Afghan teacher shot dead after condemning suicide bombings as un-Islamic

[mattskramer]

The bible condemns it to [sp] genius. "Thou shalt not kill" ...ring a bell??

I didn't say that it didn't.

 

[BrianH]

I didn't say that it didn't.

You implied it....you made a comment about the Koran condemning it, and instead of posting the Bible and what it says, you made another statement instead. If you're going to compare two things, compare them. It just sounded a little biased to me.

You Posted:
"I can show passages in the Koran that condemn this.

Christians have killed doctors that provide abortions because they think that their Bible / God condone it."

What you should have said was: "However, I can also show you passages in the Bible that condem this also."

 

[mattskramer]

You implied it....you made a comment about the Koran condemning it, and instead of posting the Bible and what it says, you made another statement instead. If you're going to compare two things, compare them. It just sounded a little biased to me.

You Posted:
"I can show passages in the Koran that condemn this.

Christians have killed doctors that provide abortions because they think that their Bible / God condone it."

What you should have said was: "However, I can also show you passages in the Bible that condem this also."

I’ll try to be thorough so that there is no misunderstanding about my perspective:

There are passages that people can take from the Bible and interpret to suggest that it advocates violence.

There are passages that people can take from the Koran and interpret to suggest that it advocates violence.

There are passages that people can take from the Bible and interpret to suggest that it advocates peace.

There are passages that people can take from the Koran and interpret to suggest that it advocates peace.

People have committed heinous acts in the name of Christianity. Such people have had those that support such action and those that oppose such action.

People have committed heinous acts in the name of Islam. Such people have had those that support such action and those that oppose such action.

If you use careful analysis and statistical research, you might conclude that, per capita, there are more Christians opposed to violence committed by Christians than there are Muslims opposed to violence committed by Muslims. That is called bean-counting and not what I am interested in. My concluding point is that we are not comparing apples to oranges but apples to apples. Some apples might be fresher and some apples might be spoiled – but they are still apples. Practically, for purposes of this thread, the difference is only in numbers.

 

[Annie]

I’ll try to be thorough so that there is no misunderstanding about my perspective:

There are passages that people can take from the Bible and interpret to suggest that it advocates violence.

There are passages that people can take from the Koran and interpret to suggest that it advocates violence.

There are passages that people can take from the Bible and interpret to suggest that it advocates peace.

There are passages that people can take from the Koran and interpret to suggest that it advocates peace.

People have committed heinous acts in the name of Christianity. Such people have had those that support such action and those that oppose such action.

People have committed heinous acts in the name of Islam. Such people have had those that support such action and those that oppose such action.

If you use careful analysis and statistical research, you might conclude that, per capita, there are more Christians opposed to violence committed by Christians than there are Muslims opposed to violence committed by Muslims. That is called bean-counting and not what I am interested in. My concluding point is that we are not comparing apples to oranges but apples to apples. Some apples might be fresher and some apples might be spoiled – but they are still apples. Practically, for purposes of this thread, the difference is only in numbers.

Thank you Matts, for once again making the equivalency argument. Once again, Muslims, those unwilling to commit violence in the name of Allah, Muhammed, or jihad, have self-reportedly either to 'understand' or 'agree with' the interpretation that violence is sanctioned and required via the Koran.

On the other hand, Christians and Jews have recognized, condemned, and sanctioned punishments for those members that have sought to commit, or committed acts of 'honor.'

 

[Anguille]

Christians and Jews, those unwilling to commit violence in the name of God or Jehovah, have self-reportedly either to 'understand' or 'agree with' the interpretation that violence is sanctioned and required via the Bible.

On the other hand, Muslims have recognized, condemned, and sanctioned punishments for those members that have sought to commit, or committed acts of 'honor.'

That makes as much sense as your post did.

 

[mattskramer]

Thank you Matts, for once again making the equivalency argument. Once again, Muslims, those unwilling to commit violence in the name of Allah, Muhammed, or jihad, have self-reportedly either to 'understand' or 'agree with' the interpretation that violence is sanctioned and required via the Koran.

On the other hand, Christians and Jews have recognized, condemned, and sanctioned punishments for those members that have sought to commit, or committed acts of 'honor.'

I'm sorry but would you clean up your statement. I don't understand it. What do you mean by saying that Muslims self-reportedly to understand?

 

[Annie]

I'm sorry but would you clean up your statement. I don't understand it. What do you mean by saying that Muslims self-reportedly to understand?

Through polls both of you. I'm sorry if you are not up to speed with what has been reported, albeit hidden in the MSM.

 

[mattskramer]

Through polls both of you. I'm sorry if you are not up to speed with what has been reported, albeit hidden in the MSM.

No. I don’t understand the grammar and sentence structure of your comment.

 

[Annie]

No. I don’t understand the grammar and sentence structure of your comment.

