Muslim scholar: Killing civilians OK

[erynthered]

Good show ol' Chap, way to come out against these terrorist:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=45221

[erynthered]

Nice picture.

 

 

 

http://www.schnittshow.com/timages/page/su...erroristkid.jpg

[Alaska Darin]

Good looking fella.

[VABills]

Nice picture.

http://www.schnittshow.com/timages/page/su...erroristkid.jpg

379738[/snapback]

permission denied by the server

[Chilly]

Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works".

 

I feel a bit of a double standard here. When we do it, its just part of war. When they do it, its an outrage.

[Ghost of BiB]

Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works".

 

I feel a bit of a double standard here.  When we do it, its just part of war.  When they do it, its an outrage.

379789[/snapback]

 

You sort of miss the point, bubba.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works".

 

I feel a bit of a double standard here.  When we do it, its just part of war.  When they do it, its an outrage.

379789[/snapback]

 

There's a different between "targets" and "collateral damage". While it's a fact of war that civilians die in war, we try to avoid it as much as possible. We sure as hell don't say "Well, it's war, so let's shoot 'em." and justify it ex post facto with scripture.

[Reuben Gant]

Who made this guy as scholar? I want to see credentials.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Who made this guy as scholar? I want to see credentials.

379800[/snapback]

 

Probably the same people that made worldnetdaily a credible news source...

[Chilly]

There's a different between "targets" and "collateral damage".  While it's a fact of war that civilians die in war, we try to avoid it as much as possible.  We sure as hell don't say "Well, it's war, so let's shoot 'em." and justify it ex post facto with scripture.

379799[/snapback]

 

Thats true, but its a different perspective. To them, they aren't targets, but they are also collateral damage.

 

The difference is deeper in my opinion - we actively try to reduce collateral damage, while they don't. I think the distinction should be on a basic human rights level, not an outrage of something that we both do from our own perspectives.

[Alaska Darin]

Thats true, but its a different perspective.  To them, they aren't targets, but they are also collateral damage.

 

The difference is deeper in my opinion - we actively try to reduce collateral damage, while they don't.  I think the distinction should be on a basic human rights level, not an outrage of something that we both do from our own perspectives.

379815[/snapback]

You related to Bill Moyers? He was ranting on NPR about how US Soldiers are like Bin Laden. It was lovely. Glad my tax dollars are paying for that.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Thats true, but its a different perspective.  To them, they aren't targets, but they are also collateral damage.

 

The difference is deeper in my opinion - we actively try to reduce collateral damage, while they don't.  I think the distinction should be on a basic human rights level, not an outrage of something that we both do from our own perspectives.

379815[/snapback]

 

The difference is even deeper than that: in Islamic law, there's no such thing as collateral damage. We actively try to reduce it; not only do they not actively try, they don't even recognize it exists.

 

The caveat there being that "Islamic Law" refers specifically to the interpretation that al-Siba'i seems to adhere to. I'm not willing to postulate that his interpretation has widespread acceptance throughout the Muslim world...but I AM willing to postulate that it has widespread acceptance throughout the fundamentalist Sunni groups that form the base demographic of the current crop of terrorists.

 

And if you actually read some of al-Siba'i's stuff...there's a lot of good info on the terrorist mindset in there. Apparently he's a former associate of some senior al Qaeda people (including Zawahiri, with whom he apparently fell out in 1999), and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if his "doctorate" was in Islamic Law from a Pakistani Wahabist madrassa. At any rate, anyone who can read his stuff without blindly dismissing it as "barbaric" or "criminal" can get a lot of good info out of it.

[Chilly]

You related to Bill Moyers?  He was ranting on NPR about how US Soldiers are like Bin Laden.  It was lovely.  Glad my tax dollars are paying for that.

379824[/snapback]

 

Hell no.

 

The difference is even deeper than that: in Islamic law, there's no such thing as collateral damage.  We actively try to reduce it; not only do they not actively try, they don't even recognize it exists. 

 

The caveat there being that "Islamic Law" refers specifically to the interpretation that al-Siba'i seems to adhere to.  I'm not willing to postulate that his interpretation has widespread acceptance throughout the Muslim world...but I AM willing to postulate that it has widespread acceptance throughout the fundamentalist Sunni groups that form the base demographic of the current crop of terrorists.

