Iraqi Shias protest against US troops

Like I said before, myths only work in mythology. Islam is not about transcendental meditation, it is about living a good life.:)
Atheism is about living a good life as well - what does that have to do with anything I asked about?



You started the thread - so I'll ask again:


Is it OK for people like GW Bush and Mohammad to conquer/liberate another people, change their system and occupy them with their army or is it wrong?

Right or wrong?

Michael
 
Atheism is about living a good life as well - what does that have to do with anything I asked about?



You started the thread - so I'll ask again:


Is it OK for people like GW Bush and Mohammad to conquer/liberate another people, change their system and occupy them with their army or is it wrong?

Right or wrong?

Michael

I already answered that. There have been as many social reformers who were warriors. Like Bhagat Singh, Shivaji. Just because they chose to fight with weapons does not diminish their contribution to Indian society. Soldiers defend the homeland with weapons. Would you do away with them? Comparing Bush to Mohammed is a false analogy. Mohammed fought for the people of Qureish, his own tribe, his own relatives. Bush is not.

You're twisting issues, as usual.

You can compare the Shias fighting with the Sunni Iraqis. The Sunnis want a secular society, the Shias want a fundamentalist one. Are the Sunnis wrong to fight the Shias? The Sunnis are also fighting the al-Qaeda, a Sunni extremist group. Is that wrong? Should they NOT fight against al-Qaeda? That is a more apt analogy.
 
Mohammed fought for the people of Qureish, his own tribe, his own relatives. Bush is not.

You're twisting issues, as usual.
No I am not.
Mohammed fought for the people of Qureish.
Bush fights for the people of Amercia.

The people of Qureish killed other people and took their stuff.
The people of Amercia kill other people and take their stuff.

Both wrong.

Bad Prophets .. Bad Prophet *rub nose in shit* Bad Bad Bad Prophets!:D


What happened to the Jewish Tribes who first settled at that oasis? Did the "People of Qureish" fight for the Jewish peoples freedom too? I'm just curious? Well - did they?

At the most basic level they are no different.

You seem to think because the atrocities occurred in the past or were within the Arabian peninsula then it is OK, fine and dandy. Well, I disagree. That's not twisting anything its simply in disagreeance. I think it's always wrong to kill people and take what is theirs. Whether that is some nomadic person with voices in his head OR some rich Texan with voices in his head.


Both wrong.


You read many posters here who justify the actions of the USA and yet you do the exact same thing. I am not "twisting" anything. Invading another persons space and killing them and taking what they have either worked to build or what they have claimed by right is plain wrong. And to top it off you are trying to tell me a person who owned POW slaves was fighting for equality and freedom? Jesus Christ sell it to the North Koreans, we stop buying hypocrisy at 8PM.


Michael
 
No I am not.
Mohammed fought for the people of Qureish.
Bush fights for the people of Amercia.
Michael

Mohammed fought the people in power in Mecca for the people of Mecca. He fought his own people for his own people.

Your analogy is all wrong.

If Bush was killing Cheney and Rumsfeld for Americans then you'd be right.:)
 
Mecca was ONLY one tribe or more than one tribe?


What is this about:

Throughout the winter and spring of 623 other raiding parties were sent by Muhammad from Medina but, while troublesome, were not particularly effective or destructive. Muhammad's agreement with the Jewish tribes soon broke down, as the Jews would not accept Muhammad's claims to prophethood. After his victory at Badr, Muhammad besieged and conquered the tribe of the Banu Qaynuqa, that had been involved in a tribal feud and adamantly refused to convert to Islam. Because of the intercession of Abdallah ibn Ubayy, Muhammad spared tribe's lives and expelled them from the city.
 
Seems like a case of someone from somewhere else trying to imose their will on that people and when they won't take a bar of it - using an army and taking what they can by bruit force.


Again - unless Arabia was ONLY one big tribe than anything Mohammad did outside of his tribel land is an exact analogy.
 
You're both wrong.

Comparing Bush to Mohammad is one of the dumbest and most ignorant comparisons someone could make.

President Bush's Foreign Policy:

Protect the USA from any terrorists who pose a threat to the nation (remember 9/11 anyone?)

President Bush's policy IS NOT: Kill everyone who is not a Christian or who doesn't believe in democracy and take over the world until everyone does believe those things.

Bush couldn't give two fucks about any nation or group other than the USA unless that nation or group poses a clear threat to the USA or supports or shelters a group or groups which pose a clear threat to the USA. In other words, Bush has a defensive policy, while Mohammad had an offensive policy.
 
Mecca was ONLY one tribe or more than one tribe?


What is this about:

Throughout the winter and spring of 623 other raiding parties were sent by Muhammad from Medina but, while troublesome, were not particularly effective or destructive. Muhammad's agreement with the Jewish tribes soon broke down, as the Jews would not accept Muhammad's claims to prophethood. After his victory at Badr, Muhammad besieged and conquered the tribe of the Banu Qaynuqa, that had been involved in a tribal feud and adamantly refused to convert to Islam. Because of the intercession of Abdallah ibn Ubayy, Muhammad spared tribe's lives and expelled them from the city.

Source? There is a lot of "Islamic history" on the web.:rolleyes:

What was the agreement?

Mecca was controlled by the Qureish.
 
Your both wrong.

Comparing Bush to Mohammad is one of the dumbest and most ignorant comparisons someone could make.

