Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist_McDrowner]

Because arming the rebels worked so terribly in Libya, right? Owait. We also gave select Libyans CIA training. The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan was that we tried to force too good of a government. The ideas that made very liberal constitutional republics possible in our cultures took thousands of years. We also did the law enforcing, and the fighting, which made the people feel like this was foreigners. Contrast that with Libya.

...Those ideas took around or less than a hundred years from their conception/formulation to result in the USA. Then a couple of hundred years more to result in the European democracies. Enlightenment philosophy is by no means "thousands of years" old.

From Greece, the first experiment in man governing himself in civilization. From Rome, the rule of law. From the Renaissance, the idea that the government should be for the people. The idea of a social contract. From the enlightenment philosophers, the majority of details, such as separation of powers, government being the servant and not the master, and from the great experimenters, the US founding fathers, the first ever working model.

Contrast that with Iraq, who has known nothing but emperors, kings, sheiks, amirs and caliphs, up until only a few hundred years ago.

[John Galt Fanfiction]

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

Man I just can't follow American politics at all.

e: still appreciating that jingoism and casual subtle racism, man

[Sirus]

McDowner, could you please quit with the multiposts? Edit your previous one or something.

[Sheb]

And no European country (Except Iceland) had anything else than emperors, kings, sheiks duke, amirs counts and caliphs popes until a few hundred years ago.

Also, your logic doesn't hold at all. Not all muslims are fundies, in the same way that not all christion respect every word of the bible (I mean, come on, how many Christian do you know that refrain from non-kasher meat?)

[Il Palazzo]

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

Shouldn't you be out there bombing Israel then? I mean, they've never had this Jesus guy either, so they must be still riding on the old "kill all unbelievers" doctrine, eh?

[Urist_McDrowner]

And no European country (Except Iceland) had anything else than emperors, kings, sheiks duke, amirs counts and caliphs popes until a few hundred years ago.

Also, your logic doesn't hold at all. Not all muslims are fundies, in the same way that not all christion respect every word of the bible (I mean, come on, how many Christian do you know that refrain from non-kasher meat?)

If you'd read the bible, you'd know the answer.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

God cleansed those animals (which was a metaphor for preaching to gentiles, but all the same, it came in force). Furthermore, Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses. See Galatians 3. The law is our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, and after we have faith in Him, we have no more need of a schoolmaster.

[Urist_McDrowner]

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

Shouldn't you be out there bombing Israel then? I mean, they've never had this Jesus guy either, so they must be still riding on the old "kill all unbelievers" doctrine, eh?

Jesus (in this case, I AM to the Jews) never said "kill everyone who converts from Islam" as Muhammad did. Jesus said "These are the people to kill". They were not open ended. They were more often than not bound by historical constraint. Maybe if you read the Bible as I have read the Quran, cover to cover, you'd know this.

[freeformschooler]

McDowner, could you please quit with the multiposts? Edit your previous one or something.

Echoing this. It's very difficult to read it all when it's scattered all around the place.

[Urist_McDrowner]

In my experience, when I do, those parts I edit are ignored because "they didn't see them". It's much more hassle for everybody when I keep having to drag up "remember this point you didn't address?"

[Sirus]

Except that double-or-more-posting is frowned upon/against forum rules, unsure which exactly.

[freeformschooler]

In my experience, when I do, those parts I edit are ignored because "they didn't see them". It's much more hassle for everybody when I keep having to drag up "remember this point you didn't address?"

People are going to selectively ignore all or part of your posts no matter what you do in an INTERNET ARGUMENT like this. I recommend carefully reading the replies before yours and then quoting them before you hit post if it bothers you.

[Sheb]

Yup, and only a couple pages later, the same Peter as long with the church of Jerusalem decide that converted Gentiles can discard the law, but should still respect 4 points: No sexual immorality, no eating food offered to idols and abstaining from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. So yeah, pork is okay, as long as there is no blood left, that is it has been killed by kosher mean.

Also, the Quran protect the christian, jews and some other minor abrahamic religion.

Anyway, I should not have responded to this. The point is that muslims are not actually mindless automaton following every written word of the Quran. Especially not when it comes to foreign policy.

[Aqizzar]

There is a difference. I don't think that my ancestors were perfect. There's been one perfect king in the history of the world, and He didn't conquer anything but death. The Muslims believe that Muhammad was infallible while acting on instructions from Allah. Instructions such as conquer the Meccans. Therefore, since he conquered, clearly conquering the Meccans was not wrong. Shiites (such as Iran), furthermore believe that Ali was infallible. There has been no Muslim holy text since then changing the stance on conquest, unlike in Christian theology where Jesus (as the great I AM) told the Israelites to conquer, then during his mortal ministry removed that. The fact is, in saying conquest is wrong, they must say Muhammad was wrong, which cannot be done. Later shiite imams, held by the doctrine of Ismah to be infallible, also conquered, without direction from Allah.

I don't know exactly what you're arguing about, but it scares the shit out of me.

I've been pondering temporarily locking this thread for the last two weeks, at least until I'm ready to police it more, and now it's really looking like a good idea.

[Sirus]

C'mon people, this isn't the religious debate thread. Take it elsewhere, it isn't politics.

[RedKing]

Agreed. More of the horserace, less of the horseshit.