michael
Click to expand...

Like I said before, myths only work in mythology. Islam is not about transcendental meditation, it is about living a good life.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top