Suicide Bombers, and Total War
From here.
Sometimes I just want to say
FUCKEM.
NUKEM.
TWICE.
But I still think it would be more humane to just stop pretneding that the problem isn't radical mosques, and completely eliminate them. As many times as needed, for as long as needed. I don't relish the thought of murdering the women and children of my enemies, the way my enemies do.
Edited By GORDON on 1194654439
Sometimes I just want to say
FUCKEM.
NUKEM.
TWICE.
But I still think it would be more humane to just stop pretneding that the problem isn't radical mosques, and completely eliminate them. As many times as needed, for as long as needed. I don't relish the thought of murdering the women and children of my enemies, the way my enemies do.
Edited By GORDON on 1194654439
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Somehow changing their minds might be a bit easier than stalking from mosque to mosque with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into clerics and fundie worshipper.GORDON wrote:Do you have a point?
Changing someone else's mind usually requires beating them within the realm of their logic.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
GORDON wrote:Which can't be done while under the thrall of a crazy cleric.
Troops blowing away priest Kareem Abdul al-Muhammad Ali Jihad Durka Durka will not solve this problem. We've been trying the humane version of that for some time now. Not saying a violent solution is out, but the direct violent solution isn't the answer.
Edited By Malcolm on 1185492465
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Hmm, since trying to quote TPR's post broke the board for me, I'll do it manually.
Even religion has its own set of rules. Religion, might I add, interpreted by people about whom we may have extensive info about. The slant they take on the faith may suggest certain things about the type of brain they have in their skull.
EDIT : The hell? I can't see his post anymore. Someone kill it?
Edited By Malcolm on 1185493375
But they aren't using logic, they're using religion. The two are mutually exclusive.
Even religion has its own set of rules. Religion, might I add, interpreted by people about whom we may have extensive info about. The slant they take on the faith may suggest certain things about the type of brain they have in their skull.
EDIT : The hell? I can't see his post anymore. Someone kill it?
Edited By Malcolm on 1185493375
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
This has been debated in Jakarta for some time. The radicals are not happy without a Muslim state. If the nuts win out Indo. is fudged. What a new and noval idea this is. Seperation of Church and State. Heh.
From Opinion Jakarta Post.
In a regular discussion with some colleagues, the issue of Islam and politics was once again raised. I contend that Islam and politics must remain separated. There are dangers in combining Islam and politics. Although this is an old issue, it remains interesting to talk about as there seems to be various and intensive efforts from the Islamists -- notably Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) -- to promote a khilafah (Islamic state) as the final form of and option for governance.
Within the system of khilafah, every thing must be ruled by the divine law of sharia, ordained by God to his Messenger.
While there is nothing wrong with the divine law of sharia, the problem lies in the fact that forcing this law on people of different religious and cultural backgrounds is dangerous.
Edited By unkbill on 1185549945
From Opinion Jakarta Post.
In a regular discussion with some colleagues, the issue of Islam and politics was once again raised. I contend that Islam and politics must remain separated. There are dangers in combining Islam and politics. Although this is an old issue, it remains interesting to talk about as there seems to be various and intensive efforts from the Islamists -- notably Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) -- to promote a khilafah (Islamic state) as the final form of and option for governance.
Within the system of khilafah, every thing must be ruled by the divine law of sharia, ordained by God to his Messenger.
While there is nothing wrong with the divine law of sharia, the problem lies in the fact that forcing this law on people of different religious and cultural backgrounds is dangerous.
Edited By unkbill on 1185549945
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134762
In summary: they did it first so go for it.
Edited By GORDON on 1185719581
In summary: they did it first so go for it.
Impermissible to kill women and children in All circumstances?
The Verdict of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sālih Al-’Uthaymīn:
The Shaykh, may Allāh be merciful towards him, said in a tape recording regarding this topic:
“And the second (matter) is the forbiddance of killing women and children in times of war. But if it is said: ‘ If they (the kuffār) do this to us- meaning that they kill our children and women- Then do we then kill them?
The apparent [Thāhir] is that it is (permissible) for us to kill their women and children- even if it means that we lose profit/benefit from it [since keeping them alive is a profit/benefit because they become the property of the Muslims]; (and killing them in this situation is permissible) due to it threatening the hearts of the enemies and a humiliation for them.
And due to the generality of the Statement of Allāh:
“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” Al-Baqarah : 194
And to (purposely) destroy property (which could later belong) for the Muslims (by killing them in this case) is nothing strange. And due to this, the baggage, the baggage of the one who steals from the Ghanīmah is burned, even though in that, there is the loss of some property of one the fighters.
Then if someone says:
‘If they rape our women then do we rape their women?’
No, this, no, no we do not do it. Why? Because this is prohibited as a (whole) category [i.e. it is forbidden within itself], and it is not possible for us to do it.
Meaning, it is not forbidden out of respect for the rights of others [i.e. not because we are respecting their rights] - rather, because it is forbidden as a category [ i.e. the action of ‘intercourse’]. So it is not permissible for us to rape their women.
But if the dividing (of the Ghanīmah) takes place, and the woman from them ends up as a slave woman, then she becomes property of the right hand. The person can have intercourse with her as a right hand possession, which is permissible and there is nothing wrong with this”
Later on, the Shaykh was asked about the fact that the women being killed are not the ones who killed our women, so is this justice? So he answered:
“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” Al-Baqarah : 194
What is justice? Not at all. They kill our women, we kill their women. This is the justice. It’s not justice to say ‘if they kill our women we won’t kill your women.’ Because this, I notice from this that it has many enormous affects on them”
End of quote from Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sālih Al-’Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy upon him.
(Refer to the side “B” from the third cassette of Kitā b al-Jihād from Sharh Bulūgh al-Marā m. Or download it from the Shaykh’s own website:
http://www.binothaimeen.com/sound/snd/a0020/A0020-3B.rm
___
Edited By GORDON on 1185719581
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
The apparent [Thāhir] is that it is (permissible) for us to kill their women and children- even if it means that we lose profit/benefit from it [since keeping them alive is a profit/benefit because they become the property of the Muslims]; (and killing them in this situation is permissible) due to it threatening the hearts of the enemies and a humiliation for them.
Profit? Has anyone even HEARD that word mentioned relative to any suicide bombing?
"Well, Ali-Abdul, should we bomb them?"
"No, Abdul-Ali, it will hurt our bottom line when we finally crush the Infidels. I need to retire when this is over."
Meaning, it is not forbidden out of respect for the rights of others [i.e. not because we are respecting their rights] - rather, because it is forbidden as a category [ i.e. the action of ‘intercourse’]. So it is not permissible for us to rape their women.
Wait a sec. So rape is out of the question, unless you're a slave, then you're fucked (literally). But murder is just peachy. In conclusion, apparently rape > murder.
This is just fucking pathetic. It sounds like it was a read off a thousand year old yellow parchment scroll dug up from the depths of the sand.
Hell, I say we start printing off summaries of Enlightenment thinkers & dropping leaflets all over the Middle East. Start w\ Locke.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."