 

And if you actually read some of al-Siba'i's stuff...there's a lot of good info on the terrorist mindset in there.  Apparently he's a former associate of some senior al Qaeda people (including Zawahiri, with whom he apparently fell out in 1999), and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if his "doctorate" was in Islamic Law from a Pakistani Wahabist madrassa.  At any rate, anyone who can read his stuff without blindly dismissing it as "barbaric" or "criminal" can get a lot of good info out of it.

379835[/snapback]

 

Interesting. My understanding, as you correctly stated, was the one that had widespread acceptance throughout the Muslim world, I did not realize there was a significant difference between the two interpretations. I shall google.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Maybe we need to have our own suicide bombers to sneak in and blow up scum like this idiot. Maybe leak that Islam approves of abortion or something, that should mobilize an army of Christian fundamentalists after them. Or, recruit the Young Republicans, they seem be fanatical enough. Or, we could start things by sending one of our own. I nominate Rich in Ohio.

[Rich in Ohio]

Good show ol' Chap, way to come out against these terrorist:

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=45221

379702[/snapback]

 

 

I wonder how that assmonkey feels about the indiscriminant killing of a few sick muslim clerics? I have no doubt that there are many who would like to help him share that experience.

 

Did he really say that because the term civilian does not exist in his sick world then the terrorists see no distinction between them and soldiers. I always knew that these people were sick, but this goes even beyond my ability to understand.

 

 

Hate propagators like that bastard sit there behind the walls of their mosques and spew this hate speech and little is done to them. I feel that the day is coming when the fight will be taken to them….in their places of peace. Unfortunately many innocent people will be the victims, and the ones who deserve such a fate will no doubt escape. Perhaps to a cave deep in the afghan mountains or perhaps into some other crude spider hole.

 

Now just to make it clear to the moderators who seem to have me in their sights……I am not advocating the death and destruction of these insane men of peace. I am just wondering what they would think about someone or some group who would target them…..like they do they innocent women and children that they routinely support the murders of.

[SilverNRed]

Maybe we need to have our own suicide bombers to sneak in and blow up scum like this idiot.  Maybe leak that Islam approves of abortion or something, that should mobilize an army of Christian fundamentalists after them.  Or, recruit the Young Republicans, they seem be fanatical enough. 

379857[/snapback]

mmmmm....self-parody.

[Alaska Darin]

I wonder how that assmonkey feels about the indiscriminant killing of a few sick muslim clerics? I have no doubt that there are many who would like to help him share that experience.

 

Did he really say that because the term civilian does not exist in his sick world then the terrorists see no distinction between them and soldiers. I always knew that these people were sick, but this goes even beyond my ability to understand.

Hate propagators like that bastard sit there behind the walls of their mosques and spew this hate speech and little is done to them. I feel that the day is coming when the fight will be taken to them….in their places of peace. Unfortunately many innocent people will be the victims, and the ones who deserve such a fate will no doubt escape. Perhaps to a cave deep in the afghan mountains or perhaps into some other crude spider hole.

 

Now just to make it clear to the moderators who seem to have me in their sights……I am not advocating the death and destruction of these insane men of peace. I am just wondering what they would think about someone or some group who would target them…..like they do they innocent women and children that they routinely support the murders of.

379864[/snapback]

Assmonkey. That funky monkey.

[Reuben Gant]

Assmonkey.  That funky monkey.

379869[/snapback]

By the Beastiality Boys?

[Rich in Ohio]

Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works".

 

I feel a bit of a double standard here.  When we do it, its just part of war.  When they do it, its an outrage.

379789[/snapback]

 

 

Bluefire are you kidding me??????? You really cannot see the difference between the two? Let me help you !!!

 

1) Civilians in a non war torn country - otherwise known as innocent people going about thier own little lives.

 

2) Civilians in a war torn country - That is being attacked not by soldiers but by sick, inhuman lower then ass scum people who for the most part are not even from thier country.

