NOW they are worried about failure?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Oh brother, where was this worry 6 years ago?


Afghan Mission Is Reviewed as Concerns Rise (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16afghan.html?th&emc=th)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/16/world/16afghan.600.jpg


By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: December 16, 2007

WASHINGTON — Deeply concerned about the prospect of failure in Afghanistan, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, from security and counterterrorism to political consolidation and economic development, according to American and alliance officials.

The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control.

Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies — the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — may slip away, according to senior administration officials.

Unlike the administration’s sweeping review of Iraq policy a year ago, which was announced with great fanfare and ultimately resulted in a large increase in troops, the American reviews of the Afghan strategy have not been announced and are not expected to result in a similar infusion of combat forces, mostly because there are no American troops readily available.

The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control.

Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies — the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — may slip away, according to senior administration officials.




Unlike the administration’s sweeping review of Iraq policy a year ago, which was announced with great fanfare and ultimately resulted in a large increase in troops, the American reviews of the Afghan strategy have not been announced and are not expected to result in a similar infusion of combat forces, mostly because there are no American troops readily available.




One assessment is being conducted within the United States military. Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of American forces in the Middle East, has ordered a full review of the mission, including the covert hunt for Taliban and Qaeda leaders.

“It’s an assessment of our current strategy and how we are doing,” said a senior military officer. “It’s looking at whether we’ve done enough or need to do more in terms of expanding governance and economic development, as well as wrestling with the difficult security issues that we have been dealing with in Afghanistan.”



A third review, one that has previously been part of the public discussion, involves the strategy of NATO, which last year assumed control of the security operation in Afghanistan and has since been criticized by American officials and lawmakers for not being aggressive enough.


“The intent is to get people to look beyond 2008 and realize this is a longer-term endeavor,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, who was with Mr. Gates in Scotland. He said the plan would “start off by acknowledging the success we’re having in terms of reconstruction and education and governance and so forth, but it also will state where we want to be in three to five years, and how we get there.”


Publicly, administration officials have expressed optimism that the war in Afghanistan can be won, but Mr. Gates told Congress this week that his optimism was “tempered by caution.”

In recent months, though, Mr. Bush’s senior advisers have expressed a growing unease.

While there is a sense that this year’s troop buildup in Iraq has turned around a dire situation, the effort in Afghanistan has begun to drift, at best, officials said.

The NATO-led security assistance mission in Afghanistan has about 40,000 troops; of those, 14,000 are American. Separately, the United States military has 12,000 other troops in Afghanistan conducting specialized counterterrorism missions.

[Moby]

Rove concluded that a win in Afghanistan would not lead to an election victory in 2004. There was no need to win.

[Islam Rocks!]

There is a saying in that part of the world.

"The Afghans never lose a war; they just switch to the winning side".

Currently, they are flocking to join up with the Taliban.

[David Lyle Segal]

There is a saying in that part of the world. "The Afghans never lose a war; they just switch to the winning side".

Can you give me an example when the Afghans did any such thing? In Arab countries, you can always find advertisements, like:

For sale. Automatic rifle formerly owned by the Muslim Brotherhood. Never fired. Only dropped once.

but you won't see it in Afghanistan. Ask the Russians.

IR> Currently, they are flocking to join up with the Taliban.

What is this supposed to mean? Is the Taliban the vanguard of the inevitable Wahhabi conquest? After all, it wasn't the Taliban who defeated the Russians.

I remember how Bin Laben excoriated the Muslims for not having re-taken Andalus. Is that supposed to make anyone -- even Muslims who is not Wahhabi -- feel safe in their beds?

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

DL.S the Taliban are not Wahhabi. They are mainly of the Hanafi school of Islamic thought


This is for your edification DLS:


There are 4 main schools of thought in Sunni Islam called "Madhabs".

They are named: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali.

Each is named after a famous scholar, and the differences are very minor. Mainly dealing with exact prayer times, standing in line, etc.

Their geographical distribution is as follows:

Hanafi schools are followed in: Turkey, Central Asia, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh.

Maliki school is followed in: Algeria, Tunis, Morocco, Mauritania, Libya, Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Shafi'is schools are in: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somali and North Yemen, but the main concentration of the Shafi madhab is in South East Asia: Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Muslim minorities of mainland SEA and the Philippines are exclusively Shafi.

Hanbalis schools are concentrated in: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, North East of Oman and the rest of the Arab Emirates.


