Re: Top al-Qaeda in Iraq Leader Captured

noname wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:53:51 -0700, El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:27:40 -0700, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>

El Castor wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:31:53 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
<georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:
Mark wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:
Jose wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:
Jose wrote:
No.....I just want to pursue al Qaida to the ends of the earth.....even
your back yard. I have no bone to pick with the Pakistani people, their
government or their nation with the possible exception of those amongst
who provide shelter and sustenance for al Qaida.

Try to keep your eye on the Qaida is the enemy! al Qaida
the enemy! al Qaida is the enemy! Try not to be distracted as Dubya
allowed himself to Qaida is the enemy!

Get the picture?

George Z.

Hay! George, you are beginning to echo President Bush.
Hey Mark! You need to engage your brain before you start flapping your
gums. Where, in anything that I've said above, have I spoken of nations as
our enemy? You quoted Dubya accurately because that's what he said, but I
thought the difference between our positions was huge and perfectly clear.

Let me rephrase it for you, since you seem a bit slow on the uptake, AL
QAIDA IS OUR ENEMY........not Pakistan, not Afghanistan, not Iraq just AL
QAIDA wherever we find them. See the difference between Dum Dubya and
myself? I don't threaten nations willy nilly as our Fearless Leader does.

Any nation that prefers us to stay out of their borders has only to deny
entry or otherwise disarm any al Qaida members they find trying to enter
their country. Any nation that fails to exercise its obligations to its own
citizens to protect their borders from incursion by terrorists forfeits the
right to complain when others in hot pursuit of those terrorists find
themselves on their soil. It's a simple concept and one I believe to be
acceptable under international law.

The difference may be subtle, but it's still a difference.


George Z.

I stand corrected. You were not interested in pursuing
nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
You are indeed corrected. I am only interested in pursuing al Qaida wherever we find them.

.....Sorry for giving you credit when none was earned.
I prefer to think of it as your expression of sorrow for having attributed blame to me where none was warranted. Nevertheless, your apology is accepted even if I did first have to translate it back into factual English.

George Z.

George, get educated. Al Qaeda is just a symptom. Islam is the
Jeff, if Islam is the disease, why is not all religion the disease? Are you claiming that the teachings of the Koran are evil while the teachings of the Bible or the Torah are somehow less susceptible to being used to justify extremist action?
Yes, but let me be clear, I am not religious. I was born to Protestant
Christian parents, but have not set foot in a Church for 40 years,
except for weddings and funerals. I have no particular axe to grind.
In fact, I would like to conclude that Islam is fundamentally sound,
and groups like al Qaeda are an aberration. I did believe that at one
time, but what I have learned about Islam since 9/11 has led me to
believe otherwise.

Here are a few issues I have with Islam. I do not believe that any of
these problems apply so thoroughly to any other world religion. Drag
out the Spanish Inquisition if you wish, but I would remind you that
we should be concerned with the here and now, the 21st Century. Islam,
in my opinion is religious fascism, plain and simple.

We have all heard the usual thing about the Koran and Jews,
Christians, treatment of women, etc. Conflicting doctrines, just like
you might find in the Bible, but there is a difference. The Bible is a
compilation of the words of many men, but the Koran is an iron clad
religious doctrine handed down by one man -- Mohammad. What you
haven't heard is that the Koran represents Mohammad's spiritual
journey -- like Mein Kampf, which I think is a very apt comparison.
The Muslim principal of abrogation applies to every word in the Koran.
ONLY the last pronouncement on a subject has any validity -- like the
necessity of beating a disobedient wife. When Muslim's quote a passage
to the contrary, they know that it was abrogated, but lying to an
Infidel in the interests of supporting Islam is an honorable act to a
Muslim -- so we don't hear about abrogation -- we hear what we want to
hear, which is largely not true.

I'm going to spare you a lot of verbiage. Here it is in no particular
order. Let me just say that mainstream Islam considers the sin of
leaving the religion to be punishable by death, wife beating is
permitted, marriage by a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man is
punishable by death -- and her children can be taken from her by a
religious court, homosexuality is punishable by death, although by
some convoluted logic pederasty is ok, Mohammad married a six year old
girl so that is likewise ok, prayers said by Muslims are invalid
unless spoken in Arabic, although the speaker need not understand
Arabic, and Jihad does not refer to an inner struggle -- it refers to
the Muslim duty to spread Islam by force to every corner of the globe.
Christians and Jews are permitted to live among Muslims, but only as
second class citizens, and yes, Jews are descended from pigs and apes,
and when it comes to law, Sharia law is handed down from God and
therefore takes precedence over the laws of man. How can you have
democracy if a legislature is allowed to pass laws contradictory to
the laws of Allah? The punishment for thievery is the severing of a
hand, and often the foot on the opposite side of the body. Women in a
Sharia court have a much higher standard of proof than men. Then there
are honor killings which are routinely excused by religious courts.
And on, and on, and on ...

I'm sure you're thinking -- well that only apples to fundamentalists.
Problem is, it's all spelled out for them in such detail that a Good
Muslim IS a Fundamentalist Muslim.

Don't believe me? Sorry, but it's true nonetheless. Please check out
this site in some detail before telling me what an intolerant SOB I
am. (-8

I have read all the above about the religion of Islam. What I
don't know is what percentage of Muslims are strict fundamentalists
and follow all you have talked about above.

But since you are concerned you will not be happy that secularists in
Turkey suffered a crushing defeat in the election there. Not good

A crushing defeat? The islamist-rooted AKP currently holds 352 seats and will only have 340 seats in the 550-member parliament, despite winning.

The fact that the AKP fell short of a full two-thirds majority that would have allowed it to elect the president of its choice or amend the constitution at will, is a positive sign of stability.