It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islamic Conversion Forced on Fox Journalist's for Freedom!

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

So lets see you wish to exterminate those Muslims, Jews, Christains, and Jews whom you feel are extremist.


Before they kill the rest of us, yes.

I'd rather see millions die than billions, and that's the choice we're going to be faced with if things keep going the way they are.

Unfortunately it would be impossible to accomplish cleanly anyway, there's no way to isolate the fanatics without catching lots of innocents in the process.

To be fair, the extremists only represent a small percentage of each faith. Unfortunately, they'd like to drag the rest into their kulturkampf.

We're talking about the survival of the species here.


Are you a nazi ?? honestly ??


No. I'd off the Nazi's too. Probably first




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
thelibra I have no idea what your point is with your little story.... Anyway when I quoted your statement when you said


Notice I never said I'd kill them, I never said they would not be allowed to rejoin society, I never said they didn't have the capacity to learn. However, if you take a bunch of people who hate each other, and force them together into an environment where you absolutely cannot live without working together, one of two things will happen: they will learn to work together and have a chance at survival, or they will die and the world will be better off without their ignorant hatred.

Plus, I mean, I'm talking about ruling the world here, it's not like I have to follow any sort of rules at that point, long as I keep the real humans content.

I assumed you were joking?? Do your really believe you have a superior intellect and that you should rule the world?? Do you really think people sent to Antarctica without massive external support would survive?? If you do believe these things then you and xmotex whom already stated he would kill everyone that he feels is fanatical , should team up and start a religion so you can live with each other in peace



[edit on 29-8-2006 by Heckman]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
(continued from previous post)

Yes, start a religion. Or better yet, borrow bits and pieces of previous religions so you have a good foundation to work from: honor the gods, don't murder, don't steal, respect your parents, be good to each other, etc...

An organization is a collective organism. It has a vested interest in keeping itself alive. You can have the best ideas about Life, the Universe, and Everything, but if you've only got 2 members of your congregation, and one is dying of some disease, your word isn't going to reach many people or sustain either of your lifetimes.

If, however, you can keep your members alive, healthy, and peaceful, they are much more likely to live and spread the word.

So first thing you do is address immediate concerns. People die when they eat pork? Forbid your member from eating pork. People get drunk and die as a result of stupid actions (or bad liquor), forbid them from drinking. People going around killing each other or starting fights? Forbid it. They aren't breeding fast enough? Forbid birth control. Anything that is unhealthy to your congregation that might inhibit their numbers needs to be banned.

By the time you've got a decent sized congregation going, you've made enemies, if for no other reason than you occupy resources (including people) that they want. Your sheeplike congregation has, up until now, bowed and scraped before anyone wielding a weapon or sitting on a horse. No more. If their religion or lives are threatened, they are to strike back.

Ever try and get someone else to commit a violent act when all they've done is be submissive their entire life? It's almost impossible. It takes every ounce of persuasion you can muster, and even then, the only way you can get people to defend themselves with force is to convince them they are better than the people attacking. So you create a lot of religious rhetoric about how infidels are worse than you, and that when they threaten your land/religion/family/etc... you congregation are to strike back against them as one people.

People soon learn either to not mess with your congregation, or if they do, they know they're in for a serious fight. Your congregation, if they live, emboldened by their victory over their oppressors, now swells in numbers, for it costs nothing for people to now join your religion. In fact, you have so many people that you can't teach them all individually anymore, you have to delegate some associates and hope to god they don't screw it up. Those delegates increase their own numbers, some go to other cities, and soon people you've never met are teaching your word to people you never even knew existed.

Ever play the telephone game? Line about 5-10 people up, whisper something to the first person in line. They are to whisper it to the 2nd person in line, who whispers it to the 3rd, and by the time you reach the end "don't drink fermented wood, it'll blind you," has become "the infidel who imbibes an intoxicant is blind to the word of God and must be slaughtered for the good of mankind". Now imagine this happening all around the globe, with lines of thousands of people, and you have something sorta like what happens to religion... and for a long time it gets outta hand.