What about the Wahhabi you ask?

An Islamic scholar named Muhammad Ibn Wahhab decided to take the best of the four schools and form one school. He was a close friend of King Saud. Eventually Wahhabism became the main Madhab of the country of Saudia Arabia.

[David Lyle Segal]

IR> You are making too much of this Wahhabi thing.

Actually, IR, it was you who made Wahhabi an issue when you described yourself as a follower and then assumed the authority (1) to pass judgment on the Baha'i and (2) to decide who was worthy of living in the Holy Land. Until then, I wasn't all that interested in Salafism, but you sparked my interest for further investigation. From what I see, the Wahhabi (and, by your own definition, you) have chosen the path of world domination by armed struggle, not only against the West, but against everyone who doesn't subscribe to your narrow, childish self-absorption. Let me recommend Rumi's approach: Water the fruit trees, not the thorns.

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

Even though you decided to call me names. I will still continue to edify you DLS, because I see that you had been doing some homework when you used the word Salafism.

After 9/11 the western media grabbed ahold of the terms Wahhabi and Wahhabism because that's the Islamic school of thought everyone in Saudia Arabia is associated with. And Bin Laden was from Saudia Arabia.

In reality, Wahhabism is just another theological method of studying Islam, and isn't much different than the other 4 schools. Just more conservative.

Now though, Wahhabi and Wahhabism is a media catch all term for anyone or anything associated with radical Islam.


Here is the real story behind the story.

The godfather of all radical Jihadists, be they The Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaida, or any other extremeist group. Is a man named Sayed Qutb.

He wrote "Social Jistice", "In the Shade of the Quran", and "Milestones" which is the seminal text for Jihadist thought all over the world.

Bin Laden, and all radical Sunnis like him, follow the teachings of Sayed Qutb.

But Wahhabism still gets the bad press.

[disrupter]

Are you a Sunni Muslim, IslamRocks!?

Religion baffles me.

Minutia about imaginary entities,
sounds like potentially great fiction, but no way to run a railroad.

I love zen. Zen is so pure. It is a completely peaceful, silent mind. Actions become pure, kinetic, unmental things.

That said, the mind must construct a world model that reflects the integral aspects of the Universe with which we at the very least interface & arguably are constructed from. It is a tool for reasoned, reflective, considered actions & for the memory record of the Universe & our path(s) through it for the next iterative cyclic of thought followed by action. [of course oversimplified]

We think with purity, & then we act with purity.

We learn from experience & the cycle begins anew.

With an imaginary eye to forever more purely creating a crystal resonant bell tone that will sing/ring to our universe.

Maybe it will return the favor & sing back to us.

Wouldn't that be amazing?

hmm, that sounds pretty frigging good, time for moi to do some serious homework to try to near achieve that imaginary proposition. lol

[hdmarketing]

Oh brother, where was this worry 6 years ago?


Afghan Mission Is Reviewed as Concerns Rise (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16afghan.html?th&emc=th)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/16/world/16afghan.600.jpg


By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: December 16, 2007

WASHINGTON — Deeply concerned about the prospect of failure in Afghanistan, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, from security and counterterrorism to political consolidation and economic development, according to American and alliance officials.

The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control.

Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies — the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — may slip away, according to senior administration officials.

Unlike the administration’s sweeping review of Iraq policy a year ago, which was announced with great fanfare and ultimately resulted in a large increase in troops, the American reviews of the Afghan strategy have not been announced and are not expected to result in a similar infusion of combat forces, mostly because there are no American troops readily available.

The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control.

Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies — the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — may slip away, according to senior administration officials.




Unlike the administration’s sweeping review of Iraq policy a year ago, which was announced with great fanfare and ultimately resulted in a large increase in troops, the American reviews of the Afghan strategy have not been announced and are not expected to result in a similar infusion of combat forces, mostly because there are no American troops readily available.




One assessment is being conducted within the United States military. Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of American forces in the Middle East, has ordered a full review of the mission, including the covert hunt for Taliban and Qaeda leaders.

“It’s an assessment of our current strategy and how we are doing,” said a senior military officer. “It’s looking at whether we’ve done enough or need to do more in terms of expanding governance and economic development, as well as wrestling with the difficult security issues that we have been dealing with in Afghanistan.”



