Islam Threatens The Free World

[MissLT]

Admiral wrote:

2 The majority of the American folk is based on "support" for Bush.

3 Danyet is American


It would be wise if you start to explain those sentences now.

I think I don't have to explain, Bush has won in his duel with Kerry because Bush insisted to continue his war against terrorism.

For more explanation please ask your cute boyfriend what he meant in his post at Aug 4 3:29 pm.

Either you didn't understand his post or you denied to understand it, whatever. The bottom line is your example has nothing to do with his.

Muslims worship Mohammed with their every breath. It's against their law to question his actions or the Koran. It's not their choice to choose to worship Mohammed or not. It's a must.

Americans, on the other hand, have a choice to choose whether they should believe in or vote for baby Bush. They don't worship him. In fact, they have their rights to question his actions, beliefs, how he leads America, etc.

In Danyet's eyes Mohammed was a terrorist. And since Muslims are born to believe in Mohammed, don't have the right to question whom they worship, or can't choose to leave it, that means they indirect support the terrorist. This is what he meant.

Americans have the right to choose whom they should put in office. Not all Americans support baby Bush. However, you said Danyet is American to prove that all Americans support baby Bush. I wonder how yours and his is connected....

[fortminor]

It is funny how when Muslims are presented with Hadith that contradicts the supposed "peacefulnes" of Islam they say "well that is not a real Hadith" but then they use the same Hadith for their own purpose in the Mosks!!

Example please ????

What do you say about Hadith written by Aisha, child bride of Mohammed, is that a fake Hadith?

I dont accept Aisha's Hadith ! Hadith is somethin written by Prophets or Imams! not each person!
there's so many historical douments for some acceptable Hadiths.

[fortminor]

Muslims worship Mohammed with their every breath. It's against their law to question his actions or

the Koran. It's not their choice to choose to worship Mohammed or not. It's a must.

In Danyet's eyes Mohammed was a terrorist. And since Muslims are born to believe in Mohammed,

don't have the right to question whom they worship, or can't choose to leave it, that means they

indirect support the terrorist. This is what he meant.

No Len,It's not true. i'll quote the exct verse from Koran:

2:256

There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.
And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold
which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

people has the right too choose.even a person who born in muslim family can change his/her religion
when he/she grow up.

[Admiral]

Because fortminor said what I wanted to say I don't want to repeat the same things again.

In Danyet's eyes Mohammed was a terrorist. And since Muslims are born to believe in Mohammed, don't have the right to question whom they worship, or can't choose to leave it, that means they indirect support the terrorist. This is what he meant.

And in my eyes Bush is a terrorist. Since American people have had their "Manifest Destiny" (it's not a literally expression, see [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny[/url) since their Frontier Heritage.

I have an article from my English lesson, it says:

Although American civilization took over and replaced the frontier almost a century ago, the heritage of the frontier is still very much alive in the United States today. The idea of the frontier still stirs the emotions and imaginations of the American people. Americans continue to be fascinated by the frontier because it has been a particularly important force in shaping their national values.
The frontier experience began with the first colonists settled on the wast coast of the continent in the 1600s. It ended about 1890 when the last western lands were settled.

And some information: Spanish settlers (for example Napoleon) moved to America, they invaded the (American) Indians and made their country there. And they moved farther West, fought with American Indians, and as the last western lands were settled, they said: this is America.

The text says: "The idea of the frontier still stirs the emotions and imaginations of the American people." I think it means: They still like the adventure of the Frontier Experience very much. And so I think that's the reason why Americans like to invade other countries. And that's why I said that Americans like danyet are criminals.

So either you didn't understand this background, or you didn't want to understand because this fact is not very much helpful for supporting your handsome boyfriend.

[Admiral]

However, I think the Real Threat of The Free World is America, because they still believe in their Frontier Heritage.
They still invade countries which are less powerful than them, and they don't want other countries to be stronger than them. Who tried to restrict the Chinese economy boom?

[zaman]

ok you are free in your eyes if you want to see black whight , or whight black , any how and we are free to see anything as we like , we are see that USA and isreal , bush and olmert are drovers of the terrorism in this world , and in my opinion i see all israel people animals and any one talk about my prophet by dirty speech is animal and donkey and very stupid , and i am sure about one thing allah will protect each wronged in this global.
so for that stop talking about rubish

[Danyet]

It is funny how when Muslims are presented with Hadith that contradicts the supposed "peacefulnes" of Islam they say "well that is not a real Hadith" but then they use the same Hadith for their own purpose in the Mosks!!

