"We need more terrorist attacks" says GOP chairman

[gc70]

"They". You act as if all Muslims have one mind and had a hand in killing him. Almost as if that was anything close to a terrorist act.

van Gogh's death was not a random act of violence. His murderer carried out the action called for by the Dutch Muslim community. And that action was to silence blasphemous infidels.

But you ignore the Dutch Muslim community's expressions of rage against van Gogh's criticism of Islam. You ignore the Dutch imams railing for van Gogh's punishment. You ignore everything but the single hand that wielded the gun that killed van Gogh. Then you dismiss an act of terrorism as nothing more than one man killing another man.

By your standards, Redworm, US history needs to be rewritten. Racist Southerners did not really terrorize blacks for nearly a century after the Civil War. No, it was just that periodically the random white hand was found holding the rope around the random black neck. Almost as if that was anything close to a terrorist act.

 

[Slugthrower]

Just a little food for thought.

Ishmael

masc. proper name, biblical son of Abraham and Hagar, from Heb. Yishma'el, lit. "God hears," from yishma, imperf. of shama "he heard." The Arabs claim descent from him. Fig. sense of "an outcast," "whose hand is against every man, and every man's hand against him" is from Gen. xvi.12.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

Islam

"religious system revealed by Muhammad," 1818, from Arabic, lit. "submission" (to the will of God), from root of aslama "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted," causative conjunction of salima "he was safe," and related to salam "peace." Islamic is attested from 1791. Earlier Eng. names for the faith include Muhammadism (1614) and Ismaelism (1604), which in part is from Ishmaelite, a name formerly given (esp. by Jews) to Arabs, as descendants of Ishmael (q.v.), and in part from Arabic Ismailiy, name of the Shiite sect that after 765 C.E. followed the Imamship through descendants of Ismail (Arabic for Ishmael), eldest son of Jafar, the sixth Imam. The Ismailians were not numerous, but among them were the powerful Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and the Assassins, both of whom loomed large in European imagination.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

islam

noun
1. the civilization of Muslims collectively which is governed by the Muslim religion; "Islam is predominant in northern Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and Indonesia"
2. the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran; "Islam is a complete way of life, not a Sunday religion"; "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad, founded their religion"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.


Qur'an "The Immunity"


"9.1": (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

"9.14": Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.

"9.29": Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

"9.30": And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/to...modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=9&division=div1
_________________________________________________________________
No matter how one wishes these things to be, history has shown us what will be. That is provided that we don't fight against these radicals and their goals of one world under the way of life that they wish to force upon us. The United States is likely the last hope for freedom of religion or the freedom to reject religion if one sees fit. We can live in denial of this or we can accept it for what it is. If you don't mind being forced to bow toward Mecca five times a day and have no problem with others telling you that their God must be worshiped or you must pay a heavy tax and/or be killed, then enjoy that life if you can. I for one will not have any man tell me that their interpretation of the Creator is to only one that is true.

 

[madmag]

"We need more terrorist attacks"

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001],"

This quote is from the opening of this thread.

I see it exactly opposite. If we suffer an attack as serious as 9/11 and it's shown these attackers came across our non-secure borders, then Bush will likely be impeached. Even as of today Bush is using border security as a bargaining chip. He has basically said the way to border security is to pass his immigration bill. So now the only way we can secure our borders is to pass an ill conceived immigration bill. If the President was doing the right thing he would have already honored his constitutional obligation and secured our borders.

The one thing a terrorist attack thats traced back to our open borders will accomplish. We will then move immediately to finally secure our borders as we should have done years ago. All of a sudden votes and debates will be meaningless. The border will be secured almost overnight. Well, with a slight delay to impeach Bush.

 

[WeedWacker]

No, not a majority. Not even a significant amount

Sorry, was referring to the original ammendments. Little bit of egotism there with my sleep deprivation. And yes, the idea was way before the bible was in print. It was in Hammurabi's code as the first docimented laws. But the 10 c's were more widespread and I'm pretty sure that ben franklin didn't have a copy (considering it wasn't until after he died they discovered the code). Look at the pledge of allegiance. Our nation was founded by Christians and as Christians they looked to the bible for their law. The founding fathers (those who founded the government) recognized that christianity or any religion, for that matter, cannot be forced upon a populace and have expectations of peace and harmony. This is why they wanted the affairs of the church to be separate from the affairs of the government to avoid conflicting interests and show of favoritism (and to restric power of religion). But they used the Bible as a template for the orignal ammendments since it was tried and true and as a basic form of law had held up for over a two thousand years.

 

[TwoXForr]

Madmag,

I don't think he would be impeached, first we would have to recover from the attack, investigate the attack and by then we would be pretty deep into the election. It would be pointless to impeach Bush then, he would be a lame duck at that point. Besides the ones the Democratic frontrunners from the office would just be trying to run for office and ensure thier place at 1600 Pa. would want to keep thier distance from the impeachment in order to not look petty. (the cries of we did it to Bill so now they have to do it to W)

By the way Madmag, what would be the charge (High Crimes and misdemeanor) that you could envision W. being charged with that would bring about impeachment?

Maybe we should start another thread with this question Madmag

 

[Redworm]

Look at the pledge of allegiance.

You mean the pledge that wasn't written until 1892 and didn't include the word "god" until the 1950s? Did the founders have a DeLorean?

Our nation was founded by Christians and as Christians they looked to the bible for their law.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

huh?

But they used the Bible as a template for the orignal ammendments since it was tried and true and as a basic form of law had held up for over a two thousand years.

