PAKISTANI sues JetBlue! WOW!!!

[FN FAL]

Fins Up,

This goes a lot deeper than a few people defaming a whole religion. I'm not talking off the cuff, but rather as one who has studied this topic pretty deep.

Islam does claim to be peaceful. However, islam is peaceful only to other muslims. That is the catch. There are some good books on the shelves out there written by former muslims before they left that religion. These authors lived in muslim countries and were indoctrinated with a hateful and violent teaching towards anyone who is not muslim. I highly reccomend reading one or more of them, because they are real eye-openers.

And you are right, not all muslims are out to get non-muslims. However, these muslims tend to be very casual about their religion. It's not that the extremists are fanatics, it's that they are dedicated to studying the koran for what it is. The other muslims that don't partake in the violence are the Christian equivalent of "pew warmers".

Religion=bad Peace=good.

 

[Flyer1015]

I have read it, and the quran clearly teaches conversion by the sword.

I'm gonna raise the :bs: BS flag on this one!


You read the Quran? Do you read Arabic?

I'm assuming you read the english translation.


And if there is one thing I've noticed, is that every english translation I came across varied from the one before.


In the english tranlsation, there is no "clearly" for conversion by the sword.

Anyone who reads the english translation of the Quran and says that they can "clearly" see that the book is teaching conversion by the sword, is full of it.

Yes, I've read the english translation.




And conversion by sword?


Islam is the fastest growing religion in the WORLD. No sword spreading involved with that today.

Look at the numbers, even in America. The #1 religion being "converted into" is Islam.

 

[VABB]

I'm gonna raise the :bs: BS flag on this one!


You read the Quran? Do you read Arabic?

I'm assuming you read the english translation.


And if there is one thing I've noticed, is that every english translation I came across varied from the one before.


In the english tranlsation, there is no "clearly" for conversion by the sword.

Anyone who reads the english translation of the Quran and says that they can "clearly" see that the book is teaching conversion by the sword, is full of it.

Yes, I've read the english translation.




And conversion by sword?


Islam is the fastest growing religion in the WORLD. No sword spreading involved with that today.

Look at the numbers, even in America. The #1 religion being "converted into" is Islam.

I'm gonna raise the :bs: BS flag on this one!


You read the Quran? Do you read Arabic?

I'm assuming you read the english translation.

Actually, someone who speaks both Arabic and English translated it. Not only that, but this person grew up in a Middle Eastern (Egypt) country. Very interesting.

And conversion by sword?


Islam is the fastest growing religion in the WORLD. No sword spreading involved with that today.

Look at the numbers, even in America. The #1 religion being "converted into" is Islam.

I have a challenge for you. Why don't you go to Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Iran and try to lure someone AWAY from Islam? Better yet, try to convert them to Christianity. Islamic law says that the penalty is death. Sure sounds like the sword to me.

 

[414Flyer]

Notice that countries that leave the rest of the world alone, like, Brazil, Argentina, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Chile, etc. don't have any terrorist problems

Sounds like quite the defeatist, cowardly and indicative of appeasement, that if we just sit back and do not ever do anything, the terrorists will like us. You are blaming America for international Islamists conducting terrorist acts. The above listed examples are most definitely rooted in religion. To say those are terrorist acts and not of any basis in religion is a bit ignorant, since the idea of seperating religion and politics and a mostly religious one. AQ certainly acts in the name of Islam, not in the name of politics. The train blasts in Mumbai and other places in India, definitely are centered around religion too.

Actually yes some of those listed countries do have problems. Swedes are not welcome in parts of Sweden now, that are turned into Islamic enclaves. You seem to have forgotten an act of Terrorist in Argentina, sponsored by Iran.

To just be a cowardly dhimmi, never standing up for priniciples and allies, in a time where there are violent ideologists intent on killing dirty kaffir infidels, thats no time to cower in a corner, hoping that someone else will be a bigger target.

 

[Flyer1015]

Actually, someone who speaks both Arabic and English translated it.

Obviously you have to be able to speak both Arabic and English to translate it in the first place. Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

Not only that, but this person grew up in a Middle Eastern (Egypt) country. Very interesting.

Even more interesting... Egypt is not a Middle Eastern country. It's an African country.

Try looking at a globe. Remember that large round ball that was in your elementary school social studies class? Yup, that's the one

Sounds like quite the defeatist, cowardly and indicative of appeasement, that if we just sit back and do not ever do anything, the terrorists will like us.

You missed my point.