Example please ????

What do you say about Hadith written by Aisha, child bride of Mohammed, is that a fake Hadith?

I dont accept Aisha's Hadith ! Hadith is somethin written by Prophets or Imams! not each person!
there's so many historical douments for some acceptable Hadiths.

Then tell me which books of Hadith Muslims accept.

[fortminor]

No ! ( There are so many lies in it )

one of the Hadith books that i accept is Nahj-al-Balagha.

[Danyet]

So you reject the writings of Aisha who claims to have been molested by Mohammed when she was 6 or 9 years old and embrace the writings of Imam Ali who was implicated in the murder of Uthman and was with Mohammed as he slaughtered and raped his way across Arabia. Even his own men refused to do battle for him at one pont until he went to arbitration over the accusation of the murder. Aisha herself believed he was guilty.

Perhaps when you start looking at the source of these writings in which you put your faith you will realize that the writings of such men are empty and in vain. Actions speak louder than words! Men like Ali and Mohammed are from the same mold as Saddam Hussein. One minute they are talking fatherly to children and the next, they amputating limbs and executing prisoners.

[MissLT]

No Len,It's not true. i'll quote the exct verse from Koran:

2:256

There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.
And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold
which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

people has the right too choose.even a person who born in muslim family can change his/her religion
when he/she grow up.

Tell me what happened to a people who decided to leave Islam?

My aunt married to a Muslim guy, so I quite know the religion myself. And I know what happened to him when he decided to leave Islam.

You can quote any verse in the Koran to prove your point; however, people in your religion practice it otherwise. Or I dare to say you only quote half of it.

[MissLT]

Because fortminor said what I wanted to say I don't want to repeat the same things again.

In Danyet's eyes Mohammed was a terrorist. And since Muslims are born to believe in Mohammed, don't have the right to question whom they worship, or can't choose to leave it, that means they indirect support the terrorist. This is what he meant.

And in my eyes Bush is a terrorist. Since American people have had their "Manifest Destiny" (it's not a literally expression, see [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny[/url) since their Frontier Heritage.

I have an article from my English lesson, it says:

Although American civilization took over and replaced the frontier almost a century ago, the heritage of the frontier is still very much alive in the United States today. The idea of the frontier still stirs the emotions and imaginations of the American people. Americans continue to be fascinated by the frontier because it has been a particularly important force in shaping their national values.
The frontier experience began with the first colonists settled on the wast coast of the continent in the 1600s. It ended about 1890 when the last western lands were settled.

And some information: Spanish settlers (for example Napoleon) moved to America, they invaded the (American) Indians and made their country there. And they moved farther West, fought with American Indians, and as the last western lands were settled, they said: this is America.

The text says: "The idea of the frontier still stirs the emotions and imaginations of the American people." I think it means: They still like the adventure of the Frontier Experience very much. And so I think that's the reason why Americans like to invade other countries. And that's why I said that Americans like danyet are criminals.

So either you didn't understand this background, or you didn't want to understand because this fact is not very much helpful for supporting your handsome boyfriend.

Again, I said either you didn't understand it or you refused to understand it. This is what I said,

Muslims worship Mohammed with their every breath. It's against their law to question his actions or the Koran. It's not their choice to choose to worship Mohammed or not. It's a must.

Americans, on the other hand, have a choice to choose whether they should believe in or vote for baby Bush. They don't worship him. In fact, they have their rights to question his actions, beliefs, how he leads America, etc.

In Danyet's eyes Mohammed was a terrorist. And since Muslims are born to believe in Mohammed, don't have the right to question whom they worship, or can't choose to leave it, that means they indirect support the terrorist. This is what he meant.

Americans have the right to choose whom they should put in office. Not all Americans support baby Bush. However, you said Danyet is American to prove that all Americans support baby Bush. I wonder how yours and his is connected....

You can tell me the whole history of the United States, but it never will be connected to his examples. Not all Americans voted for Bush. What about people who voted for Kerry? Were they supporting terrorists also?

