Muslim arrested in Beltway case (John Muhammad)

WorldNetDaily ^ | October 24, 2002 | Art Moore

[stuartcr]

The Christians that persecuted the druids were not radicals. We kept some customs, but their culture did not last very long after the Christians moved in. As you must know by reading the threads, I was not discussing American culture. Please lecture someone else.

[dennisw]

Jerry Falwell was the first to say "Muhammad was a terrorist". I call him the first Jihadist.

[hawkeyeBetsy]

"Nope -- totally objective comment. You're the bigot."

You're incorrect. Your comment is NOT objective at all.

Any extreme in any race, religion, etc. is bigotted. Their belief is that anything that doesn't agree with their way is wrong. That's bigotted. You're just ticked off because you're one of those.

[Roscoe]

Good catch.

[Technogeeb]

Sorry, I disagree. I believe that the Koran is open to interpretation

Some parts may be, but not Jihad. It is too fundamental of a concept. Have you read the entire Quran? In context, there really isn't any legitimate way to "reinterpret" the Jihad concept the way many on fringes of Islam have tried.

There are at least 6 different Islamic sects that I can think of. All religion is interpretive, just by definition.

Islam is more than just a religion. It is also a meta-government which ultimately requires control of the mechanisms of state, in the same way that leninist communism does. Of course, there are variations of Islam, and not all muslims agree upon every single theological point. However, there are certain fundamental beliefs that are at the core of Islam, and one of them is Jihad and the strive for a world under the domination of Islamic law. If you don't believe in this, then you're not really a Muslim.

[sneakypete]

How did you miss that part? - it was the only other line in my post.

I didn't miss it,I ignored it because it is incidental. John Wayne Gacey was Catholic,does this mean the IRA was responsible for his crimes?

Again, these tangos have all the ingredients for terrorist - even under your restricted definition.

What is a "tango"? I'm so unhip I thought it was a dance.

[sneakypete]

How can you dismiss the possibility that the motives were both greed and terror?

I can't because I don't know. Neither do you,yet.

[FR_addict]

So are you saying that all the law enforcement officers that train there and use the range or all the good ole white boys with their AR-15's and 50 calibers are Al Qaeda members also because they paid their dollars and fired a few rounds or took a day course there?

No I'm not saying that. I don't even see why you drew that conclusion.

Evidently the Marion camp has been used by Al Qaeda in the past according to Scotland Yard. If this is true, these guys need to be investigated and laws past that will not allow private companies to train foreign nationals, like the AlQaeda.

Someone who sympathizes with AlQueda wouldn't have any trouble meeting other Al Queda group members. That's all I was saying.

As far as I'm concerned an Al Qaeda wannabe is the same as an AlQaeda member. They both want the same thing, a Jihad in America.

[jiggyboy]

Well, you need to know that he was actually in the Home Depot at the time, so he's not an inconvenient witness who is being hushed up, if that's what you're wondering.

[jiggyboy]

I'll give it a go: Joshua 10 19 And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand.

An honest quote would include Joshua 10 verses 1-9, which reveals that these enemies had attacked the city of Gibeon and failed. Why did they attack Gibeon?:

4 Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon: for it hath made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel.

Peace!? Unthinkable! We all know which religion practices that philisophy.

If this is your best shot, I'd say that that proves the rule -- Christianity is not about striking first, or striking the weak, or the innocent.

[sneakypete]

By the way, can you translate this----> (IIRC!) I keep seeing it but haven't a clue what it says. Thanks.

"IIRC"="If I remember correctly".

[EggsAckley]

Thank you. It's so obvious, I can't believe I didn't think of it. Have to use it now and then, IIRC.
:o)

[Crowcreek]

' You're just ticked off because you're one of those.'

And you're spewing sewage because you haven't the brains of an ant.

[stuartcr]

Well, I'm not a Muslim, but I still believe that a person can be a Muslim and not believe all that is written. I'm not a Christian, but I still believe that a person can be a Christian, and not believe all that is written, or probably a Jewish person, or a Hindu, etc. It's all interpretation.

[Triple]

Based on your posts to military/special forces threads, I thought you would know: tango=target/bad guy

My bad.