Then along comes this cool new technology...books! And so to help bring everything back together, your congregation's descendants (you're long dead by now) along with historians from other cultures, try to piece together what was approximately the original message you were trying to convey. However, books aren't cheap. Just a sheet of paper can cost a week's pay. So you get a sponser. But sponsers inevitably have their own political interests, and they want to ensure they get some cooperation from your now copious fans. So they agree to pay the publishing costs, provided you word this phrase differently, or add this phrase here, or remove that phrase. And what harm can come from it? A few words changed around? It's not like anyone reads these things, because no one can read. The people who can read are going to make half their sermon up regardless of what is on the paper. So the writer of the holy text reluctantly agrees and pens out a scroll that later is grouped with several others over the course of a few hundreds years, between several writers in exactly the same circumstances, and it's all bound together as one WORD OF GOD.

And once there's a book claiming to be the WORD OF GOD, it is indisputable. If you try to claim anything that isn't in the book at this point, you are a heretic. In fact, you might be a heretic for reading the book if you didn't read it correctly. You might even be a heretic for looking at the book funny. The book becomes an idol in and of itself. A big...messy...confusing...self-conflicting...idol. The countless contradictory and politically biased vaguely worded passages are able to be skimmed and can be used to support almost any viewpoint you can think of. A religion that started based on sanitation, holding to the law, and basically treating each other well can turn into a murderous cult with a mere two or three vague passages...

...let another few hundred years pass, so that now not only have the texts been translated into several different languages, some of which had no concept of words used in the previous language, each translation serving a new political purpose, each generation completely forgetting the previous context the books were written in. What may have, a few hundred years ago, been a treatise of speculation about how Rome will fall to immoral corruption suddenly becomes an apocolyptic passage about the end of time, because no one remembers the situation the writers faced at the time...

...and then, after a few thousand years of misunderstandings, mistranslations, missing information, lost history, lost political agendas, personal vendettas, nations rising and falling, and so forth... you end up with some asshole who, at the end of his tiny little time of power, makes one last grasp for power via the same means that have been used for millenia: creative religious interpretation.

Now, to reiterate what I said on Page 4.

The leaders of Islam realized this, they knew people are only human, and will warp religion to their own ends. Thus, it was decided that only a mujtahid or a mufti can decide address a specific fiqh (or question) and decide policy (or Fatwah). This is by no means fool-proof, and didn't always stem religious violence, but for the most part, it clarified from leaders to people that Islam was to be a peaceful religion, unless someone started messing with them. And the world was okay with this, they just learned, after a long time, don't mess with Muslims and you'll be fine.

Islam is based just as much on Fatwahs as it is the Qu'ran, just like Judaism is largely based off the Talmud, rather than the Torah, and Christianity is largely based off of whatever translation (and version) of the Bible is being used. One of the whole reasons the REAL Muslims are pissed at Osama Bin Laden is he is trying to declare a fatwah when he isn't allowed to according to Islamic Law. Effectively, extremists like Bin Laden are saying "ignore what the laws of Islam say, do what I say instead," when the whole reason those laws went into effect was to stop people like Bin Laden from interpreting the Qu'ran in such a violent way and leading other Muslims to do the same.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Heckman, I will address each verse you posted one at a time. If Bin Ladin did use those specific verses to justify his war, then he did not read the entire Surah 8. When people like Bin Ladin select only specific verses out of the Quran, instead of reading the entire Surrah and what verses lead to the verse they read, it will take it out of context and hold a different meaning.

For instance, you posted the Surrah 8:72-74. Yes, this Surrah does deal with war, but if you read the verse a few verses above it you will see it says:

"Wa-in janahoo lilssalmi faijnahlaha watawakkal AAala Allahi innahu huwa alssameeAAualAAaleemu." Surrah 8:61

This in English means:

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). Surrah 8:61

Like my previous replies, in the other topic, the Quran only allows Muslims to fight if we are the ones who are defending, not offending, and we can only fight if the enemy does not choose peace with us and must stop when they do choose peace once again.



Surrah 9:14-15. This verse is one I addressed in the other topic as well. You will see once again, a few verses above it, it says:

"Fa-in taboo waaqamoo alssalatawaatawoo alzzakata fa-ikhwanukum feealddeeni wanufassilu al-ayatiliqawmin yaAAlamoona. Wa-in nakathoo aymanahum min baAAdiAAahdihim wataAAanoo fee deenikum faqatilooa-immata alkufri innahum la aymana lahumlaAAallahum yantahoona" Surrah 9:11-12

In English:

"But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained." Surrah 9:11-12

And yet again, we are to choose peace first. Only when we're persecuted and break their covenant (peace treaty) with us, we are to fight in defense.