[Admiral]

Ok Lennye, sorry but what you quoted from me is not what you talk about. Please read it first before quoting. Otherwise I think it's not polite.

First I bet you to read my last post because there it gives you an answer why America has a desire to conquer other countries since it's birth.

And second: If you only have the two possibilities, either Bush or his baby, the result is clear. Either Bush will tell what to do or he will tell his baby what to do.

In Danyet's eys Mohammed is a terrorist. And in my eyes Bush is a terrorist, because he uses the tradition of America for his own wishes. He uses the American's tradition: "Frontier Experience" as his advertisement for attaking Iraq and Iran.
(You can read this in the last article I quoted)

I said Danyet is American to prove that all Americans support Bush, yes. Here I used Danyet's logic. I only wanted to show you how obsessed he was. Read his post at Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:29 pm. Here danyet says that Seafarer is a terrorist because he is Muslim.

Not all Americans voted for Bush. What about people who voted for Kerry? Were they supporting terrorists also?

You should tell this sentence to your cute boyfriend. He wrote at Aug 14, 3:29 pm

Seafarer wrote:
Danyet..it is a "wrong" interpretation of my words I am not a terrorist and will never support them

I did not interpret your words. 1 It is a proven fact that Mohammed was a terrorist and murderer to his enemies 2 Islam is based on "support" for Mohammed. 3 You are Muslim = 4 You support at least one terrorist.

You know, I said I used his logic, it's not my logic. [/quote]

[MissLT]

And this is the reason why I said the way you used his logic to link to his is wrong since it has nothing to do with his. Muslims CANNOT choose whom they should worship. They are born with Islam. All of them worship Mohammed. Not all Americans voted for baby Bush. Tell me, what about people who didn't vote for Bush? Were they supporting terrorists?

[MissLT]

Ok Lennye, sorry but what you quoted from me is not what you talk about. Please read it first before quoting. Otherwise I think it's not polite.

It is exactly what I've been talking about unless you didn't understand it.

First I bet you to read my last post because there it gives you an answer why America has a desire to conquer other countries since it's birth.

China has a long history of invasion and expansion. Does it mean the same thing like you said for American history?

And second: If you only have the two possibilities, either Bush or his baby, the result is clear. Either Bush will tell what to do or he will tell his baby what to do.

No, we have the right to vote. And the majority will win. That's how democratic system is all about.

In Danyet's eys Mohammed is a terrorist. And in my eyes Bush is a terrorist, because he uses the tradition of America for his own wishes. He uses the American's tradition: "Frontier Experience" as his advertisement for attaking Iraq and Iran.
(You can read this in the last article I quoted)

And? Does it say anything about ALL Americans? Even the ones who didn't vote for him?

I said Danyet is American to prove that all Americans support Bush, yes. Here I used Danyet's logic. I only wanted to show you how obsessed he was. Read his post at Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:29 pm. Here danyet says that Seafarer is a terrorist because he is Muslim.

Muslims worship Mohammed. ALL of them. They can't choose to not to worship him. Therefore, they indirectly worship a terrorist in Danyet's eyes. You said Danyet is American to prove that ALL Americans voted for Bush and supported him. However, NOT ALL Americans voted and supported him. How is yours connected to his?

[Admiral]

Admiral wrote: Ok Lennye, sorry but what you quoted from me is not what you talk about. Please read it first before quoting. Otherwise I think it's not polite.
It is exactly what I've been talking about unless you didn't understand it.

Ok Lennye, to be more precise, sorry but what you quoted from me is NOT THE POINT. Please read it first before quoting. Otherwise I think it's not polite. And maybe it's better to act with facts, not with fiction. As I will show you in the following lines. Please don't quote this sentence to say that I haven't named any facts yet, they will come in the following lines.

I talked about Manifest Destiny. Did you ever mention this expression? If not then please say sorry to me that you said a wrong sentence. You exactly didn't point at this topic.

China has a long history of intern fights, between chinese parties. But China didn't go to conquer other countries far away, like what USA did for Irak. And the most dangerous fact is that USA still stays at it's Manifest Destiny.

He told the United Nations: "Either you support the American aggression or you will be meaningless".
He told: Saddam should be punished because he resisted the idea of the UN, so the United States will invade Irak, whether the UN defies or not. And the warlike content of Bush has been underlined by the Pentagon.