The point is that no other country than the USA has been more involved with hte middle east in the bad way, our foreign policy has been crappy in that whole area.


But hey, we got cheap gas as a result !!! Fuel prices were like a buck a gallon, while the rest of Europe and South America paid anywhere from $4 to $6 American dollars, while we were paying $1.

The Royal Family of Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration... explore that relationship.

The bottom line is that we the USA, have helped shaped the problems that is now the middle east. And we have MANY blemishes on our record, like the Iran contra affair.

 

[VABB]

.

How about the US foreign policy in the middle east? The one-sided Israel support?

We're not one-sided, we just don't support states that sponsor terrorism. If we were one-sided, we wouldn't have stepped in and helped Kuwait during the first gulf war.

The Saudis were begging us to come help them. If I remember correctly, they wanted us to protect them and not offend them.

Politics play a huge role, you're sadly mistaken if you think the Quran is responsible for the mess in the Middle east today!

Then how do you explain Iran? Is it politics or ideology when the president of Iran says he wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map"?

China is a world power. But they are a communist nation, and for a while now, they've kept their nose out of the middle east. They dont seem to be having any Islamic terrorist problems!

China also has a very tight reign on who gets to practice which religion withing their borders too. i.e., no freedom of religion. I've been to China several times, and there aren't too many mosques sitting around. The reason China doesen't have (or at least report) any islamic troubles is because they don't let them practice it.

China will get involved in the Mid-East when their oil supplies begin to get disrupted.

 

[VABB]

Even more interesting... Egypt is not a Middle Eastern country. It's an African country.

To be very technical, it is actually North Africa. So, from what you are saying is that one should refer to an Egyptian as an African. Funny, because the Egyptians I know refer to themselves as Arabs.

But that is beside the point. Egypt is a very islamic country nonetheless.

 

[Flyer1015]

To be very technical, it is actually North Africa. So, from what you are saying is that one should refer to an Egyptian as an African. Funny, because the Egyptians I know refer to themselves as Arabs.

But that is beside the point. Egypt is a very islamic country nonetheless.

I said it's an African country, as in implying, it's a country located within the continent of Africa.



VAAB, we can go back and forth on this middle east history, cause/effect, etc., all day long.

Let's just agree to disagree.


But let me ask you, did you seriously feel that Iraq was a threat to the USA as Bush claimed?


Here we have a dictator of North Korea who has arrogantly test fired missiles, one that could even reach alaska and the west coast.

He's directly threatened us. And what do we do? Sit on our butts, and "talk" it out.

Why couldn't we "talk" it out with Iraq?

Instead of sitting in this mess with Shia killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shias.

Make no mistake, more Iraqi civilians are dying now (per month) then were before with Suddam Hussein's regime.

Iraq is much worse now than it was pre-war with Hussein.

 

[414Flyer]

Actually the backwardness, ignorance and poverty of much of that part of the world, does have Islam as a factor on it. Its not coincidence, that Israel has much higher scientific acheivement that all of its Arab/Muslim neighbors put together. Or that Madrassas teach nothing but religion, instead of math, science, literacy, technology, etc.

I suppose it was wrong to be biased in favor of the UK during WW2, or South Korea instead of North Korea too. The world is better off for US actions, not worse off. We should not just desert Israel because it will earn us less scorn from its neighbors.

the US and Europe have given lots of aid to middle eastern/arab/muslim poor countries, but it really means nothing to those countries because we are not part of the "Ummah", and therefore should always be less important. Us and Europe were the biggest aid donors to "Palestinians", but guess where the Palestinians would love to see more terrorist acts?

The Middle East did not give the US cheaper oilthan Europe, your example is wrong., there is a worldwide price. Yes Reagan and the Saudis conspiries to make oil cheap to deny the USSR a main source of funding, but Europe got cheap oil too, they just tax it a lot!

Yes, other countrie have done a lot worse in regards to the Middle East. Ever heard of UK and France? A lot of those screwy borders, can be attributed to them.

But those who will blame the US will always find a reason. Either we are not active internationally enough, or we are active too much. Or we give too much money, or we dont give enough money. We cant just base actions on how it may make people hate us less, but in terms of doing what is right, even when it make piss some people off.

 

[VABB]

I said it's an African country, as in implying, it's a country located within the continent of Africa.



VAAB, we can go back and forth on this middle east history, cause/effect, etc., all day long.

Let's just agree to disagree.


But let me ask you, did you seriously feel that Iraq was a threat to the USA as Bush claimed?


Here we have a dictator of North Korea who has arrogantly test fired missiles, one that could even reach alaska and the west coast.