Somehow I'll bet Jillian and Gunny got it, then again, both of them read, comprehend, synthesize. Matts, you I fear are determined to be 'moderate' of you own parameters. They are 'liberal', which is fine, but not moderate.

 

[mattskramer]

Somehow I'll bet Jillian and Gunny got it, then again, both of them read, comprehend, synthesize. Matts, you I fear are determined to be 'moderate' of you own parameters. They are 'liberal', which is fine, but not moderate.

Good for them. This makes no sense to me:

Once again, Muslims, those unwilling to commit violence in the name of Allah, Muhammed, or jihad, have self-reportedly either to 'understand' or 'agree with' the interpretation that violence is sanctioned and required via the Koran.

 

[jillian]

Through polls both of you. I'm sorry if you are not up to speed with what has been reported, albeit hidden in the MSM.

What's "through polls"? I'm not following either, Kathianne. Are you trying to say that they report in polls that its their understanding or they agree that violence is sanctioned by the koran?

And? Leviticus say that people wearing mixed fibres should be stoned to death. I understand that Leviticus says that. I agree that that's how Leviticus is written....

but ... er... how many people run aound stoning people for wearing mixed fibres?

 

[Annie]

What's "through polls"? I'm not following either, Kathianne. Are you trying to say that they report in polls that its their understanding or they agree that violence is sanctioned by the koran?

And? Leviticus say that people wearing mixed fibres should be stoned to death. I understand that Leviticus says that. I agree that that's how Leviticus is written....

but ... er... how many people run aound stoning people for wearing mixed fibres?

I was not going for biblical quotes. Rather the polls from Islamic countries and the backing or at least understanding of the terrorists. While overwhelmingling in Arab countries, it shows up in non-Arab too. I'm sorry I assumed a base of knowledge, won't happen again.

 

[jillian]

I was not going for biblical quotes. Rather the polls from Islamic countries and the backing or at least understanding of the terrorists. While overwhelmingling in Arab countries, it shows up in non-Arab too. I'm sorry I assumed a base of knowledge, won't happen again.

It wasn't lack of knowledge, Kathianne. It was syntax. I've been known to have to rephrase things from time to time, too.

 

[BrianH]

I was not going for biblical quotes. Rather the polls from Islamic countries and the backing or at least understanding of the terrorists. While overwhelmingling in Arab countries, it shows up in non-Arab too. I'm sorry I assumed a base of knowledge, won't happen again.

I half agree...the British empire would have found the guerilla warfare by our revolutionaries to be quite terroristic in nature as well. While I do agree that these extremists are infact true "terrorist" that's not how they see themselves obviously. THe underdog never views his tactics as terroristic, while the power-horse usually views unconventional warefare as terroristic.

 

[Annie]

I half agree...the British empire would have found the guerilla warfare by our revolutionaries to be quite terroristic in nature as well. While I do agree that these extremists are infact true "terrorist" that's not how they see themselves obviously. THe underdog never views his tactics as terroristic, while the power-horse usually views unconventional warefare as terroristic.

Ok, that clarifies what?

 

[BrianH]

Ok, that clarifies what?

The fact that muslims understand what the terrorists are doing. And if the terrorist were fighting back with tanks, jets, armies, etc...we wouldn't be referring to them as terrorist, but armies.

 

[Annie]

The fact that muslims understand what the terrorists are doing. And if the terrorist were fighting back with tanks, jets, armies, etc...we wouldn't be referring to them as terrorist, but armies.

So you are saying that the Muslims are understanding that the terrorists are right, but under equipped? Meaning they would be in a better 'place' if they had the air forces, armies, that the US does?

 

[BrianH]

So you are saying that the Muslims are understanding that the terrorists are right, but under equipped? Meaning they would be in a better 'place' if they had the air forces, armies, that the US does?

lol, no. I'm saying that they view it as just....

We don't....hence the conflict.

I'm saying that if the terrorists were fighting using conventional warfare, then we might not call them terrorists, but something else. Like "Iran"

 

[Annie]

lol, no. I'm saying that they view it as just....

We don't....hence the conflict.

I'm saying that if the terrorists were fighting using conventional warfare, then we might not call them terrorists, but something else. Like "Iran"

You might wish to rethink, as it's obvious how I got from here to there. Then again, maybe not from your seeming perspective.

 

[BrianH]

You might wish to rethink, as it's obvious how I got from here to there. Then again, maybe not from your seeming perspective.

Are you serious??? So your saying that if these terrorists (which I agree they are) were to have a greater number, and fighting in a conventional manner (i.e. tanks, missles, infantry, etc...) we would still call them racists??

LOL.

Have you seen what we've resorted to calling AL Sadr's militia??? An Army...don't know why though. Many would call Iran's military a terrorist organization, but it's not what's in the books now is it?

The British viewed the colonists' tactics to be cowardly and terroristic during the Revolution because some of it was unconventional.