President Bush's Foreign Policy:

Protect the USA from any terrorists who pose a threat to the nation (remember 9/11 anyone?)

President Bush's policy IS NOT: Kill everyone who is not a Christian or who doesn't believe in democracy and take over the world until everyone does believe those things.

Bush couldn't give two fucks about any other nation or group than the USA unless that nation or group poses a clear threat to the USA. In other words, Bush has a defensive policy, while Mohammad had an offensive policy.

So why is he funding al-Qaeda groups in Iran?

Why did he convert secular Iraq into a recruitment agency for terrorists?
 
LOL. Right. Seymour Hersh. And he isn't a pure bush hater, right?
Anyone can make invalid accusations, Sam. Just look at the Duke Lacrosse case.

You should be scolding Nancy Pelosi for acting out of her constitutional authority in trying to affect foreign policy, not Bush.
 
LOL. Right. Seymour Hersh. And he isn't a pure bush hater, right?
Anyone can make invalid accusations, Sam. Just look at the Duke Lacrosse case.

You should be scolding Nancy Pelosi for acting out of her constitutional authority in trying to affect foreign policy, not Bush.

I think if you look at Hersh's previous news stories you'll find out how many times he has been right.

God, you people are such dumb sheeple.:rolleyes:
 
A few things:

The Bani Quaraysh were definitely not "Mohammed's people": the definition Sam is employing here is a last grasp for some kind of justification of a history that can't be justified. Michael's points are quite apt: there is little differentiation between the invader Mohammed and the invader Bush. I don't recall the Meccans or the Bani Quraysh crying out to be "liberated" from their lives, their families and their livelihoods. It's the same thing: Mohammed is basically equivalent to Bush. Mohammed didn't even have the excuse of WMDs; his trumped-up reason for invasion was that the others refused to convert. Sura 9 anyone?

Secondly, I once believed in Seymour Hersh, but frankly it would take a real sheep to follow him everywhere, uncritically. I have trouble believing he has that many contacts, and he himself seems to have been caught out recently.
 
Source? There is a lot of "Islamic history" on the web.:rolleyes:

What was the agreement?

Mecca was controlled by the Qureish.
I'm asking you. Were there other tribes living there? Just because someone draws a line in the sand and says this is now called "Mecca" doesn't give some the right to kill and take other peoples stuff - does it?


Tell me: Do you think it is OK to kill other people for not thinking as you would like them to think? Maybe that's the problem? We just think differently on this topic? You are not going to kill me are you? Go on - try I dare you give us that killer smile ;)
 
I'm asking you. Were there other tribes living there? Just because someone draws a line in the sand and says this is now called "Mecca" doesn't give some the right to kill and take other peoples stuff - does it?


Tell me: Do you think it is OK to kill other people for not thinking as you would like them to think? Maybe that's the problem? We just think differently on this topic? You are not going to kill me are you? Go on - try I dare you give us that killer smile ;)

Hmm I disagree. Would I fight a group that killed female children? That treated women badly? That discriminated based on ethnicity or color? That kills people for petrodollars? What do you think?:bugeye:
 
The Bani Quaraysh were definitely not "Mohammed's people": the definition Sam is employing here is a last grasp for some kind of justification of a history that can't be justified. Michael's points are quite apt: there is little differentiation between the invader Mohammed and the invader Bush. I don't recall the Meccans or the Bani Quraysh crying out to be "liberated" from their lives, their families and their livelihoods. It's the same thing: Mohammed is basically equivalent to Bush. Mohammed didn't even have the excuse of WMDs; his trumped-up reason for invasion was that the others refused to convert. Sura 9 anyone?
a) See GeoffP gets it!

b) NDS does not get it.

c) Sam doesn't seem to want to get it.

d) What does that say?

e) OK, I'll just ask. Sam do you think that on this topic you are being a Sheeple in your own way?

f) Well, who were these Bani Quraysh? What happened to them (nut shell)? Why?
 
a) See GeoffP gets it!

b) NDS does not get it.

c) Sam doesn't seem to want to get it.

d) What does that say?

e) OK, I'll just ask. Sam do you think that on this topic you are being a Sheeple in your own way?

f) Well, who were these Bani Quraysh? What happened to them (nut shell)? Why?

Perhaps GeoffP, knowing so much more is better equipped to explain. Why don;t you two get together and enjoy your theories? Since they fit your notions so much better than the facts, you'll find them much more convincing.:rolleyes:

Some fiction for your entertainment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quraish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_reforms_under_Islam
 
Would I fight a group that killed female children?
You mean the Chinese or the Indians? Oh, must be the Chinese! So - you want to start killing Chinese? That'll learn them! OR do you try to use reason and by your own action change theirs? Education per say?

That treated women badly?
Well I think in Muslim countries women are treated badly. They think in the West women are treated badly. I think it's best to let women have the freedom to make their own choice. To be equal in all legal ways! Are when 100% equal to men in Islam? Can a women, like in Tibet, take more than one husband.

*Sam mulls moving to Tibet ;)*
Just Kidding.

Again - fight the ideology. Anyway, women in Islamic countries tend to be far worse off then those in Communist for sure.

That discriminated based on ethnicity or color?
Also, add to this Religious beleif and we're getting there. Doesn't the Qur'an discriminate based on beleif? A tax of sorts I thought?

What do you think?:bugeye:
I think killing people is wrong.


And you?
 
Back
Top