He's directly threatened us. And what do we do? Sit on our butts, and "talk" it out.

Why couldn't we "talk" it out with Iraq?

Instead of sitting in this mess with Shia killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shias.

Make no mistake, more Iraqi civilians are dying now (per month) then were before with Suddam Hussein's regime.

Iraq is much worse now than it was pre-war with Hussein.

O.K., we will agree to disagree.

Iraq? O.K., you asked and I will answer.

I did feel that there was a threat from Iraq, albeit not on a grande scale. I have (and still do) view Iran as the bigger threat. Hussein was mostly a gnat, but the dangerous part is that I think he would do anything for the good of his dictatorship. Not that he was an imminent threat, but that possibility certainly existed.

Now, to address your statement with N. Korea. I see some very big differences between N. Korea and Iraq. The first is the size of the army, numbering over 1 million. Second, his army is better trained and more loyal than Saddam's was. Third is stability. Attacking N. Korea would no doubt lead to an invasion of the North into Seoul, and possibly an attack on Japan too. Add to the equation that China is on North Korea's side and the recipe is there for a huge mess. The economic risks are much higher in that area too. Politics involved? Absolutely, but I didn't write that book. Just making an observation. Would I like to see the N. Korean dictatorship militarily taken out and that country's people set free? Absolutely, but at the present time the consequences severely outweigh the gains.

The Middle East is a completely different animal. Russia isn't going to get involved in any dispute, until oil becomes a precious commodity for them. For the time being, the Russians are talking to us above the table as friends and allies, but they are playing footsies under the table with people like the Iranians. Russia is a player in the Middle East too, they are just being very quiet about it.

 

[Flyer1015]

But those who will blame the US will always find a reason. Either we are not active internationally enough, or we are active too much. Or we give too much money, or we dont give enough money. We cant just base actions on how it may make people hate us less, but in terms of doing what is right, even when it make piss some people off.

And who defines what it is to "do what is right" even when it pisses people off?

 

[VABB]

And who defines what it is to "do what is right" even when it pisses people off?

That is the $64 Million question.

 

[Flyer1015]

VAAB, realize though that the Iranian leader has clearly stated he will respond to a war act from any western force by cutting the oil supply.

Once that happens, expect oil to shoot up... beyond $100 a barrel. Then watch our economy, and heck, watch the whole world wide economy take a huge fall.


So by your North Korea analogy/statement:

Absolutely, but at the present time the consequences severely outweigh the gains.

Doesn't that also apply to Iran ?


Oil prices will exceed $100/barrel, the US ecnomy will fall quite a bit, the worldwide global economy will sag too. Not to mention, that could start a chain reaction of wars in the Middle East... a "all hell breaks loose" situation.

 

[CA1900]

I said it's an African country, as in implying, it's a country located within the continent of Africa.
...
Even more interesting... Egypt is not a Middle Eastern country. It's an African country.

"Middle East" isn't a continent, it's a region. Saying Egypt is not middle-eastern because it's African makes as much sense as saying Atlanta isn't southern, because it's in the United States.

Go to Google. Type "Map of the middle east." Pick a link, any link. Try this one for starters.

 

[VABB]

VAAB, realize though that the Iranian leader has clearly stated he will respond to a war act from any western force by cutting the oil supply.

Once that happens, expect oil to shoot up... beyond $100 a barrel. Then watch our economy, and heck, watch the whole world wide economy take a huge fall.


So by your North Korea analogy/statement:



Doesn't that also apply to Iran ?

Not to give you a confusing answer, but yes and no.

Yes, it would be a huge economic hit if Iran were to cut the oil supply. Either scenario (Iran or North Korean theater) would be a huge economic blow, but the more riskier of the two is Iran. I'll explain.

South Korea doesen't export much, if any energy abroad. Iran does. While a conflict on the Korean peninsula would have strong negative economic consequences, they aren't comparable to what a halt in oil supply would do. Both scenarios are very bad ones, but when you weigh them the Iranian scenario would be much more detrimental, mostly because you would be cutting off an energy supply to much of the world.

But, there is a flip side to that coin as well. If Iran cuts off oil, they also cut off revenue. Even if Russia, India, and China still purchase oil, Iran will have a surplus. Revenue will still roll in, but not as high as it could. So Iran could face economic reprecussions as well.

Regardless of who attacks who, I wouldn't be surprised to see oil climb anyway. It seems it has gotten to the point where oil prices climb regardless of who is fighting or threatening to fight.