Bush wanted a resolution from the UN to let inspectors look whether there are weapons in Iraq. To say it other way, Bush wanted to conquer Iraq.

Bush used a lot of lies, adjustments and contradictions. He said that the Iraq is the most dangerous threat of the whole world, and that war is the only option, didn't he say? You must have watched TV.

Bush repeated: "Saddam is a second Hitler, the UN is established to prevent the "world peace" being "destroyed by the will of a small man". The Iraq was exactly such a threat, from Bush's point of view.
It's not difficult to recognize the nonsense of this speech. The Iraq had been a poor colony, destroyed in war and the ten years of sanctions. The USA makes war with Iraq frequently, whether financially, economically or military.

Bush represents the most powerful imperial country of the world, which has the most dangerous mass destruction weapons. He used this inrivaled might to destroy weaker and smaller countries. Vietnam, Libanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Jugoslawia and Afghanistan.

USA has a lot of military bases in a lot of countries on the earth, he used them to bombard Afghanistan in the last year, thousands of civilian has been killed. and hundreds of AlQaida and Taliban has been slaughtered.

The mark of the German Nazi regime was an evil militarism and it's despise against the world law. The Bush administrators who use military as the central component of their foreign policy, is most like the Hitler government than any other government.

So who is more dangerous, the US or the Iraq, or Iran, or Libanon, or perhaps Turkey in the future? What can Muslims do with their little knifes or pistols?

What America can do with its A-bombs, we have seen.

[trangsang]

"Actions speak louder than words!"

"You can quote any verse in the Koran to prove your point; however, people in your religion practice it otherwise."

I agree. A photo is worth a thousand words but an action is worth a million words. Evidently, Koran doesn't mean much since they threaten to kill those who no longer believe in Islam, behead people, kill others including their fellow Muslims, and destroy their worshiped places.

[Danyet]

I agree Transgang.


Admiral, I hope that you didn't spend a whole lot of time typing that.

[Admiral]

No I just translated it from a German site

[Danyet]

You mean there are more people out there as looney as you?.............jeeeze!

[Admiral]

besides, the guy is called trangsang and not Transgang, "trans" could easily let us to the brought hint of transvestism.

[Danyet]

besides, the guy is called trangsang and not Transgang, "trans" could easily let us to the brought hint of transvestism.

He should have picked a better name then.

[fortminor]

Imam Ali who was implicated in the murder of Uthman and was with Mohammed as he slaughtered and raped his way across Arabia. Even his own men refused to do battle for him at one pont until he went to arbitration over the accusation of the murder. Aisha herself believed he was guilty.

Men like Ali and Mohammed are from the same mold as Saddam Hussein. One minute they are talking fatherly to children and the next, they amputating limbs and executing prisoners.

source please !

[fortminor]

Tell me what happened to a people who decided to leave Islam?

My aunt married to a Muslim guy, so I quite know the religion myself. And I know what happened to him when he decided to leave Islam.

You can quote any verse in the Koran to prove your point; however, people in your religion practice it otherwise. Or I dare to say you only quote half of it.

If your Aunt's husband is a muslim ,I live in an Islamic country! and I have never seen anybody who is killed because of changing his/her religion.

it is a tradition between some petrified and bigoted people who name themselves as Muslims ! and as far as i know between Jews .

[Danyet]

Listen, if you unaware of the battles that Mohammed took part in you can't know much about your own religion. Either you are playing dumb or you are dumb and either way I have no time for you because it means you don't belong in this discussion. Now don't come back until you do some homework. You obviously have not read one link I have already posted here on the various threads and neither have most of your cohorts. But at least some of them have the excuse that their english is not up to scratch. You don't!

If you bothered to explore my links a little you would have found some more links in Arabic.

[Admiral]

Listen, if you (fortminor) unaware of the battles that Mohammed took part in you can't know much about your own religion. Either you are playing dumb or you are dumb and either way I have no time for you because it means you don't belong in this discussion. Now don't come back until you do some homework. You obviously have not read one link I have already posted here on the various threads and neither have most of your cohorts.

http://www.wahrheitssuche.org/mohammed.html

Not many guys are prepared to read your links if they read something like this

So you reject the writings of Aisha who claims to have been molested by Mohammed when she was 6 or 9 years old and embrace the writings of Imam Ali who was implicated in the murder of Uthman and was with Mohammed as he slaughtered and raped his way across Arabia. Even his own men refused to do battle for him at one pont until he went to arbitration over the accusation of the murder. Aisha herself believed he was guilty.

in your posts.