A third review, one that has previously been part of the public discussion, involves the strategy of NATO, which last year assumed control of the security operation in Afghanistan and has since been criticized by American officials and lawmakers for not being aggressive enough.


“The intent is to get people to look beyond 2008 and realize this is a longer-term endeavor,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, who was with Mr. Gates in Scotland. He said the plan would “start off by acknowledging the success we’re having in terms of reconstruction and education and governance and so forth, but it also will state where we want to be in three to five years, and how we get there.”


Publicly, administration officials have expressed optimism that the war in Afghanistan can be won, but Mr. Gates told Congress this week that his optimism was “tempered by caution.”

In recent months, though, Mr. Bush’s senior advisers have expressed a growing unease.

While there is a sense that this year’s troop buildup in Iraq has turned around a dire situation, the effort in Afghanistan has begun to drift, at best, officials said.

The NATO-led security assistance mission in Afghanistan has about 40,000 troops; of those, 14,000 are American. Separately, the United States military has 12,000 other troops in Afghanistan conducting specialized counterterrorism missions.

And then (for you that even know Paul Harvy) THE REST OF THE STORY.

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer
Sun Dec 16, 6:33 PM ET



BAGRAM, Afghanistan - A top American general said Sunday that attacks along the Afghan-Pakistan border have dropped more than 40 percent since July and the U.S. and its allies are making progress in the fight against the Taliban.

Brig. Gen. Joseph Votel said the decrease in insurgent activity along the border could be attributed to the onset of winter, a rise in insurgent attacks in Pakistan and an increase in communication and coordination among NATO, Afghan and Pakistani forces.

Recent media and analysts' reports have said the international mission is not succeeding and Afghanistan is becoming increasingly unstable. This year has been the deadliest since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, with more than 6,300 people killed in the violence, mostly militants, according to an Associated Press count based on official figures.

The country has also seen a record number of suicide bomb attacks — more than 140 — this year.

But Votel, the deputy commanding general of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, said Sunday that the international mission is making progress.

"I don't agree that we're moving in a negative direction," Votel told journalists at Bagram, the main U.S. base.

"I think we are making progress. This is a long-term proposition and there is a long way to go in security and development and other aspects here, but we are making progress and moving forward," he said.

Votel said that, by U.S. measurements, security has increased in 25 districts that American forces oversee in eastern Afghanistan, governance has improved in 12 and development work has improved in 27. There is a total of 159 districts in the eastern region of Afghanistan where U.S. troops primarily operate.

He said the U.S. military has killed or captured more than 50 "significant" insurgent leaders this year, action that has created a "void on the battlefield." He said despite those losses, insurgents have shown some improvements in their effectiveness.

Progress by the Afghan army, which has had an increased role in operations this year, has been the biggest achievement the U.S. helped oversee in 2007, Votel said. Asked if al-Qaida fighters could be moving from Iraq into the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, he said it was a "distinct possibility."

Read the rest here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071216/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan)

[Islam Rocks!]

Yes disrupter I am Sunni Muslim. Sunnis make up around 85% of all Muslims in the world.

[David Lyle Segal]

Even though you decided to call me names. I will still continue to edify you DLS, because I see that you had been doing some homework when you used the word Salafism. After 9/11 the western media grabbed ahold of the terms Wahhabi and Wahhabism because that's the Islamic school of thought everyone in Saudia Arabia is associated with. And Bin Laden was from Saudia Arabia.

Don't blame it on the media, IR. I had earlier only used Wahhabi because you chose to describe your own conversion with the term. As far as I am aware, calling a Salafist Muslim a Wahhabi has always been considered to be an insult. Not that I'm a fan of the Old Time Religion of Salafism. However fundamentalist it is in regard to the teachings of Muhammed, it is certainly intolerant in the extreme when it comes to other schools, including other Muslims.

In reality, Wahhabism is just another theological method of studying Islam, and isn't much different than the other 4 schools. Just more conservative. Now though, Wahhabi and Wahhabism is a media catch all term for anyone or anything associated with radical Islam.

I listed some of the more 'conservative' aspects as they relate to other religious beliefs. I can't say that I am in any wise comforted by your trying to avoid discussion of them by diluting the reference as "just another theological method of studying Islam". You, yourself, were ready to throw the Baha'i "theological method" under the bus as heretics. I can imagine what you'd do to the Jews and Christians if the Salafists (or Hamas, for that matter) gain ground in Israel.

