sharkman

The silence when Muslim reaction to speech is burning Churches and shooting nuns is even more disgusting. A mere speech never causes this reaction from Christian groups. Nothing gets this kind of reation from Christian groups. Yet, Muslim terrorists are untouchable, you dare not even criticize the riots. How sad.

There are _no_ standing orders to kill unbelievers in the Quaran. No matter how many times you you repeat the statement you will not make it any less false. Every quote you provided has context where there is some battle or war going on and the call for killing only applies to enemies that are trying to kill Mulsims at the time. You are not interested in looking at the verses. There are over 100 of them. Fine, I will leave you to your defense of Islam. Muslims blow up themselves for Allah, but because Christians kill abortion doctors, I guess that makes it right. Whatever.

The examples given thus far are not standing orders for Christians to kill unbelievers. There are no such scriptures in the Bible.

Holy hypocrasy batman! Sorry, no dice. You can't give Christianity a pass but criticize Islam for the same 'offence'. And I am pretty sure that every one of the quotes can be explained by similar context. The same place Christians get the idea to kill abortion doctors or at least provide moral support to those that do. Okay, then show me where the Bible has standing orders to kill unbelievers. Show me. BTW, the Bible does not tell Christians to kill abortion doctors, try again. And by saying Christian fanatics are doing it too still does not justify it.

Oh of course......that's what you mean........ if you only knew what your were talking about.....but sadly I see no more reason to feed the trolls other than to correct them. You have done nothing but be mean spirited, rude, and sarcastic. If you want nothing but pats on the back you should go to a Muslim forum. My comments above must bother you for such a response, but I am not being unreasonable. If you can't at least consider that some Muslims are ruining it for all, then I will leave you to your thoughts.

Context is everything:http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2000/religion.htm I haven't bothered to look at the other ones because but I am pretty sure they are taken equally out fo context. Now let's contrast that with a quote from the Bible (Numbers 31:17): Clearly the Bible is advocating wholesale slaughter of children. According to your logic I should ignore the context in Numbers 31 and start repeating that quote over and over again to show how Christianity is a violant religion. If you recall, I am not saying the Bible has no calls to war or commands to kill. You are arguing a point that I am already agreeing with. However, I said that the Koran has verses that represent standing orders to kill infidels. My recent link has dozens of verses. You can not explain them all away. The point is some Muslim citizens are taking it upon themselves to kill others in a jihad. Where do you suppose they are getting this idea? They are not just making it up, my friend.

Dancer there is no point arguing with this guy. Theyre all extremists but if a few arent theyre only trying to manipulate us. Its rubbish, any half intelligent 4 year old could tell you that much. To your natural assumption that he is ignorant and a liar Id like to add racist as well which can easily be drawn from his numerous posts against Muslims. Thanks I have explained this before, but let me again. It is not the peaceful, God fearing Muslims that are a concern, it is the ones who believe they have a divine command to fight the infidels. The ones who are blowing up stuff are worrisome, the ones who aren't are not. In the Non-muslim kills 3 thread, I have left a link that lists Koran verses talking about infidels, jihad and the lilke. (I don't want to double post it here which is against the rules.)The book itself is very pro-war and pro-jihad. But if there was no muslims blowing people up, there would be no problem. Many are racist towards Muslims, and this is sad. But what is the greater evil. Racism or murder.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.htmlMaybe your quotation is a correct translation and my quotation is fudged translation. The difference indicates that not all Muslims should be painted with the same brush. No. It is evidence that YOU read propaganda that you want to read to support YOUR REMOVAL OF BIGOTED HATE SPEECH... Okay, Charles, I have done some my research and have found, as far as I can find, my quote is wrong, and I will not use that source again, because it is not trustworthy. Here instead, is a link to a site that has reams and reams of Qur'an quotes, the body of which is far more unsettling than the few I have posted previously. Here's a couple for you to scoff at: Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.” Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.” Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).” Ishaq:324 “He said, ‘Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.’” The truth shall set you free.

Here Charles, is the Koran telling muslims to carry out Holy War: "Muhammad said, 'You are commanded to carry out jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.'" (Qur'ran 47:4) Maybe you should read more before you play the knee jerk racist card. This, if nothing else is evidence that should be weighed.

You were not making "an obvious point about other cultures or religions" in the very least. You are being a disgusting racist by generalizing. When people can no longer defend their positions, that's when the racism and bigotry cards get played. I am neither, and I resent your name calling. Surely you can do better than this.