Quran 47:3-5. These verses were sent to Muhammad at the time when Muslims were being persecuted and killed, and many attempts to assasinate Muhammad occured. The angel Gabriel (Jibrael) came to Muhammad and told him that Muslims had a right to defend themselves from the Pagans, when they were being attacked.

The verse however, does not condone needless killing. Muhammad understood that it was only meant for Muslims to use in defense. Muhammad contructed many peace treaties with neighboring religions, including Jews. An example of this is known as the "Constitution of Medina."

You mentioned the tarriff placed on non-Muslims. This tarriff is known as "jizya." Since Muslims paid Zakaat (Charity), non Muslims were not required to pay it. Instead the jizya was only for non-Muslim men who were capable of enlisting in the Army, but chose not to. With the jizya, the men were protected by the Muslims armies in the lands and were not required to fight along side the Muslims. The jizya was only a protection tax, and only given to able bodied men who were capable of fighting in the army, but chose to pay for protection.

I will address the other questions asked to me when I come back home. Salaam, everyone.



[edit on 29-8-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
thelibra I have no idea what your point is with your little story.


Considering I wasn't finished yet, I'm not surprised.


Originally posted by Heckman
I assumed you were joking?? Do your really believe you have a superior intellect and that you should rule the world??


Of course! You don't? What makes any other person out there more suited to rule the world than I? I know how I think, I trust myself, I want the job, so yeah, I think I'd be as good a World Dictator as anyone else.


Originally posted by Heckman
Do you really think people sent to Antarctica without massive external support would survive??


Sure. It can be done. No one said it'd be easy. That's kinda where the whole "working together" thing comes from. People used to use Australia as a dumping ground for convicts left to die. They learned to get along, form a society, and as a result became one of the coolest nations out there. (go Oz!)


Originally posted by Heckman
If you do believe these things then you and xmotex whom already stated he would kill everyone that he feels is fanatical , should team up and start a religion so you can live with each other in peace



I can always use more followers to join the ranks, sure. However, I would try to channel their murderous impulses into something more productive.


bih

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_sentinal
What if the Christians and Jews started forcing people at gun point to convert to their religion??

we would have a world wide mess!!!


[edit on 27-8-2006 by the_sentinal]


if I remember correctly alot of christians came to middle east and try to convert muslims



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
DJMessiah

what if OBL does read that entire verse... knows what you cited.... knows that in order to kill they must first be attacked... defend themselves... but its the way he rationalizes it/inteprets it. he sees america/us military on middle easter turf.. not too mention capatilism and globalism... and rationalizes that as attack on islam?

is that not right according to the koran scripture you cited?


its his interpretation of scripture.... i guess. but whos interpretation is correct?

islamic radicals are taught the koran not unlike many other islam faithful... i gather... some are not allowed to read the koran.... unless its being read to them... im trying to remember here... i understand i may not be correct.




[edit on 29-8-2006 by krossfyter]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bih

Originally posted by the_sentinal
What if the Christians and Jews started forcing people at gun point to convert to their religion??

we would have a world wide mess!!!


[edit on 27-8-2006 by the_sentinal]


if I remember correctly alot of christians came to middle east and try to convert muslims


by gunpoint?
totally different story.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Like my previous replies, in the other topic, the Quran only allows Muslims to fight if we are the ones who are defending, not offending, and we can only fight if the enemy does not choose peace with us and must stop when they do choose peace once again.



But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained." Surrah 9:11-12


Lets not forget 9:5 since it is before 9:11-12 and goes together with them.

Quran: 9

5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

This clearly instructs muslim belivers to fight against "Pagans" until they do the folowing

1. "but if they repent".. Meaning repent for sinning against Allah correct?

2. "establish regular prayers" .. Meaning to pray to Allah thus converting to Islam correct?

3."Practice regular charity". Paying the Zakaat..

All these add up to converting to Islam and becomeing a muslim


The verse however, does not condone needless killing. Muhammad understood that it was only meant for Muslims to use in defense. Muhammad contructed many peace treaties with neighboring religions, including Jews. An example of this is known as the "Constitution of Medina."


It clearly states in the Quran for belivers not to make freinds with unbelivers unless its reason is for guarding against them.

Quran: 3

28. Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers , Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.



You mentioned the tarriff placed on non-Muslims. This tarriff is known as "jizya." Since Muslims paid Zakaat (Charity), non Muslims were not required to pay it. Instead the jizya was only for non-Muslim men who were capable of enlisting in the Army, but chose not to. With the jizya, the men were protected by the Muslims armies in the lands and were not required to fight along side the Muslims. The jizya was only a protection tax, and only given to able bodied men who were capable of fighting in the army, but chose to pay for protection.