Here is the real story behind the story. The godfather of all radical Jihadists, be they The Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaida, or any other extremeist group. Is a man named Sayed Qutb. He wrote "Social Jistice", "In the Shade of the Quran", and "Milestones" which is the seminal text for Jihadist thought all over the world. Bin Laden, and all radical Sunnis like him, follow the teachings of Sayed Qutb. But Wahhabism still gets the bad press.

Your already-expressed views on inter-faith relations are entirely consistent with those published by the Saudi presses for consumption in American mosques. I can't say that I can fit a dime between you and the jihadists.

C'mon, IR. Either you converted or you didn't. Make up your mind.

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

I really don't know what you are driving at DLS.

Do I believe in Jihad? Of course I do.

There are 2 types if Jihad.
The "small" Jihad, which is to help other oppressed muslims by joining the fight.
And the "big" Jihad, which is the struggle to conquer the inner self.

[David Lyle Segal]

I really don't know what you are driving at DLS.

Do I believe in Jihad? Of course I do.

There are 2 types if Jihad.
The "small" Jihad, which is to help other oppressed muslims by joining the fight.
And the "big" Jihad, which is the struggle to conquer the inner self.

My question wasn't about whether you believe in jihad, but how you apply jihad when it comes to other faiths. According to what I quoted, you would apply the 'sword of Islam' to them.

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

My question wasn't about whether you believe in jihad, but how you apply jihad when it comes to other faiths. According to what I quoted, you would apply the 'sword of Islam' to them.

David SegalDLS there is No so called "sword of Islam".

Jihad is only used for defence. This can easily be seen by the way Muslims are attacked all over the world. And they only respond defencively to fight back against brutality and oppression.

Islam gets along with other legitimate religions. Some day when Islam is the worlds religion and Sharia Law rules. Non Muslims will have total protection under status of Dhimmi.

[David Lyle Segal]

Islam gets along with other legitimate religions. Some day when Islam is the worlds religion and Sharia Law rules. Non Muslims will have total protection under status of Dhimmi.

Neat, IR. Now,

1. Who decides what other religions are "legitimate" so that they can aspire to the grade of Dhimmi?

2. What are the criteria?

3. How do the lives of Dhimmi followers differ from those of Muslims?

4. Are Baha'i Dhimmi?

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

A legitimate religion would be Christianity or Judaism.

A bogus religion would be like Scientology or WICA.

The Baha'a religion would be shut down as heretical.

Dhimmis would enjoy full rights and protection as a citizens under Sharia Law. Dhimmis would be subjected to the payment of taxes known as jizya, a poll tax, and kharaj, a land tax. On the other hand, Dhimmis would not be required to perform military service.

[David Lyle Segal]

A legitimate religion would be Christianity or Judaism.

A bogus religion would be like Scientology or WICA.

The Baha'a religion would be shut down as heretical.

Dhimmis would enjoy full rights and protection as a citizens under Sharia Law. Dhimmis would be subjected to the payment of taxes known as jizya, a poll tax, and kharaj, a land tax. On the other hand, Dhimmis would not be required to perform military service.

Boy, you make it sound pretty neat to be a dhimmi. G-d forbid you're a WICA (?), Scientologist, or Baha'i, though. Other commentators, however, add some aspects that you left out:

In his classic treatise on the principles of Islamic governance, the 11th-century Shafi'i scholar Al-Mawardi divided the conditions attached to ‘’dhimma’’ on top of the requirement to pay tribute into compulsory and desirable. The compulsory conditions included prohibitions on blasphemy against Islam, entering into sexual relations or marriage with a Muslim woman, proselytizing among Muslims, and assisting the enemies of Islam. The desirable conditions included a requirement to wear distinctive apparel, a prohibition to visibly display religious symbols, wine, or pork, ringing church bells, or loudly praying, a requirement to bury dead bodies unobtrusively, and finally, a prohibition on riding horses or camels, but not donkeys. The latter restrictions were largely symbolic in nature and were designed to highlight the inferiority of dhimmis compared to Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#Legal_and_social_status

Kinda makes you wonder why the Jews would eve consider resisting liberation of the Holy Land by the Sunna, eh? Hell, we don't even have church bells. Thanks alot, IR. I can't wait for my dhimmi card.

Question: Since just about no one rides camels or horses anymore, would dhimmis be required to drive cars with no more than two doors?