 

Now that we have the two different forms of civilians defined please take note that the civilians in catagory 2) have recntly been liberated and as soon as enough ammunition and other ordinance can be dispursed upon the aformentioned sub-humans then the problem will go away. In the mean time they understand the nature of thier existance. They happened to live under the boot of one of the owrst tirants in history...and now they are free. There is a cost to this freedom just like there was for our country a few hundred years ago.

 

Now the other civilians in catagory 1) they are truely innocent and they are guilty of nothing more then simply getting out of bed in the morning, showering, putting on thier clothes and hittinf the subways abd busses as they head off for work. Nowhere in thier mindset did they expect that they would have to put on thier kevlar vests and don thier chemical masks as part of that daily INNOCENT ritual.

 

The fact that you see no difference between the two...makes you simply to ignorant to converse with. There really is no other way to put it. You have to be able to see the difference if you have even one sliver of decency in you. I for one have my doubts about weather you do...or not.

[Rich in Ohio]

You sort of miss the point, bubba.

379792[/snapback]

 

You are way too kind to him.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Hell no.

Interesting.  My understanding, as you correctly stated, was the one that had widespread acceptance throughout the Muslim world, I did not realize there was a significant difference between the two interpretations.  I shall google.

379850[/snapback]

 

Note, though, that I didn't say it doesn't have widespread acceptance, I said I wasn't willing to assume it did. Based on my personal experience (namely, more than a little with Muslims, albiet none with avowed Wahabbists), not one Muslim that I know advocates that specific interpretation of Islamic Law.

 

And looking at history, too...your best known (and hence presumably most active and supported) intra- and international Islamic terrorist groups weren't religiously motivated - they were either leftist or Arab nationalist organizations. The religion of Islam as a primary motivation for terrorism, as far as I can tell, first started in 1979 with the Iranian and Pakistani messes (Pakistani mobs sacked the American Embassy in Pakinstan in 1979 - apparently a little-known fact overshadowed by the Iranian hostage crisis), and only started to gain speed when the fall of the Soviet Union ultimately marginalized the leftist organizations and left a power vacuum for the fundamntalist organizations (i.e. al Qaeda) to fill. So why SHOULD al-Siba'i's interpretation be thought of as widely held, given that until relatively recently it wasn't even used as a justification?

 

Just my opinion (and analysis)...I could be wrong. But even if I am, I'm not as wrong as Rich.

[Alaska Darin]

Just my opinion (and analysis)...I could be wrong.  But even if I am, I'm not as wrong as Rich. 

379958[/snapback]

Which is all the proof I need to prove my thesis: "Breathing through your nose makes you smarter."

[Reuben Gant]

Note, though, that I didn't say it doesn't have widespread acceptance, I said I wasn't willing to assume it did.  Based on my personal experience (namely, more than a little with Muslims, albiet none with avowed Wahabbists), not one Muslim that I know advocates that specific interpretation of Islamic Law.

 

 

379958[/snapback]

I would agree, but I was told by a Muslim that does not sympathize

with acts of terror this little gem. I paraphrase:

 

"Even if one does not agree with them, there is a type of reasoning

that is relentlessly logical.

 

Your Country has tried to kill Saddam Hussien and Quaddafi because they

are the sovereigns in those countries. But in a democracy the people

are sovereign. Therefore it is as just to kill people in a democracy

as it is for you to remove the soveriegn of a tyranny. "

 

Of course he did not agree with this, but I found the logic a bit haunting.

 

He worked for a Malaysian newspaper.

[Chilly]

Bluefire are you kidding me??????? You really cannot see the difference between the two? Let me help you !!!

 

1) Civilians in a non war torn country  - otherwise known as innocent people going about thier own little lives.

 

2) Civilians in a war torn country - That is being attacked not by soldiers but by sick, inhuman lower then ass scum people who for the most part are not even from thier country.

 

Now that we have the two different forms of civilians defined please take note that the civilians in catagory 2) have recntly been liberated and as soon as enough ammunition and other ordinance can be dispursed upon the aformentioned sub-humans then the problem will go away. In the mean time they understand the nature of thier existance. They happened to live under the boot of one of the owrst tirants in history...and now they are free. There is a cost to this freedom just like there was for our country a few hundred years ago.