After a single google search about Aisha, I found the following sentences:

Aisha is the youngest of the women of Muhammed and the only one who married as virgin... Muhammed knows Aisha from the childhood and her intelligence and joy made him smile after each meeting. She won his heart, so it's not surprising that he thought of the young Aisha when he was ready to marry again after the death of his wife Hadiga. The marriage had been taken place in the family and after it Aisha lived happily in the prophet's house... She had been deeply in love until Muhammed's death, so the women didn't hesitate in letting her to care for him in his last days. He died in Aisha's house.

This is only one of your foolish aggressions.

[Danyet]

Not many guys are prepared to read your links if they read something like this

So you reject the writings of Aisha who claims to have been molested by Mohammed when she was 6 or 9 years old and embrace the writings of Imam Ali who was implicated in the murder of Uthman and was with Mohammed as he slaughtered and raped his way across Arabia. Even his own men refused to do battle for him at one pont until he went to arbitration over the accusation of the murder. Aisha herself believed he was guilty.

in your posts.

And why not?

After a single google search about Aisha, I found the following sentences:

Aisha is the youngest of the women of Muhammed and the only one who married as virgin... Muhammed knows Aisha from the childhood and her intelligence and joy made him smile after each meeting. She won his heart, so it's not surprising that he thought of the young Aisha when he was ready to marry again after the death of his wife Hadiga. The marriage had been taken place in the family and after it Aisha lived happily in the prophet's house... She had been deeply in love until Muhammed's death, so the women didn't hesitate in letting her to care for him in his last days. He died in Aisha's house.

This is only one of your foolish aggressions.

So what? What is that supposed to mean? No one denies that Aisha was married to Mohammed. Too bad you left out the part where Aisha was only 8 or 9 years old when he had sex with her

Perhaps you had better do more than just one google next time. True research takes time, bucko!

[fortminor]

Listen, if you unaware of the battles that Mohammed took part in you can't know much about your own religion. Either you are playing dumb or you are dumb and either way I have no time for you because it means you don't belong in this discussion. Now don't come back until you do some homework. You obviously have not read one link I have already posted here on the various threads and neither have most of your cohorts. But at least some of them have the excuse that their english is not up to scratch. You don't!

If you bothered to explore my links a little you would have found some more links in Arabic.

I've read some of them, How i am supposed to believe 'em when most of them are Israeli sites-written by your cohorts-?
or from that nonsenses of Al-tabari and bukhari ?

[Admiral]

And why not?

Because your very direct way of speech, pointing the reader at the message: "Islam is bad" does not seem believable and objective, but beyond believe and subjective.

So what? What is that supposed to mean? No one denies that Aisha was married to Mohammed. Too bad you left out the part where Aisha was only 8 or 9 years old when he had sex with her

Perhaps you had better do more than just one google next

So what? This was a presentation of Mohammed's peaceful love with Aisha, not an analysis of the circumstances about the muslim marriage law. Perhaps it's normal to have a fiancee who is 9 at that time.

Too bad that I'm only saying what is right and I'm not dealing with your argumentation-counterargumentation tactic.

http://www.kleio.org/mittelalter/MaV1a.htm

This is a site about the circumstances in the middle ages. Here they say that the age doesn't matter. For example Mathilde († 1189), a sister of Richard Löwenherz, has become engaged 1165 in the age of 9 yeaars with the 26 years old Heinrich the Lion. After 3 years they married.

The middle ages is 500-1500 after Christ, the Koran has been written about 600 A.C.

You can't use the laws of today to judge about a civilisation thousands of years before. In that time your ancestors lived such a life, too.

[fortminor]

Perhaps it's normal to have a fiancee who is 9 at that time.

exactly !

[Danyet]

Perhaps it's normal to have a fiancee who is 9 at that time.

exactly !

You two have serious moral problems if you actually believe that!!

Does the keeping of immoral customs because "everybody else is doing it" makt it acceptable?

By your logic it was OK for native Africans to practice canibalism because it was accepted at the time.