If the jizya is for protection why is it necessary to "fight them" until they have payed the tax and were in willing submission?

Quran: 9

29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
Lets not forget 9:5 since it is before 9:11-12 and goes together with them.


You continue to only select specific verses without reading the ones before it. Seriously, why not just read the entire Surah instead of going in circles? Once again, I've already covered Surrah 9:5 in my other thread. If you want to post Surrah 9:5, then atleast post Surrah 9:4 which states:

(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. Surrah 9:4

See how it says to keep the peace treaty, when they ask for peace?


It clearly states in the Quran for belivers not to make freinds with unbelivers unless its reason is for guarding against them.


I already went over this in my other thread. The Quran states that Muslims are not to befriend those who wish to do us harm:

"O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand." Surrah 3:118



If the jizya is for protection why is it necessary to "fight them" until they have payed the tax and were in willing submission?

Quran: 9

29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


If you read the verse above it, you will see that this refers to the Pagans who tried to take over the Kabaa in the mosque (Now known as Al-Masjid al-Ḥaram). Here is verse 9:28:

"O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise."



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
DJMessiah

what if OBL does read that entire verse... knows what you cited.... knows that in order to kill they must first be attacked... defend themselves... but its the way he rationalizes it/inteprets it. he sees america/us military on middle easter turf.. not too mention capatilism and globalism... and rationalizes that as attack on islam?

is that not right according to the koran scripture you cited?


He does know, but he chooses to only follow a select few text. The people who misquote the Quran do so by following only specific verses, like what heckman has posted, instead of reading the entire thing. Bin Laden believes that he has authority over Muslims, so he decides if he is right or wrong.

He may very well view capitalism as a threat to Islam, but even then, the Quran teaches not to harm innocents. The Quran says that best way to fight is not through violence, but through calm words. Fighting (physical) is only to be used as a last resort, if we are to defend ourselves from physical attack.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by krossfyter
DJMessiah

what if OBL does read that entire verse... knows what you cited.... knows that in order to kill they must first be attacked... defend themselves... but its the way he rationalizes it/inteprets it. he sees america/us military on middle easter turf.. not too mention capatilism and globalism... and rationalizes that as attack on islam?

is that not right according to the koran scripture you cited?


He does know, but he chooses to only follow a select few text. The people who misquote the Quran do so by following only specific verses, like what heckman has posted, instead of reading the entire thing. Bin Laden believes that he has authority over Muslims, so he decides if he is right or wrong.

He may very well view capitalism as a threat to Islam, but even then, the Quran teaches not to harm innocents. The Quran says that best way to fight is not through violence, but through calm words. Fighting (physical) is only to be used as a last resort, if we are to defend ourselves from physical attack.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by DJMessiah]



first of all thnx for responding directly to my post.

what kind of logic do you use to try and rationalize that he does know what the koran is actually saying... and he is counsciously going against it??

my only rationalization (if the koran does teach peace at its premise) is that he views the actions of the west as offensive... thus attacking islam. so he justifies hitting back becuase they have already been hit on multiple levels.

if so.... then how is that wrong... according to the koran? according to you the koran teaches only to attack when attacked. so he is justified then is he not?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
so no need for conversion according the modern.moderate practice of islam? its fine to be a jew or a christain in your text?


Christians and Jews do not need to convert to Islam to make it to heaven. The Quran says that those who worship the same God Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, David, and Muhammad worhips, and believe in a final day on Earth are the ones who will go to heaven. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all "people of the book" and all are saved.

In regards to those who do go to hell, God will have mercy on their souls, after they spend a certain amount of time in hell for their punishment (God will decide the time for each), and will one day be saved from hell and join those in heaven. The Quran states that God will find even an ounce of kindness (goodness) in their heart, and that will save them. This is the final act of mercy from God on those who are in hell. After this, God will end hell and everyone will one day be in heaven.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by krossfyter
so no need for conversion according the modern.moderate practice of islam? its fine to be a jew or a christain in your text?


Christians and Jews do not need to convert to Islam to make it to heaven. The Quran says that those who worship the same God Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, David, and Muhammad worhips, and believe in a final day on Earth are the ones who will go to heaven. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all "people of the book" and all are saved.