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

Believe me I will rejoice the day you recieve your dhimmi card!

That will mean that Israel no longer exists. And that Europe and American have chosen to be ruled by Sharia Law.


The "compulsory" items that the 11th century scholar lists: prohibitions on blasphemy against Islam, entering into sexual relations or marriage with a Muslim woman, proselytizing among Muslims, and assisting the enemies of Islam. All of these are a part of the religion of Islam and the law.

The rest of the list the Scholar calls "desirable", and are not authenic Islamic Laws. They are just his opinion of rules that should be enforced and are totally unIslamic.

[David Lyle Segal]

Believe me I will rejoice the day you recieve your dhimmi card! That will mean that Israel no longer exists. And that Europe and American have chosen to be ruled by Sharia Law.

Not when you go to wipe yourself and find it sticking out. You may think that Muslims are some sort of higher class of people, IR, but I doubt that you'll find many non-believers who agree with you. That is, of course, if there are many non-believers left once your guys get through with convincing us of the glorious wonders of Islam.

The "compulsory" items that the 11th century scholar lists: prohibitions on blasphemy against Islam, entering into sexual relations or marriage with a Muslim woman, proselytizing among Muslims, and assisting the enemies of Islam. All of these are a part of the religion of Islam and the law.

The rest of the list the Scholar calls "desirable", and are not authenic Islamic Laws. They are just his opinion of rules that should be enforced and are totally unIslamic.

Is this vision supposed to make us feel any better? No thanks. I'll wear leather shoes whenever I decide, not when you deign to permit me to. Likewise ride my own horse or build my own house as high as I want to. And I'm sure not going to wear the silly clothes you may decide that I must in order to warn good Muslims that I am a nonbeliever. The simple fact is, IR, that you aren't good enough a style critic for anyone to follow.

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

Like I said those "desirable" listings were not Islamic, and just the writings of an 11th century scholar.

DLS you should be happy that Muslims desire a future world of order and peace between everyone.

[David Lyle Segal]

DLS you should be happy that Muslims desire a future world of order and peace between everyone.

Yeah. The peace of the grave.

David Segal

[moonman]

Thank you gentlemen for an excellant read.

I will never understand man's passion to kill. I have been so angry that I once held a man's life in my hand and decided to let him live as his color turned blueish-white. At the time I was protecting my bride from an assault. Even then, I didn't kill. It wasn't necessary.

To kill over an idea, as subjective as belief in some god or political philosophy or race based belief system and/or for material gain? I will never understand it.

IR, I can certainly understand why and how it has come to be that you and many Moslims believe that your solution is to convert or kill. Arab & Persian contact with the West has not been beneficial to the indigenous people of the M.E. That fact is as much your fault as it is ours.

To blame us and to take jihad against us, without accepting responsiblity for your own failures, is to fight half a jihad. It is less than a full comittment to your religion and means you are merely half or less a good Moslem.

[David Lyle Segal]

To kill over an idea, as subjective as belief in some god or political philosophy or race based belief system and/or for material gain? I will never understand it.

Welcome to the Middle East, MM. The more fundamentalist Muslims (and Wahhabi Muslims are the most fundamentalist) divide the world between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, the significance of the distinction being:

The governments that control dar al-harb are technically not legitimate powers because they do not derive their authority from God. No matter what the actual political system is in any individual case, it is regarded as fundamentally and necessarily invalid. http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicextremism/a/daralharb_2.htm

It's a tough neighborhood.

David Segal

[Islam Rocks!]

It's a tough neighborhood.


Yes it is, when you have a rogue, out of control, illigitimate state called Israel. That terrorizes and brutializes is neighbors with death and destruction.

Plus Israel has a couple of hundred nuclear weapons to intimidate and blackmail both friends and enemies.

Israel is the thug in the neighborhood. Hated by all.

[Islam Rocks!]

Yeah. The peace of the grave.

David SegalWhy be so negative?

I champion a religion that strives for peace in the world and universal brotherhood.

Why are you soo against that?

I believe that your hardcore Zionist indoctrination has blinded you of the peaceful possibilities that are inherent in the Islamic religion.

Just a little cooperation from Israel and the Zionists would go a long way toward world peace, but I don't think that's in their agenda.

[disrupter]

as long as you murder all the homosexuals, right?

yeah, that's real peaceful.

[mwillman]

Why be so negative?