God would not condone canibalism and have a canibal for his prophet. Just as He would not choose and condone a guy that likes to have sex little girls to be His prophet. Mohammed was not God's prophet!

[Danyet]

You can't use the laws of today to judge about a civilisation thousands of years before.

I am not judging a civilization. I am judging one man...Mohammed. He was no better than any one else in fact he was worse!

If he was truely a man of God he would have behaved like one and not the raping, mudering coward he was.

[Danyet]

I've read some of them, How i am supposed to believe 'em when most of them are Israeli sites-written by your cohorts-?

Then you can't believe Islamic sites either because they are written by your cohorts and therefore biased.

So why don't you start by going to relatively neutral http://www.wikipedia.com

[Danyet]

or from that nonsenses of Al-tabari and bukhari ?

That’s funny, most Muslims seem to think that Al-tabari and bukhari are authentic and quote from them on their Muslim web sites. But perhaps you are neither a real blonde or a real Muslim and don’t know it!! Tsk Tsk!!
CLICK


CLICK


CLICK

[Admiral]

I am not judging a civilization. I am judging one man...Mohammed. He was no better than any one else in fact he was worse!

If you only judge Muhammed that's ok. Saidly I didn't have this impression while reading your following post:

If he was truely a man of God he would have behaved like one and not the raping, mudering coward he was.

I did not interpret your words.
1 It is a proven fact that Mohammed was a terrorist and murderer to his enemies

2 Islam is based on "support" for Mohammed.

3 You are Muslim

= 4 You support at least one terrorist.

From my objective point od view, I can't perceive the meassgae: "I am judging one man...Mohammed.", but I can perceive your judge: "Islam is a terrorist nation."
Like you said, 1. Muhammed is a terrorist, 2. Islam supports Muhammed, 3. Muslim are all terrorists.
So, if you count 1 and to together you will get 3, from your point of view.

It would be good if you think first before writing an agrressive message. All these could be used against you. It's better for you to accept the truth and say sorry to the guys you insulted.

[Admiral]

This posting of me is only concerning the 1st "CLICK!" of danyet, because I haven't read the others yet.

Some Muslims use the weak Hadith defense, because they approach Muhammad with their own wishful presuppositions. So, they automatically reject any Hadith that does not meet the standard of their uncritical assumptions. Our beliefs should be grounded in historical reality: not wishful thinking.

The whole text deals with this criticism. The reasons why it's only a wishful personal thinking is because muslims should have chosen which Hadits to believe in and which not. Then the text critisizes that these wishful thinkings should not be belived in.

And the text deals with the ridiculous quarrel about which of the books are true: Bible or Koran, "as a side note".

As a side note, some Muslim scholarship applies their third standard to the events of the Bible. For example, some believe that all prophets lived sinless lives. Since Muslim belief teaches that adultery is a sin, it would follow that no prophet committed adultery. Therefore, since we believe that King Dawud (King David) was a prophet, it follows that he never committed adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2-5). Therefore, we must conclude that the biblical report of King Dawud's adultery was not a true report because the historicity of the report is irrelevant.

After we connected those things together, if this quote should be proving: The USA makes and will be making war with all believers of Koran because Koran isn't a documentary film which shows us that everything it says is true, I would die of laughter.

More amusing, if I haven't died yet because of laughter, the author of the article makes a comparison between Bible and Koran and says that Bible is more believable for the Americans, so the Koran is wrong. And that's maybe also a reason why the USA should make war with the islamic people.

this should land in the "jokes" thread.

[Danyet]

You have obviously not truely read or put much thought into, the Prophet of Doom site! (from which you have quoted)

[fortminor]

or from that nonsenses of Al-tabari and bukhari ?

That’s funny, most Muslims seem to think that Al-tabari and bukhari are authentic and quote from them on their Muslim web sites. But perhaps you are neither a real blonde or a real Muslim and don’t know it!! Tsk Tsk!!
CLICK


CLICK


CLICK

Muhammad has not raped anyone! these are just nonsenses spread by enemies of Islam. its exactly agains his religion to rape women .Its just creature of your petrified mind and your cohorts!

still there are some acceptable Hadith in Al-tabari and Bukhari . but not all of 'em!
also I have to say wikipedia is not neutral !Islam has so many branches , I just accept shia.
so go and search on shia sites!