The main part of the problem is there are Muslims killing people because the Koran tells them to do it, their leaders tell them to do it, Mohammad tell them to do it, and people like you shrug your shoulders and say,"What problem?" If Christians had riots over things they find offensive, like 'art' that includes elephant dung and the Virgin Mary, liberals would be screaming about the wrongness of it and rightly so. (By the way, I'd like to see some of these 'artists' try something like that with pictures of Mohammad. They won't dare.) Said liberals can find nothing wrong with Muslims rioting over offensive cartoons or threatening the Pope's life over benign comments. That you can not see the double standard is a big part of the problem.

1. Gerry Studds. The Democrat-controlled Congress censured Studds (Speaker Tip O'Neill wanted him ousted, but couldn't get that done). Studds rejected his censure and took his case to the voters. They continued to re-elect him. 2. Barney Frank. Frank claimed lack of knowledge of Gobie's activities and, whether or not that's believable, he was punished by the Democrat-controlled House. Like Studds, Frank took his case to the voters who continue to re-elect him. 3. Mel Reynolds. Reynolds served four years in prison for the scandal surrounding him and the 16 year old; Clinton commuted his sentence for unrelated financial charges and Reynolds served out the remainder of his prison term in a half-way house. In each of the cases you cite, the Democrat was fined, censured, reprimanded or imprisoned. What is it about those punitive acts which indicates to you that fellow Democrats were not equally horrified by the criminal and/or unsavory acts of their colleagues? It is pure supposition on your part. Why is the Foley scandal just as bad as any of these if not worse? 1. By IM'ing his perversion, he left evidence of his depravity. In the other cases, we are left in the dark as to the degree of communication, but here we have Foley's words laid out in black and white. 2. He is a hypocrite. He authoried the law which is designed to protect kids against the very things he was doing to them. 3. The House leadership knew there was something fishy going on with him and the pages and yet decided to not take action against him. Not only that, but the head of the House Ethics Committee learned of this and the only person he did not tell was the one Democrat on the Committee. Clearly, those within the GOP knew this was explosive and decided to make it a political thing by not exposing and punishing the guy. Rather, they decided to protect one of their own Republicans rather than protect the kids upon whom Foley routinely preyed. In none of the Democrat scandals you cite did the Democrat leadership move to protect or hush-up the scandals. HUGE difference. Interesting response, but you have no link to back up your opinions. The House leadership knew little, and confronted him. Had he broken a law at that point even? How in the world is it made a political thing by not exposing and punishing him? He no doubt said he's stop. Have any of the kids who were preyed upon been raped? Even had sex with him? No. I love how in the media they are repeating Foley had computer sex with the one teenager. They weren't in the same room, and this is the same media that earnestly reported that Clinton didn't have sex with Monica, stained dress and all. Foley's a sicko, no doubt, but no charges have been laid to this point. The latest? ABC claimed the kid in question was 16, now it has been proven he was 18 at the time. Nothing like reporting the wrong facts to get a higher market share.

Okay Dancer, lay it on me. Show me these standing orders in the Bible that command today's Christians to kill infidels. Pretty please. Please also try to be accurate, for instance your earlier statement that it's a common Christian practice to 'attack' doctors and abortion clinics is so inaccurate it reflects poorly on your powers of observation.

Gee, I guess I'm too busy hating(according to you) to read. You did not explain each quote, just accused me of getting them from a hate site(again with the hate) but I did not. I said in my first post where I got them. Perhaps you need to reread MY posts.

So, those that disagree with you hate Islam, eh? Usually those that throw around basesless accusations do so because they can no longer defend their position. You can't refute my references or the fact that the Qur'an advocates violence. Try a little harder.

The wholesale slaughter of non-combatants is genocide no matter your God thinks of them. What it means if you bother to read the entire context in the Quran is when you give yourself to Allah that you give everything including your life. It is an abstract metaphor that means you will live or die, kill or be killed according to the needs of Allah. It does not in anyway imply that Muslims are supposed run out and kill all non-believers. Or maybe I could't be bothered to do the research. You probably got the passages from some anti-Muslim hate propaganda site and did not bother to read the entire passages that contain the quotes so you could really understand what they were talking about. The Bible has tons of pretty disgusting stuff in it ranging from genocide to pedophilia and incest all committed by God's faithful. If you want to get into a battle of out-of-context quotes from old books then I can assure you that Christianity will end up looking as bad as Islam if not worse. Well, assure all you want but the Bible still has no standing orders to kill, and Muslims still kill for religious reasons. Maybe you ought to put your blinders back on, I sense that your nostrils are flaring.

