They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful...

Like "global Warming"!!!:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: So..... when you have exhausted your argument, you derail the discussion and set everyone off on a wild, unrelated tangent.
Way to go!:thumbsup:

:)

according to the bible, the only one "good" is God.
The only way a person has "goodness" is by the blood of Christ covering his sin, when he puts his faith in him.

We are ALL depraved sinners.
:jerking: And yet again, that is not what we were talking about. I'm sure that you think your replies are brilliant, however, your constant, pathetic attempts to deflect the topics do nothing, but highlight your inability to carry on an intelligent conversation.

Alright back to the topic:

"They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful..."


First off is anyone aware of the info in this article about Americas first war?:

Most Americans don’t realize that the very first foreign military engagement of the United States after gaining our independence was a response to proactive Muslim aggression — the First Barbary War, fought in the Mediterranean Sea. Muslim pirates had been demanding, and receiving, the Jizyah tax from American trade ships in exchange for safe passage, which eventually amounted to 20 percent of U.S. government annual revenues by the year 1800. In 1786, when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s ambassador in London, they asked him by what right the pirates extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Congress: ‘The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Muhammad), that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.’
Upon Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, further ransoms were denied, and a four-year war was eventually launched against Tripoli that ended in U.S. victory, now memorialized in the U.S. Marine Hymn. Ironically, it was Jefferson’s Quran that U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison was recently sworn in on.
The rest of the article can be found at:
http://collegetimes.us/islam-is-not-a-peaceful-religion/

This is sound evidence that Islamic leaders PROMOTE aggression, even if many followers don't pursue that aggression.

Beyond this, Leaders of ANY ideology can legitimately be "peaceful" if they have successfully beaten down and forced their opponents into "submission" (Ironically what "Islam" means), There will be peace because the opponents are not resisting, but have been abused into submission. which happens in all Muslim countries.
And of course they will claim they are peaceful, to get acceptance by the rest of the world.

This describes the Muslim religion exactly. And anyone who will deny it is turning a blind eye to all the abuses in the name of Islam.

I have a hard time taking an article seriously when the next links below it are- world's most extreme bodybuilders and 10 WTF pictures that can make you LOL....

Many ideologies in the world that, by their nature, seek ‘good’ have been perverted to accomplish ‘evil.’ Hitler justified his wars by claiming allegiance with Christianity. The perversions justified by the Catholic Church, likewise, are almost limitless — and interestingly, they have yet to add ‘Mein Kampf’ to their ‘Index of Forbidden Books.’ There are other non-religious, well-meaning ideologies that have less than ideal results, like Communism.

Islam is different from many ‘well-meaning’ religious and social ideologies in that the ideology itself contains oppressive elements — it requires no perverting.

So Catholicism is on the same level as Nazism, which explains why Mein Kampf isn't on the list of Forbidden Books ( I like that little barb) and Communism is on that same level too? Maybe my history is a little rusty but I dont see it. If you take Christianity to the T then it doesn't require perverting either, it's just most Christians nowadays pick and choose what they believe. At their cores I would say that Communism would probably be the most peaceful...

Many Muslims respond to exposures like this by saying that verses have been ‘mistranslated’ Sounds like Christianity....

There are only those that follow the teachings of Islam and those that don’t. Islamic ‘terrorists’ simply choose to follow all such teachings, while most Muslims reject the teachings that they sensibly, and commendably, conclude are oppressive — even though they have trouble condemning Islamic ‘terrorists’ dogmatically. Also sounds like Christianity. If you follow the Bible as strictly as possible, which almost every Christian doesn't, then it leads into similar behavior as the Quran.

So Catholicism is on the same level as Nazism, which explains why Mein Kampf isn't on the list of Forbidden Books ( I like that little barb) and Communism is on that same level too? Maybe my history is a little rusty but I dont see it. If you take Christianity to the T then it doesn't require perverting either, it's just most Christians nowadays pick and choose what they believe. At their cores I would say that Communism would probably be the most peaceful...
Thats laughable gforce957,
this article is pointing out by their past and current actions (abuse of their women, "bloody borders" and the piracy,
which still is going on especially near Somalia today), the non-peaceful, even violent tendencies of Islam,
And the best you can come back with is to say that Christianity is the same,
the only reasons Christians today don't use violence like many Muslims is because they "pick and Choose" what to follow from the bible,
as if the bible commands Christians to be abusive and violent, they just don't obey the bible!

What other joke can you post for us here?:lol:


Also sounds like Christianity. If you follow the Bible as strictly as possible, which almost every Christian doesn't,:lol2::lol: then it leads into similar behavior as the Quran.Yes, we Christians are mean, violent people we just don't choose to act that way!