[Danyet]

still there are some acceptable Hadith in Al-tabari and Bukhari . but not all of 'em!
also I have to say wikipedia is not neutral !Islam has so many branches , I just accept shia.
so go and search on shia sites!

This is exactly what I was talking about. Muslims believe only what they feel like at any given time.
You will never find the truth if you only get your history from Shia.
The historical facts are that Momammed allowed his men to rape their captives and he himself took captive women as sex slaves. ( what is so hard to believe about that?

[MissLT]

Ok Lennye, to be more precise, sorry but what you quoted from me is NOT THE POINT. Please read it first before quoting. Otherwise I think it's not polite. And maybe it's better to act with facts, not with fiction. As I will show you in the following lines. Please don't quote this sentence to say that I haven't named any facts yet, they will come in the following lines.

Didn't you see it's been pointless for you to quote the whole history of the United States when you haven't been able to answer my simple question, which I've asked you several times.

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

I talked about Manifest Destiny. Did you ever mention this expression? If not then please say sorry to me that you said a wrong sentence. You exactly didn't point at this topic.

So? What is the relation, I may ask?

Bush wanted a resolution from the UN to let inspectors look whether there are weapons in Iraq. To say it other way, Bush wanted to conquer Iraq.

Bush used a lot of lies, adjustments and contradictions. He said that the Iraq is the most dangerous threat of the whole world, and that war is the only option, didn't he say? You must have watched TV.

Bush repeated: "Saddam is a second Hitler, the UN is established to prevent the "world peace" being "destroyed by the will of a small man". The Iraq was exactly such a threat, from Bush's point of view.
It's not difficult to recognize the nonsense of this speech. The Iraq had been a poor colony, destroyed in war and the ten years of sanctions. The USA makes war with Iraq frequently, whether financially, economically or military.

Bush represents the most powerful imperial country of the world, which has the most dangerous mass destruction weapons. He used this inrivaled might to destroy weaker and smaller countries. Vietnam, Libanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Jugoslawia and Afghanistan.

USA has a lot of military bases in a lot of countries on the earth, he used them to bombard Afghanistan in the last year, thousands of civilian has been killed. and hundreds of AlQaida and Taliban has been slaughtered.

The mark of the German Nazi regime was an evil militarism and it's despise against the world law. The Bush administrators who use military as the central component of their foreign policy, is most like the Hitler government than any other government.

So who is more dangerous, the US or the Iraq, or Iran, or Libanon, or perhaps Turkey in the future? What can Muslims do with their little knifes or pistols?

What America can do with its A-bombs, we have seen.

And? Why don't you just simply answer this question of mine and we shall go on further,

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

[MissLT]

If your Aunt's husband is a muslim ,I live in an Islamic country! and I have never seen anybody who is killed because of changing his/her religion.

it is a tradition between some petrified and bigoted people who name themselves as Muslims ! and as far as i know between Jews .

My uncle didn't get killed when he left Islam. If he had been killed, he wouldn't have married my aunt. Instead, he was abandoned and shunned. I criticize any religion that tries to shun others because they don't share the same faith anymore. It's wrong! Religions were built to teach others to love, not to form a gang and shun someone out of the group. Acting otherwise than bringing love and peace is a cult-like group, to me.

[MissLT]

If he was truely a man of God he would have behaved like one and not the raping, mudering coward he was.

I did not interpret your words.
1 It is a proven fact that Mohammed was a terrorist and murderer to his enemies

2 Islam is based on "support" for Mohammed.

3 You are Muslim

= 4 You support at least one terrorist.

From my objective point od view, I can't perceive the meassgae: "I am judging one man...Mohammed.", but I can perceive your judge: "Islam is a terrorist nation."
Like you said, 1. Muhammed is a terrorist, 2. Islam supports Muhammed, 3. Muslim are all terrorists.
So, if you count 1 and to together you will get 3, from your point of view.

It would be good if you think first before writing an agrressive message. All these could be used against you. It's better for you to accept the truth and say sorry to the guys you insulted.

You quoted him and you still can't see it. How sad. Let me rephrase it for you to enlighten you, okay.