BTW - Why the reluctance to call the guy who terrorized 2-3 million people a terrorist? (even if he was acting alone based on both greed and his sympathy for islamic jihadists)

Later Babe,

[sneakypete]

BTW - Why the reluctance to call the guy who terrorized 2-3 million people a terrorist? (even if he was acting alone based on both greed and his sympathy for islamic jihadists)

Because it's giving them more credit than they deserve. Terrorists always have some political goal that they value more than their own lives. You and I may or may not agree with their goals,but none the less they believe in something beyone their own selfish needs and greed. These two are simply cowardly murderers whose only real apparant belief seemed to be to shoot unsuspecting innocent people from hiding for profit and "kicks". They are nothing more than common murdering criminal scum.

[Technogeeb]

Well, I'm not a Muslim, but I still believe that a person can be a Muslim and not believe all that is written

Muslims don't, and that is what is relevant. If you were a muslim and made that statement, you would be subject to a death sentence. Denying any part of the Quran ("all that is written") is heresy.

I'm not a Christian, but I still believe that a person can be a Christian, and not believe all that is written,

Believing "all that is written" is not a requirement of all sects of Christianity. It is for Islam. Nevertheless, if he doesn't believe in the fundamental dogma of Christianity, a person isn't really a Christian regardless of what he calls himself. "Christian" (or "muslim") is more than just an arbitrary label.

or probably a Jewish person, or a Hindu, etc. It's all interpretation.

If you were to say the words above ("It's all interpretation") in the context of a mutable Quran, in a Muslim country under Sharia law, the punishment would be your death. One of the biggest advantages Islam has is that of people like you, who (quite reasonably) assume Islam is just another belief system. But it isn't.

And, as you say, if you are not a Muslim and are not a Christian, then death awaits you if the Muslims ever take over. Christians are given the opportunity to pay an oppressive tax (Jiziya) and survive as long as they follow certain rules (like don't build churches or mention their religion, act subservient to any nearby Muslim, etc). You, on the other hand, would be a "kafir", and subject to immediate execution unless you convert to Islam. And under Islam, the only part of this that is "subject to interpretation" is the amount of the tax you'll pay if you are Christian, or the method of death if you are a kafir.

[stuartcr]

I'm sorry, but there are any number of internet sites, and books that say differently. I don't think you're completely accurate in what you are saying about the Islamic religion. Once again, I emphasize the fact that different religions, and the understanding of different religions, is based on interpretation. Your interpretation of the Islamic religion, is not the same as many others.

[Technogeeb]

I'm sorry, but there are any number of internet sites, and books that say differently

Yes there are. They are all wrong. Some are written by western apologists with no real understanding of Islam, such as yourself. Others are examples of Al-Taqiyah written by Muslims themselves. I am confident that you have never read the Quran, since it is clear that you have no understanding of Islam. As an example, the statements that you have made to "defend" Islam (i.e., that the Quran is open to interpretation and the words don't really mean what they say) would get you killed in any area of the globe under Sharia law.

I don't think you're completely accurate in what you are saying about the Islamic religion

I know (that you don't think this). And that is the problem. Westerners believe that Islam is just another religion, a facade that Islamists support until their numbers in an area are strong enough to change the local political system. Even when a movement like Islam insists that their intent is to destroy you and when they make clear statements to that effect, you still won't believe them, and think that some "compromise" can be reached that will allow both sides to live in peace. History is full of the graves of people who thought the same way.

Once again, I emphasize the fact that different religions, and the understanding of different religions, is based on interpretation

And once again, I emphasize that Islam doesn't worth that way. Islam is more than just a "different religion", it is also a political movement, and one that demands that it be the sole political (Sharia law) authority as well as the sole religious authority. You might as well try to categorize Ebola or Smallpox as a religion; doing so will make you no more immune to their ultimate effects.

Your interpretation of the Islamic religion, is not the same as many others

Mine isn't an "interpretation", it is merely statement of theological dogma common to all forms of Islam. And it IS THE SAME as that of the Muslims themselves. There is no way to "reinterpret" the relevant statements as metaphor in the context in which they are written. Trying to "interpret" such statements as "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" in a peaceful context is about as useful as trying to reinterpret the Nazi party's antisemitism as being a statement about immigration policy.

[stuartcr]

It's refreshing to find someone with such confidence. I thank you for reminding me of one of the reasons I enjoy freerepublic so much. I'm going to spend the weekend forgetting everything I've ever read or learned about Islam. I may even denounce my Muslim friends just for being wrong.