You're right! the second of the great commandments in the New testament is NOT "love thy neighbor as thyself", rather it's kill those who aren't Christian.

That must be why there are so many Christians going around killing unbelievers now just because they are unbelievers !!!!:lol2::lol2::lol2::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

wow.
Congratulations on ignoring historical context once again.

Prior to 1783, the American ships were under protection of either the Royal Navy or the French Navy as they were either colonists or (signed) allies.
After this date, they were accountable for their own protection.
Ships which bore the Union Jack of Tricolor were still largely safe.
If it was as you suggested that they promote violence then surely all possible Islamic parties involved would've taken part in the war but not all did and that no such peace agreement would've been possible.


Besides, it wasn't the first foreign military engagement.
That would be the Franco-American war in which America took a stance of neutrality in the existing war between France and Great Britain; a stance which angered the French as in essence, the newly formed United States was wrangling out of past debts owed to France and form new alliances when/as it pleased.
That anger caused the French to start attacking American ships.

And why the emphasis on foreign engagement?
Is that so you can conveniently ignore the wars that were going on within the United States as well as the war with the UK that arose later where the United States tried to invade British ruled Canada?

Perhaps if anything can be gleamed from history is that the United States is founded on war, invasion, backing out of agreements and debts and turning their backs on allies if it suits them.

How's the koolaide over there?

wait a minute, you distracted from your poor discussion about the validity of Christianity again.
Darn.

How's the koolaide over there?

They are already dead from drinking it!:shakehead

That must be why there are so many Christians going around killing unbelievers now just because they are unbelievers !!!!:lol2::lol2::lol2::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Also sounds like Christianity. If you follow the Bible as strictly as possible, which almost every Christian doesn't,

lol? :rolleyes:

wait a minute, you distracted from your poor discussion about the validity of Christianity again.
Darn.

:) Well, CL8 has moved this discussion into the Song Title Game as a subtext. Just review the last couple of pages.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=891750&page=246

I think that discussion should be incorporated here, where it belongs. :)

Thats laughable gforce957,
this article is pointing out by their past and current actions (abuse of their women, "bloody borders" and the piracy,
which still is going on especially near Somalia today), the non-peaceful, even violent tendencies of Islam,
And the best you can come back with is to say that Christianity is the same,
the only reasons Christians today don't use violence like many Muslims is because they "pick and Choose" what to follow from the bible,
as if the bible commands Christians to be abusive and violent, they just don't obey the bible!

What other joke can you post for us here?:lol::lol2::lol:Yes, we Christians are mean, violent people we just don't choose to act that way!

You're right! the second of the great commandments in the New testament is NOT "love thy neighbor as thyself", rather it's kill those who aren't Christian.

That must be why there are so many Christians going around killing unbelievers now just because they are unbelievers !!!!:lol2::lol2::lol2::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Not laughable at all Gforce has a very good point, and yours is distorted.

The Christian mayhem, threats and violence were fundamental principles as attributed to Jesus, their chief disciple.

http://www.bandoli.no/whyimmoral1.htm

:) Well, CL8 has moved this discussion into the Song Title Game as a subtext. Just review the last couple of pages.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=891750&page=246

I think that discussion should be incorporated here, where it belongs. :)



Not laughable at all Gforce has a very good point, and yours is distorted.

The Christian mayhem, threats and violence were fundamental principles as attributed to Jesus, their chief disciple.

http://www.bandoli.no/whyimmoral1.htm

You are right, in another way it is pathetic more than laughable because
unbelievers don't comprehend the seriousnes of their distortions of God and his word.:shakehead

Also, rebukes are not the same as violence.
If someone is heading for a steep cliff, are you threatening them by warning them they will be seriously hurt if they keep going?

That site you posted MR is full of lies and distortions about Christ,
obviously by someone who cannot comprehend the wisdom or holiness of God, and has no respect for either.

Lol, who said I was an unbeliever? I just have a much different view of Christianity and other religions than you do.

Instead of just saying that MR's link is full of lies and deceit, how about an actual rebuttal? Hard to engage in a debate when the other side just says you are wrong and that's that.

Back to the subject of this thread; "They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful..." These students may be downplayed as part of the radical 10% of Muslims. :disappoin

Students Linked to al Qaeda (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126045800896585617.html)

Some Americans are believed to have become radicalized via the Internet.

The men, described as defiant, told investigators it was the duty of all Muslims to wage jihad against those who were killing Muslims, Mr. Anwar said.

Back to the subject of this thread; "They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful..." These students may be downplayed as part of the radical 10% of Muslims. :disappoin

Students Linked to al Qaeda (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126045800896585617.html)

As gladhatter said here:



I, for the life of me, can't understand how ANY civilized, sensible person could defend these maggots!!!
:screwy:

That site you posted MR is full of lies and distortions about Christ,
obviously by someone who cannot comprehend the wisdom or holiness of God, and has no respect for either.