His point 1. That guy is a terrorist to him.
His point 2. Muslims must worship him and praise him, no matter what he'd done.
His point 3. The poster was a Muslim who denied what M. did. Or in other words, if you were a Gernman who didn't question anything about Hitler's action, but you said you didn't like the thought of killing a Jew. It'd would be s hypocritical saying since you'd already indirectly supported him by not questioning his ways.
His point 4. Since the poster didn't try to question what he'd done, he indirectly supported a terrorist in Danyet's eyes.

So, anymore quotes about American's history for me to prove your points.

[Admiral]

Admiral wrote:
I talked about Manifest Destiny. Did you ever mention this expression? If not then please say sorry to me that you said a wrong sentence. You exactly didn't point at this topic.

So? What is the relation, I may ask?

The relation is: American's thought has been based on the Manifest Destiny since the foundation of America. (I learned this at school)
And the Manifest Destiny is the belief to conquer other people, to give them the American way of life, which they thought is the best way of life for the mankind.
The Manifest Destiny rose up when strong believing catholic spanish settlers moved from the east coast of the American continent to the west. When they placed their frontier more and more westwards, they had to start again and again turning a wilderness into a civilised village, combating native people, survive with the goods nature gave them etc.

My teacher told me that the country America rose from this "Moving west", at the beginning where the first settlers came there to the end where they have settled the whole continent. So the thought of adventure, inventiveness, braveness (and the mood of invading other countries, but this is only what I think) became a national value/mark of Americans.
And now the Manifest Destiny still plays an important role in the political decisions of the United States. That's what I learned at the English lessons at school when I had been in the high school.

The wars of America (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...) must have something to do with this national value of them.

[MissLT]

And? How many Americans do you know think that way?

[Admiral]

My teacher told me that all Americans think in this way more or less. I can't give my own thoughts because I haven't been in America, but I hope (and I'm sure) there are also Americans who are sensible and know how to deal with such problems.

[MissLT]

My teacher told me that all Americans think in this way more or less. I can't give my own thoughts because I haven't been in America, but I hope (and I'm sure) there are also Americans who are sensible and know how to deal with such problems.

This is the reason why I've been debating with you. You have been using your sense of ALL to judge Americans based on American history. Now, please just answer the simple question that I've asked you several times. It might be the fourth or the fifth time I've asked; I've lost count.

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

[Admiral]

His point 1. That guy is a terrorist to him.
His point 2. Muslims must worship him and praise him, no matter what he'd done.
His point 3. The poster was a Muslim who denied what M. did. Or in other words, if you were a Gernman who didn't question anything about Hitler's action, but you said you didn't like the thought of killing a Jew. It'd would be s hypocritical saying since you'd already indirectly supported him by not questioning his ways.
His point 4. Since the poster didn't try to question what he'd done, he indirectly supported a terrorist in Danyet's eyes.

Thank you for giving me his point of view, Lennye. Yeah, if danyet really meant this, I wouldn't have posted my critisicm.

What I think to these opinions, is that Americans should have let the culture develope itself, because a strong bind to religion is what all countries had in their primal state.

I can understand that Americans were very angry because of 11.9., and so the Irak War was (although it's wrong) imaginable.
But however I guess the Americans now want to shut out the danger that there could be a terror act again, so they wanted to shut out any reason of terrorism.
But I still think it's wrong to shut out the religion, because a religion is only a sort of paper to me. And I think America should rather attack the terrorist organisation than to attack the countries where the terrorists are staying, because the countries didn't have anything to do with the terrorists.

[MissLT]

Please answer my question that I've asked you first. This is all I'm asking. It's a simple question, and I don't understand why you haven't been able to answer it. :?

[Admiral]

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

For a president voting, it's only important what the majority said. Is it right? So, I meaned "Americans" by "the majority of Americans", I thought it could be counted as the same, at least for talking about voting.
I should have said: "the majority of Americans", sorry.

[Admiral]

Please answer my question that I've asked you first. This is all I'm asking. It's a simple question, and I don't understand why you haven't been able to answer it.

I was answering your last posting when you posted a new one.

[MissLT]

Exactly! I never said his examples were right, but I could see where he was coming from. As for yours, I couldn't see the relations. That's why I've been asking you. As you know American population is approximately around 250 millions, and 48% of them voted for Kerry in the 2004 presidential voting. Do you know how many Americans you've said supported for a terrorist while they didn't?