Just for the record the 911 attacks were perpetrated by LEGAL immigrants/visitors to this country. Maybe we should halt all LEGAL immigration and increase ILLEGAL immigration?

 

Maybe just student visas from the Middle East.

Yes

 

Yet Muhammad wiped out the Jews in Medina. He accused them of treahery, but even Arab scholars believe that it was because they refused to convert to Islam and recognize him as a prophet. He also attacked the Jews at Khaybar.

 

There is no doubt that it is a convert or destroy religion.

Yet Muhammad wiped out the Jews in Medina. He accused them of treahery, but even Arab scholars believe that it was because they refused to convert to Islam and recognize him as a prophet. He also attacked the Jews at Khaybar.

 

Yes, but what's so different about that than about any of God's wars?

Yes, but what's so different about that than about any of God's wars?

If you're talking OT, I can't refute it. However, I don't think God has had any wars since JC came to town. Keep in mind though that the OT God also used Babylonians, Egyptians, Assryians, Romans and Persians to punish his people.

If you're talking OT, I can't refute it. However, I don't think God has had any wars since JC came to town. Keep in mind though that the OT God also used Babylonians, Egyptians, Assryians, Romans and Persians to punish his people.

 

That is true. I suppose the real question is whether acts of violence in a religion's holy scriptures lead to acts of violence in its modern practioners?

If you know the history of Muhammad, then you know that he personally led his own armies and was responsible for the deaths of many in Medina, Mecca and anywhere people didn't think he was Allah's prophet. The antipathy between Jews and Muslims started with him. Islam does not have peaceful beginnings and continues down the path set by its founder. Death to the infidel.

 

I hear what you are saying and can't disagree.

 

However there are similar stories in the OT that lend credibility to the wars, destruction and genocide practiced by the Hebrews as they conquered the Promised Land. It's not like Judaism was born with peaceful beginnings either.

I'd say you could remove extreme from that sentence. An Islamic fundamentalist takes everything in the Koran literally, right? If that's the case and they truly believe it's the word of god and they're totally devoted, then they have no choice but to be violent. The Koran commands it. I have to agree with HHSDad on this one.

 

 

Just as there are extreme fundamentalists in Christianity, there are some in Islam. Is the Christian version less violent? Perhaps. But sometimes not if you realize how they used it to prop up slavery, segregation, destruction of Native American cultures, et al.

What's the difference? Still American citizens or soldiers.

 

In that case, there have probably been thousands of attacks on American citizens or soldiers worldwide since we invaded Iraq. Kind of makes the 3 that happened during the Clinton presidency seem miniscule by comparison.

Just as there are extreme fundamentalists in Christianity, there are some in Islam. Is the Christian version less violent? Perhaps. But sometimes not if you realize how they used it to prop up slavery, segregation, destruction of Native American cultures, et al.

 

The difference is that a "Christian fundamentalists" who uses violence has to twist, distort and change the Bible (New Testament) to reach that conclusion and justify his/her actions.

 

A Muslim does not. It's clearly taught and commanded.

 

I'm not making any assertions that Christians are flawless, or that terrible things haven't been done under the guise of Christianity. Just pointing out that the difference, and it's a big one, is that one group is not following what is taught by it's book and the other is.

In that case, there have probably been thousands of attacks on American citizens or soldiers worldwide since we invaded Iraq. Kind of makes the 3 that happened during the Clinton presidency seem miniscule by comparison.

Thousands? Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?

In that case, there have probably been thousands of attacks on American citizens or soldiers worldwide since we invaded Iraq. Kind of makes the 3 that happened during the Clinton presidency seem miniscule by comparison.

 

Soldiers are in battle so that there will NOT be attacks on citizens. The weakness shown by the Clinton administration invites attacks on American Citizens.

Check with our soldiers. I just spent a week in Paris Island. There was not one soldier that had a negative thing to say about the wars we are fighting. However, some did have negative things to say about the army.

 

 

I was responding to LBBC's comment that W was responsible for saving unborn babies lives. That had nothing to do with the topic, and I had originally responded to what I felt was W's "credit" for what's happenend since 9/11 with regard to attacks on us on our own soil. If we were discussing other credits I'd give to W, then I actually would have some positive things to say. But relative to W's responsibility for what has or hasn't happened since 9/11, I responded with my thoughts. My comment that you quote has nothing to do with what I think of the soldiers, or what they think of the war. LBBC said "saved unborn babies lives". To me, that says that LBBC thinks that saving the unborned babies lives is more important the lives of our soldiers. That's it...nothing more. I agree that the partial birth ban was a good thing. But it's nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

Soldiers are in battle so that there will NOT be attacks on citizens. The weakness shown by the Clinton administration invites attacks on American Citizens.

 

 

Then, what is inviting the attacks now? Sure isn't Clinton. He hasn't been in office for a few years now.

 

You can't say Clinton's actions invites the attacks, without acknowledging the current attacks, and the fact that W's actions invite them.

I consider myself to a very strong Republican and pretty conservative. But I will not accept that no Democrat can be a conservative or cannot have similar views as me. I've voted for Democrats before that were as conservative or similar in my beliefs as the Republican. I refused to go on my County's Republican Exec Committee because I wanted the ability to vote and publicly support Democrats that I felt were worthy and some people felt I shouldn't do that and be on the Executive Committee. I said fine but no thanks. I've gotten into many spirited debates in my dining room with Republican leaders in the state who were trying to get a Republican to run against an incumbent Democrat that was doing a good job. I thought that was stupid and told them so in my rather blunt manner. So if you mean strict Democrat or Republican to be someone who will never consider the quality and positions of someone other than their party, but rather will only vote for a member of their party, yes I disagree with that line of thinking entirely. Perhaps it was fine 100 years ago when people were a lot less educated and didn't have the access to candidates' positions and voting records. But there is no excuse for it today in my opinion.

 

And I'm sorry if I'm freaking you out PepRock and Habib. Some things just get me fired up.

 

I wasn't trying to fire you up and I apologize if I did. I can appreciate your point of view. I just happen to be devoted to my political party ( Dem) and will continue.

The difference is that a "Christian fundamentalists" who uses violence has to twist, distort and change the Bible (New Testament) to reach that conclusion and justify his/her actions.

 

A Muslim does not. It's clearly taught and commanded.

 

I'm not making any assertions that Christians are flawless, or that terrible things haven't been done under the guise of Christianity. Just pointing out that the difference, and it's a big one, is that one group is not following what is taught by it's book and the other is.

 

 

Actually, the Christian has to do no more to twist the Bible's literal words, than the Muslim does to have to twist the Koran's. It clearly states in the Bible, "An eye for an eye". I don't think it's different at all. If you are a person who takes the Bible to the literal extremes, then you will kill in the name of God. The difference is actually socio-political. We live in a Christian country, but not a theocracy.