No. Only three of the ten commandments have any similarity to the bill of rights whatsoever. Only one other commandment - the bit about adultery - has also been made into a crime. So three out of ten is a template for....what, exactly? Where is freedom of speech in the decalogue? The right to keep and bear arms (how now, doesn't "thou shalt not kill" mean we're not supposed to use our guns to kill...at all?)? Where is the protection against illegal search and siezure? And stretching the bit about not giving false witness to the 5th or 6th amendments is damn nigh impossible but I'll give you that one for the sake of argument.

So, aside from homicide, perjury and adultery our laws have jack **** doodly-do to do with the bible.

 

[WeedWacker]

never said it was FOUNDED on christianity just BY christians (most of them anyway. Pretty sure a couple were athiests)

here is part of the beginning of the dec. of ind.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

- http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Note creator is capitalized to implicate deity per correct usage of grammer that you do not often see today. Further up:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Note again stating that there is a God per author beliefes that is above nature and the laws nature follows. My point still being that morals based on christianity formed a foundation for our laws (until recently). Dang I forgot what the original topic of this thread was... oh well I guess I will stop there. I suppose if we desire to continue this conversation maybe a different thread.

edit: Asw for Yale, it's a liberal deny-any-form-of-deity-over-us-humans university that has recently decided it could read the minds of our founding fathers long dead, seemingly from their new ESP department for those with over developed brains and unusual abilities

 

[Redworm]

My point still being that morals based on christianity formed a foundation for our laws (until recently).

many of them pretty ****ing stupid to begin with. no booze on sunday? coohabitation is still illegal in some states though thankfully no one - not even the bible thumpers - is stupid enough to even try to enforce such a thing

and regardless of your point you still claimed that our laws are based on the bible. they are not. if they were there'd still be rules regarding the appropriate price for selling a child in slave labor and how many times you're allowed to beat your wife before you have to pay her dad. that "until recently" bit is one of the best things to ever happen to the world; the more people get away from such things and stop trying to make the rest of us live in their fantasy world the better.

the yale link has the treaty of tripoli quoted verbatim. I wasn't linking to an interpretation, I was linking to the actual text

and cry all you want about it being liberal but it's still one of the best schools on the planet.

 

[NineseveN]

Sorry, was referring to the original ammendments. Little bit of egotism there with my sleep deprivation. And yes, the idea was way before the bible was in print. It was in Hammurabi's code as the first docimented laws. But the 10 c's were more widespread and I'm pretty sure that ben franklin didn't have a copy (considering it wasn't until after he died they discovered the code).

Look at the pledge of allegiance.

As has been noted, neither the words “under god” nor the pledge itself had anything to do with the founding fathers. The original pledge was not written until 1892 or so, and the words “under god”, incidentally, did not appear in the original version (they were added by Congress in 1954).

Sourced:
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Our nation was founded by Christians and as Christians they looked to the bible for their law.

To be most fair, our nation was founded by mostly Deists (the more significant founders anyway). They source of the Constitution and foundation of this country was not the bible at all.

Deist defined:
“Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm



Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Paine (more Atheist at some point)
James Madison

It’s pretty hard to get more authoritative than that.

But they used the Bible as a template for the orignal ammendments since it was tried and true and as a basic form of law had held up for over a two thousand years.

Incorrect, but in order to show you this, it would require a serious thread drift that others probably wouldn’t appreciate. I'm not even sure that this is an appropriate discussion for this site (if it is, start a new topic, I'd be happy to give you things to look into). I suggest you actually look some of this up on your own though, you’re pretty off the mark here.

 

[WeedWacker]

note sarcasm in my posting about yale. And i never stated the whole bible dictated every law. And remember at the BEGINNING of my first post I stated that it was the 10 C's not the bible (as in not the WHOLE bible). Although your bit on no alcohol on sundays was actually a good thought. Gave you a healthy break from your consumption of liver deteriorating chemicals. Then again they used to think smoking tobacco was good for you (somthing they encouraged at Yale I believe). Some of those morals that you think are a bunch of crock are actually what made our core stronger and more resiliant than other cultures. Look at Germany in WWII. Hitler belived astrology would tell him which battles to fight (he had abandonded any morals he once had at that point). If you look at it, the ones with no morals tend to be more violent and end up causing problems for society as a whole (example: gangs and thugs) because they believe that they can do whatever they want to because the rules don't apply to them if they don't believe in them (note they don't obey laws they don't like... wait that's about all of them) And as I said if you want to discuss this further instead of the statement made by the GOP I suggest you start a new thread... or are you trying to close this one down as well?

 

[Redworm]

Although your bit on no alcohol on sundays was actually a good thought. Gave you a healthy break from your consumption of liver deteriorating chemicals.

Unless of course I only want to drink on Sunday and neither bible thumpers nor ANYONE ELSE has any authority to say what I can put into my own body on any particular day of the week.

Some of those morals that you think are a bunch of crock are actually what made our core stronger and more resiliant than other cultures.

You mean morals like women being the property of their husbands or building the nation on the backs of african and chinese slaves? The morals that made our country stronger are the ones based on the concepts of liberty, something incompatible with die hard fanaticism to a religion especially when you try to push that religion on others. Fortunately neither muslims nor christians have that kind of power anymore and they're both losing said ability as time goes on.

And as I said if you want to discuss this further instead of the statement made by the GOP I suggest you start a new thread... or are you trying to close this one down as well?

Well, it goes right back to the original argument. Folks keep automatically linking terrorism with islam and it's utterly foolish at best, counterproductive at worst and in both cases hypocritical because those are the people most likely to tell me how to live my life by their user's manual as opposed to achmed user's manual.

Yet my original point in this thread stands: the comments were taken out of context and a mountain is being made out of a molehill. It's equally as ridiculous as pretending Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the internet. Context, people. Context.

 

[threegun]

I thought that alcohol sales were prohibited on Sunday not consumption?