 

Now the other civilians in catagory 1) they are truely innocent and they are guilty of nothing more then simply getting out of bed in the morning, showering, putting on thier clothes and hittinf the subways abd busses as they head off for work. Nowhere in thier mindset did they expect that they would have to put on thier kevlar vests and don thier chemical masks as part of that daily INNOCENT ritual.

 

The fact that you see no difference between the two...makes you simply to ignorant to converse with. There really is no other way to put it. You have to be able to see the difference if you have even one sliver of decency in you. I for one have my doubts about weather you do...or not.

379893[/snapback]

 

 

You are way too kind to him.

379936[/snapback]

 

 

Try reading the whole thread before jumping to conclusions.

 

Or were your hot pockets ready?

[Rich in Ohio]

 

Try reading the whole thread before jumping to conclusions.

 

Or were your hot pockets ready?

379973[/snapback]

 

 

I am wearing only underware today....they do not have pockets.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Of course he did not agree with this, but I found the logic a bit haunting.

 

379967[/snapback]

 

Like any properly constructed system of reasoning, it's logical and consistent if you accept the a priori assumptions underpinning it. Given the a priori assumptions al-Siba'i starts out with (which basically amount to "This is the Word of Allah and the Truth, whereas this is not"), his statements are valuably informative and well-reasoned.

 

And don't even begin to argue with me, Rich. You wouldn't know a fact from an a priori assumption if it walked up and bit you in your flatulent ass.

[SilverNRed]

And don't even begin to argue with me, Rich.  You wouldn't know a fact from an a priori assumption if it walked up and bit you in your flatulent ass.

379983[/snapback]

That is so close to going in my sig in place of the "Retatta" reset from a couple weeks ago.

[Rich in Ohio]

Like any properly constructed system of reasoning, it's logical and consistent if you accept the a priori assumptions underpinning it.  Given the a priori assumptions al-Siba'i starts out with (which basically amount to "This is the Word of Allah and the Truth, whereas this is not"), his statements are valuably informative and well-reasoned.

 

And don't even begin to argue with me, Rich.  You wouldn't know a fact from an a priori assumption if it walked up and bit you in your flatulent ass.

379983[/snapback]

 

 

hey assmonkey, my ass is no longer filled with flatulence. It has been healed........all praise ala.

 

anyway, why would I even consider argueing with someone as closed minded and self rightious as you? That would be silly. Unless of course I brought my catchers mitt with me to be sure to capture all the crap that you are throwing around these days.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

hey assmonkey, my ass is no longer filled with flatulence. It has been healed........all praise ala.

 

anyway, why would I even consider argueing with someone as closed minded and self rightious as you? That would be silly. Unless of course I brought my catchers mitt with me to be sure to capture all the crap that you are throwing around these days.

380053[/snapback]

 

Too bad you're serious. You'd be hilarious if you were just trolling.

[Rich in Ohio]

Too bad you're serious.  You'd be hilarious if you were just trolling. 

380274[/snapback]

 

I was trolling for some Walleye last week. But I do not know what that has to do with this.

 

BTW, I a always serious. DCTom told me that I was not funny and that I should not try to be. He was so wish and awe inspiring that I have heeded his advice since that fateful day.

 

Now, I only bring seriousness to the discussion. That is why the losers on the left dislike me so much. They cannot handle the truth. It is a painful concept to them. It is a reality which they cannot accustom themselves to. It is a rhelm where they know not how to tread.

[Chilly]

!@#$ man, its Allah.

[Reuben Gant]

That is why the losers on the left dislike me so much. They cannot handle the truth. It is a painful concept to them. It is a reality which they cannot accustom themselves to. It is a rhelm where they know not how to tread.

380388[/snapback]

 

I don't dislike you Rich, but please give fair warning when

the intellectual jaugernaut starts to roll, it is only fair to

spare us lefties the pain.

[philburger1]

Whats interesting is that I know people who are outraged at this Scholar's assertion that killing civilians is OK, but when you ask them about Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq, they say "its war damnit thats the way it works".