Sounds like the Judeo/Christian God is advocating genocide to me. Ah, I was hoping remiel would see my post, oh well. Reread the entire passage and you will see your error. Do you not wonder why Amalek was to receive such actions? And it was a one time judgement. Genocide? How about trying to massage your 'evidence' into something it isn't? When the Qur'an says in 9:111 The believers fight in Allah's cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed, it is as plain as day what it means. More massaging? And all of the other passages you just ignore, so that must mean you have no answer for them. Believe there is pie in the sky if you choose, but the facts are what they are.

Why don't you speak to my points? Your comments above do not, but I will test your comments. I don't understand your first sentence, it seems you may have missed a word or letter or something. We are not arguing that Christianity is better or superior to other faiths, but that Islam advocates violence. Acts of terror by Christian terrorists do not exist. Acts of war in the name of the Christian God did happen, but not in modern times. The problem with Muslim religion is in fact its teachings which is where the violence comes from. A poster here dug up some scripture from the Koran: "I have been made victorious with terror" (Sahi Bukhari V4B52N220) "I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and His apostle." (Qur'an 8:12) "The believers fight in Allah's cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed" (Qur'an 9:111) "Muhammad said, 'You are commanded to carry out jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam'" (Qur'an) There are no such commands in the Bible for Holy war. There were specific times when Israel was to attack or fight wars, but that was in ancient times. There is no such standing orders anywhere in the Bible to attack and fight unbelievers for a Holy reward in Heaven. I dare you to find some, you will find none. That is all I am saying. The Muslim faith commands war and violence. And I still say liberals who argue for freedom of speech in some cases, but not when the Pope's benign comments cause Islam to threaten his life, those liberals have a double standard.

ah yes, let's take away the one thing that has helped Israel to survive the last 30 years and watch Syria, Iran, Jordan Egypt and assorted thousands of terrorists mass on the borders. Really good idea. If you think all the Arab countries in the middle east want nukes simply because Israel has them then you are living in a dreamland.

And here's a short history that demonstrates what I'm talking about with Dem Double Standards: 1983: Democratic Rep Gerry Studds of Massachustts has sex with a male teen page. He rejects Congress' censure and continued to represent the district until 1996. 1989: Rep. Barney Frank, also of Massachusetts, admitted he'd lived with Steve Gobie, a male prostitute who ran a bevy of male prostitutes out of their apartment. It was later discovered Frank used his position to 'fix' 33 parking tickets for Gobie. The House reprimanded him and today he's a member of Congress on the Dem side. 2001: President Clinton commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds, who had sex with a 16 campaign volunteer and pressured her to lie about it. Foley didn't have sex with anyone, resigned right away and has entered himself into rehab, and the Dems are astonished and astounded at this evil man, and continue to threepeat it whenever they can. Foley might not even get charged for what he did. Again, if the 16 year old was in danger, and I believe the known world would agree that he was, then why didn't the Dems, who admit that Republicans knew about it earlier but change the subject when they are asked, protect the page and report Foley earlier. I'll tell you why, because they could get more votes if they held on to it until now.

Man, some liberals are beginning to be completely blinded by their prejudice against Christianity. Anytime Muslim acts of terror or rioting violence are criticized, Prepare For The Great Comparison!!!: Christians did it too. As if that justifies the bombings, burnings and riots. Let alone the fact that the Koran admonishes the faithful to kill infidels and get 72 virgins in paradise, and the Bible does not. Astounding that otherwise level headed people go completely off their rockers when critical comments of Muslims dare be uttered. And of course, they completely ignore freedom of speech issues whenever Muslims freak out over a cartoon or comments they deicide don't show proper respect for their religion. It's only freedom of speech that needs to be protected when Howard Stern goes x-rated on his radio program, and people complain. If the Pope is slapped down for a few comments that would have probably put the rest of us to sleep, the silence from the liberal side of the fence is deafening. Double standard. Thats okay, the rest of us will try to keep speech free.

Apparently you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. We have seen far too many innocent people's lives ruined by baseless accusations designed only to bring ruin. Once a person has been accused of child molestation their lives will never be the same. It's worse than the seven years of bad credit a bankruptcy brings. Children need to be protected, but so do those accused of something they didn't do.

The thing is, there wasn't any sleeping around going on from what I've heard. At any rate, Foley resigns and checks himself into rehab, removing himself from democrat target practice, so the dems change tactics and come up with the strategy that ALL republicans knew SOMETHING was going on. Like I said ealier, they are going to ride this thing until election day hoping to squeak some more seats out of it. And damn the kid in question. They've obviously had this information too for some time, waited until it would do the most for their election chances. If it was a Dem, they'd circle the wagons using the Clinton Denial Strategy.

Two more girls died over night for a total of five. Pretty freakin' hilarious.

Kind of pathetic to use the horrible deaths of three girls in your satire, give them a little respect why don't you.