I champion a religion that strives for peace in the world and universal brotherhood.

Why are you soo against that?

I believe that your hardcore Zionist indoctrination has blinded you of the peaceful possibilities that are inherent in the Islamic religion.

Just a little cooperation from Israel and the Zionists would go a long way toward world peace, but I don't think that's in their agenda.

Which peace possiblilities is that the bombing of the World Trade center, The suicide bombers, or many be its the beating of women for getting raped.

There are very peacefull muslims but as a whole its one of the most violent bigoted religions in the world.

[Islam Rocks!]

Which peace possiblilities is that the bombing of the World Trade center, The suicide bombers, or many be its the beating of women for getting raped.

There are very peacefull muslims but as a whole its one of the most violent bigoted religions in the world.#1) Even our government still isn't sure who was on the flights that hit the WTC.

#2) There are no suicide bombers. Just Islamic Freedom Fighters who give up their lives trying to drive occupiers out of their country with the limited weapons that they have access to.

#3) The woman did NOT get punished for being raped. That's a lie of the western media.
Her sentence was for the slutty behavior of being out alone with a man whom she wasn't related to.

[Islam Rocks!]

as long as you murder all the homosexuals, right?

yeah, that's real peaceful.Where did I say homosexuals should be murdered?

[mwillman]

#1) Even our government still isn't sure who was on the flights that hit the WTC.

We are sure who was on the planes. Wahabi pigs like yourself.


#2) There are no suicide bombers. Just Islamic Freedom Fighters who give up their lives trying to drive occupiers out of their country with the limited weapons that they have access to.

A pig by any other name smells the same.


#3) The woman did NOT get punished for being raped. That's a lie of the western media.
Her sentence was for the slutty behavior of being out alone with a man whom she wasn't related to.

Just more proof that you are a misogynist pig who should be just left alone with no power to affect the world you live in. You mind is so twisted with hate and death that you are like a sickness that can only be quarantined to save the next generation for the same Mad Cow Disease.

[David Lyle Segal]

Quote:Originally Posted by David Lyle Segal
Yeah. The peace of the grave.

IR> Why be so negative? I champion a religion that strives for peace in the world and universal brotherhood. Why are you soo against that?

If you had one-tenth the humanity of the Baha'i, IR, I might have read this with interest. As it is, you represent that branch of Islam that measures my worth as a human being on the basis of how closely I accept your religious beliefs as my own. In short, if I don't believe as you do or, alternatively, don't accept you as my superior, I'm toast. Puhleeze. You're simply not that good, and neither is your religious dogma.

You were all so ready to give me my dhimmi card, remember? That card entitles me to not testify against a Muslim in court, to not marry a Muslim, to not wear leather shoes, to not ride a horse, and a whole host of other disabilities not applicable to your exalted Muslim self, all for the discounted price of an annual jizyah which I am to pay to you -- with gratitude, if not a tug on my forelock -- for the pleasure of being permitted to live. Up yours, IR. FYI, only those who can't differentiate between church and state would come in here with such a ridiculous set of ideas.

I believe that your hardcore Zionist indoctrination has blinded you of the peaceful possibilities that are inherent in the Islamic religion.

I think that you've lost sight of the issue, IR. I have no interest in coming to your "peaceful possibilities". Your price -- conversion or dhimmitude -- is too high. For the record, Jews are well-known for not trying to convert others. They do this because they believe that non-believers have an equal opportunity to enter the Olam Haba (time for you to look up something about Jews, IR) as any Jew, without taking on the burdens that Jews accept. The Baha'i are no less accepting of the religion of others. Only you -- and your Wahhabi co-believers -- insist that I accept your religious (and political) sovereignty. Or die.

Just a little cooperation from Israel and the Zionists would go a long way toward world peace, but I don't think that's in their agenda.

This has nothing to do with Zionism or Israel, IR. It has to do with your own agenda for me, who lives. in Philadelphia, PA: world domination, as you've already proudly described.

Quite frankly, IR, I think that you have signed up for the Salafi brand of chauvinism for no more reason than that you need their bloodthirsty reputation in order to measure up as a person. You think that the jihadists are the baddest dudes on the block and that everyone quakes in their presence. After all, who can compare to someone who blows himself up in order for the rewards promised to him for having taken out some Jews? Yeah, IR could sure use some of that Juju. Grow the hell up.

David Segal