War links

[erudito]

The siege of Cadiz as central in the defeat of Napoleon.

Newsreel of the Japanese surrender on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. (The Allied signatories in order are Macarthur as Allied Supreme Commander, the US, China, UK, USSR, Australia, Canada, France, Netherlands, New Zealand.)

Looking at the nuclear alertness issue. A shortage of Helium3 is

Comments

[tcpip]

Skeptics is pretty weak and I'm unimpressed

*shrug* Nevertheless they are examples where the NT advocates violence and cruelty.

Now, if you could find a good text like "Institutes of Religion" or "City of God" justifying war for the expansion of the Christian empire I'd be more impressed.

Which would be unfortunate and intellectually slippery , because you asked for references from the New Testament. That said, I find the advocacy of war in City of God not very different at between the Islamic distinction between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb.

When put into context do those verses become poetry, simile or metaphor which is not meant to be taken literally? No.

Actually, the context is everything.

e.g.,
http://infideltaskforce.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/1314945-out-of-context-quote-of-the-quran-caught-red-handed-truth-exposed-in-the-excessive-misquoting-of-this-verse-quran-sura-9-verse-5-

Israel giving up on nukes would be fantastic, all we need is for Muslims to stop calling for the immediate destruction of Israel and mean it.

I support the immediate destruction of Israel. As do many orthodox Jews, and in the same way.

But it's nice to see that you believe in an imperial state holding the rest of the region to ransom through military force.

Oh well, Christianity when it suits you I suppose. What was it that Ghandi said about that religion?

[findalexh]

City of God doesn't call for war against the unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers.

Context is everything, which is why nothing on skeptics is worth repeating but that particular formulation is repeated throughout the Koran in a variety of contexts and it keeps coming back to the same point. Muslims are called to war against the unbeliever, in the Quran, in the Hadith and in the action of the ideal Muslim, Mohammed.

Your support of the destruction of Israel is intellectual. Iran's call for the destruction of Israel is somewhat more genocidal.

What I believe in is avoiding the slaughter of millions of people, I'm not a fan of Palestine or the Jewish treatment of Palestinians.

Actually I prefer Christianity when it doesn't suit me. Ghandi said it was a fine religion, just a pity about the Christians. A very accurate comment in my opinion.

None of the above changes the fact that Islam calls for war, deception, hatred and judgement making it a threat to the non Muslim world.

[tcpip]

City of God doesn't call for war against the unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers.

And nor does the Qua'ran if you'd could actually care to trouble yourself to read it. The relevant section was already linked.

Iran's call for the destruction of Israel is somewhat more genocidal

"Iran" has made no such comment as "Iran" does not speak. Collective responsibility for individual acts seems to be a running theme in your thought.

And that aside, if you are talking about governments, Ahmadinejad has not called for genocide against Jews either. Even a modicum of research indicates this and I plead to you to engage in this.

None of the above changes the fact that Islam calls for war, deception, hatred and judgement making it a threat to the non Muslim world.

That is a statement that suggests religious bigotry and which, as been shown, has no basis in fact.

[findalexh]

I have read the Koran, cover to cover. The section quoted above is only one of many.

Yeah, there isn't a hint of genocide in the constant call for the disolution of Israel by various Muslims, including Iranians. And there wasn't a hint of sarcasm in the previous sentence.

Collective responsibility for individual acts is often reality. Deal with it and while you're at it, move beyond the intellectually crippling individualism, pluralism politically correctness of the early 21st Century.

My statement is a reflection of years of apologising for Islam to bigoted people until, as I've noted in my journal, I had a dummy spit earlier this year. I realise I'm not politically correct, but then I actually do know what I'm talking about, I can present facts like Islamic history and theological positions held by Muslims. So far you have not. You have completely avoided some questions and mis-directed others.

My assessment largely agrees with that of many ex-Muslims, including the recently defected son of Hamas leader.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103481069258868.html

The fundamental underpinnings of Islam are evil, I doubt you're going to change your mind on the topic and I'm certainly not going to change mine after taking 15 years to come to my point of view. I would however, plead with you to do some research on Islam, starting with titles like "Why I am not a Muslim" or "Islam Revealed" or "Islam in our Backyard."

Post whatever you like, I won't be replying.

[tcpip]

I have read the Koran, cover to cover. The section quoted above is only one of many.... I can present facts like Islamic history and theological positions held by Muslims

So did you just forget the context of the oft-cited quote that you provided, or did you overlook it deliberately?

Perhaps your asserted knowledge of Islamic theology is a little less than you claim it is?

Collective responsibility for individual acts is often reality. Deal with it

Just because it's a reality imposed by those with especially low moral reasoning, doesn't make it right. Rather than Objectivist depravity, you have sinking towards Christian depravity. "Kill them all, God will know his own".

I would however, plead with you to do some research on Islam, starting with titles like "Why I am not a Muslim"...

Already read it. I largely agree with it.