In regards to those who do go to hell, God will have mercy on their souls, after they spend a certain amount of time in hell for their punishment (God will decide the time for each), and will one day be saved from hell and join those in heaven. The Quran states that God will find even an ounce of kindness (goodness) in their heart, and that will save them. This is the final act of mercy from God on those who are in hell. After this, God will end hell and everyone will one day be in heaven.



is this the moderate muslim view?
radicals dont believe this right?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
From what I read K, Bin Laden is interpretting it fanatically and differnetly from its true meaning. Therefore he is not justified.

And Heckman, I do not see how my numbers could possibly be bogus. If you know math, you cannot deny it. It really is as easy as math.
ten percent of one billion believers is ten million? We can see the amazing effects of what only several thousand, maybe tens of thousands are doing in Iraq. So where are the effects of the ten million violent Muslims if this were even the corret number? The 1%?

Maudibb, I was referring to groups or individuals who were committing crimes in the name of or the fulfillment of their religion. Lets not forget the LRA is not a thousand years ago, nor is it an isolated abortion clinic bombing. Groups like these have been committing these atrocities across Africa and some parts of Asia. Yet they are not called terrorists, unless of course they are a Muslim group. Thankfully they just finally halted violence. Maybe Jesus spoke to the leader directly.

Either way Heckman, I know several Muslims, and their deeds and actions do not show "they are out to destroy my infidel soul", Im sorry man. That just does not represent the 99.999999999999% of Islam on Earth.

There is currently much resentment for us Westerners in the Muslims world, of course after considering ALL the facts and the events in the past few years, who can blame them?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
first of all thnx for responding directly to my post.

what kind of logic do you use to try and rationalize that he does know what the koran is actually saying... and he is counsciously going against it??

my only rationalization (if the koran does teach peace at its premise) is that he views the actions of the west as offensive... thus attacking islam. so he justifies hitting back becuase they have already been hit on multiple levels.

if so.... then how is that wrong... according to the koran? according to you the koran teaches only to attack when attacked. so he is justified then is he not?


You're welcome. Bin Laden grew up being literate in Arabic, and he is able to read the Quran in its original Arabic text. The Quran is best understood in its original Arabic text, because it diminishes any confusion over definition of certain words (i.e. jihad measn "struggle," but in English, it's often taken as "Holy War"). It's my belief that he is fully aware of the Quran's meanings, but he chooses to ignore some passages. I believe he does so because if he did follow the entire Quran, he wouldn't kill any innocents and commit terroristic acts, like he is doing now.

He is not justified in his attacks. The Quran does teach to attack when being attacked, but it only allows us to attack the ones who were the offenders. Bin Laden chooses to attack everyone who stands in his way, including innocents. For instance, in Islam, if someone were to attack a group of Muslims, and the person stood in a hallway with innocent people standing in a line between him and the Muslim group, the Muslim group would not be able to attack any of the people infront of the attacker. Doing so would be against Islam.

When Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, fighting along side the Afghans, against the Russian invasion, Bin Laden had been allies with the US. He often helped US train soldiers to fight the Russians. After the war in Afghanistan ended, US no longer sent enough aide to the Afghans, causing Bin Laden to view this as an act of betrayal. Even though he feels this way, it's still not an attack on him or Muslims, so he does not have the right to fight the US.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
(note to mods) Edit: My applogies, this was a double post.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
From what I read K, Bin Laden is interpretting it fanatically and differnetly from its true meaning. Therefore he is not justified.


well okay.... but can anyone show me how he is wrong in his interpretation?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Bin Laden deems US's decrease in aide to Afghans, after the war with Russia, as an attack. This is where his fallacy lies. He then uses this excuse to kill innocent people, even Afghans who are Muslim.

He also cannot attack anyone who wants peace. I'm sure the people innocent he's killed did not want to start a war.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by DJMessiah]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah


When Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, fighting along side the Afghans, against the Russian invasion, Bin Laden had been allies with the US. He often helped US train soldiers to fight the Russians. After the war in Afghanistan ended, US no longer sent aide to the Afghans, causing Bin Laden to view this as an act of betrayal. Even though he feels this way, it's still not an attack on him or Muslims, so he does not have the right to fight the US.



but he does not have the right according to your view. in his view im sure he sees the situation ... the attack a lot larger then just the west betraying him.... it extends into u.s. in middle east soil... causing trouble for islam etc. in his speeches (translated) he talks about this over and over.

now... im not saying you are wrong... im just trying to figure this out.



[edit on 29-8-2006 by krossfyter]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join