 

I feel a bit of a double standard here.  When we do it, its just part of war.  When they do it, its an outrage.

379789[/snapback]

 

 

If the US just wanted to kill civilians, they could carpet bomb Iraq and make it the world's biggest parking lot. Instead, we have our soliders tip toeing around mosques (that are launching mortar attacks from inside) so they don't offend anybody.

 

Meanwhile Mohhamend Alkunar Aku walks in and blows them up: " suicide bomb tore through a mosque in southern Afghanistan during the funeral Wednesday of a moderate Muslim cleric, killing at least 20 people including the Kabul police chief, and the local governor said an Arab al-Qaida militant was responsible.

 

At least 42 people were wounded."

[Rich in Ohio]

!@#$ man, its Allah.

380402[/snapback]

 

 

allah.....ala........ala cart.........awwwwwlllaaaaaaa

 

who the hell cares? what the hell is the difference? I know how its spelled...just like ruffeling the feathers of the likes of you.

[Rich in Ohio]

I don't dislike you Rich, but please give fair warning when

the intellectual jaugernaut starts to roll, it is only fair to

spare us lefties the pain.

380465[/snapback]

 

 

I don't dislike you either Rueben. I have to admit that I expected more out of you considering how highly we drafted you, but I appreciated the effort that you gave while you played.

 

As for being a lefty....well after all we are only human and I am sure that in time you will come around. Hang in there.

[Reuben Gant]

I don't dislike you either Rueben. I have to admit that I expected more out of you considering how highly we drafted you, but I appreciated the effort that you gave while you played.

380574[/snapback]

I was under-utilized. They never let Fergy put the ball in my hands.

[Rich in Ohio]

I was under-utilized. They never let Fergy put the ball in my hands. 

380600[/snapback]

 

God rest Joe Fergusons soul.

 

Underutilized huh???

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

God rest Joe Fergusons soul.

380931[/snapback]

 

Fergy's dead?

 

[blzrul]

Bluefire are you kidding me??????? You really cannot see the difference between the two? Let me help you !!!

 

1) Civilians in a non war torn country  - otherwise known as innocent people going about thier own little lives.

 

2) Civilians in a war torn country - That is being attacked not by soldiers but by sick, inhuman lower then ass scum people who for the most part are not even from thier country.

 

Now that we have the two different forms of civilians defined please take note that the civilians in catagory 2) have recntly been liberated and as soon as enough ammunition and other ordinance can be dispursed upon the aformentioned sub-humans then the problem will go away. In the mean time they understand the nature of thier existance. They happened to live under the boot of one of the owrst tirants in history...and now they are free. There is a cost to this freedom just like there was for our country a few hundred years ago.

 

Now the other civilians in catagory 1) they are truely innocent and they are guilty of nothing more then simply getting out of bed in the morning, showering, putting on thier clothes and hittinf the subways abd busses as they head off for work. Nowhere in thier mindset did they expect that they would have to put on thier kevlar vests and don thier chemical masks as part of that daily INNOCENT ritual.

 

The fact that you see no difference between the two...makes you simply to ignorant to converse with. There really is no other way to put it. You have to be able to see the difference if you have even one sliver of decency in you. I for one have my doubts about weather you do...or not.

379893[/snapback]

1) Iraq was, at the time we invaded, not a recently war-torn country. Their latest war ended in 1991.

2) To the Iraqis, we are just what you described.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: OUR "terror victirms" are THEIR "collateral damage". They don't kill people for the thrill of killing them. They kill them to bring down our government. Well shoot, that's just what we do. So OUR "collateral damage" is THEIR "victims of American aggression".

 

No killing is good. It's a very last resort, one of self-defense - in order to come close to being justified. No-one's hands are clean in this one.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  OUR "terror victirms" are THEIR "collateral damage".  They don't kill people for the thrill of killing them.  They kill them to bring down our government.  Well shoot, that's just what we do.  So OUR "collateral damage" is THEIR "victims of American aggression".

381182[/snapback]

 

No, OUR "terror victims" are THEIR "targets". That is the entire point of al Siba'i's statements.

 

Jesus Christ, can't you people read?