I disagree (big surprise) :). That site does the same thing as any bible study lesson, and the same as many Sunday sermons. Distortion and lies apparently are synonomous with biblical interpretation. The difference simply lies with whether you agree with the results. :)

Just because you disagree with the results of that site makes them no less valid than your interpretation.


That site backs up the interpretation with many biblical quotes, and, like many biblical scholars, interprets them to fit a modern world. IMO the logic of the conclusions is reasonable and sound.

Imho, if you disagree with the conclusion, the fault does not lie with that site, it lies with the flawed fairy-tale upon which it is based - the bible. :) Now, of course, many so-called Christian morals are actually beneficial and constructive, therefore, I think that many modern Christians are actually more moral and helpful than the bible is..... and in fact,a literal devotion to the bible hampers modern Christianity more than it helps.

EDIT: That site continues my position, as seen here: http://www.bandoli.no/whyimmoral2.htm

I disagree (big surprise) :). That site does the same thing as any bible study lesson, and the same as many Sunday sermons. Distortion and lies apparently are synonomous with biblical interpretation. The difference simply lies with whether you agree with the results. :)


Maybe I can make my point with a simple sentence that was shown at an investing conference I went to a while back.:cool::

Prosperityisnowhere.

The author of this statement has a message they want to convey,
but the way you read it, it could be taken one of two ways.
First think how do you read it?

Many will see "prosperity is "NOWHERE", giving them a pesimmistic attitude about their income and finances.
The other way people read this is "Prosperity is "NOW HERE".
The intended messeage of the author and the optimistic attitude for income and finances.

The bible is the same way, people can interpret it the way the author intended and get it right,
or the way that was not intended by the author and get it wrong,
which is what the writer of those articles on the sites you posted did, and got it WAY wrong.

Just because you disagree with the results of that site makes them no less valid than your interpretation.
Correct, the fact I disagree with that site has no bearing on how valid that interpretation is.
However, the INTENDED message of the author is what determines if the writer of the articles is right or wrong.

That site backs up the interpretation with many biblical quotes, and, like many biblical scholars, interprets them to fit a modern world. IMO the logic of the conclusions is reasonable and sound. Of course you realize the modern world has ALWAYS been against traditional bible doctrine the way the church and theologins state them, in EVERY generation.

Imho, if you disagree with the conclusion, the fault does not lie with that site, it lies with the flawed fairy-tale upon which it is based - the bible. :) Now, of course, many so-called Christian morals are actually beneficial and constructive, therefore, I think that many modern Christians are actually more moral and helpful than the bible is..... and in fact,a literal devotion to the bible hampers modern Christianity more than it helps.MagicRat, you are doing the same thing GForce957 did.
Esentially you are saying "Christians" are still "Christians" even if they don't follow the the teachings of the book of their own religion.
If Christian doctrine in the Bible commands me to attack and annihilate those who are not Christian,
and I don't follow that command, then I could hardly be called "Christian", certainly not in practice, then why call me a Christian at all?
If you believe in a doctrine you will ACT upon it, otherwise your belief in it is not validated.

EDIT: That site continues my position, as seen here: http://www.bandoli.no/whyimmoral2.htm

Al Qaeda-linked terror suspect sets off explosives on Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/12/25/2009-12-25_passenger_sets_off_firecrackers_aboard_detroit_ bound_delta_plane.html)

Al Qaeda-linked terror suspect sets off explosives on Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/12/25/2009-12-25_passenger_sets_off_firecrackers_aboard_detroit_ bound_delta_plane.html)


It's truely only the grace of God, giving ordinary citizens like the passenger on flight 253, courage to stand up to these terrorists, that we haven't had another successful terrorist attack like 911.

Every American must agree these type of terrorists need to be subdued and taken out for the murderous criminals they really are.

If a Christian does not follow god they're still a Christian.

But along the same lines, it means nothing to be a believer in god if you do not follow the word, hell Satan is a devout believer in god.

If a Christian does not follow god they're still a Christian.

But along the same lines, it means nothing to be a believer in god if you do not follow the word, hell Satan is a devout believer in god.

True,
as in the book of James, you show your faith by your works.
Otherwise your faith is not saving faith if you claim to believe but don't obey the commands of the God you say you have faith in.

True,
as in the book of James, you show your faith by your works.
Otherwise your faith is not saving faith if you claim to believe but don't obey the commands of the God you say you have faith in.

Yea, tis kinda funny.

I'm kinda up in the air on 'God' or in an almighty being that has power over everything, but I follow the teachings of Jesus and his followers (as a kinda guideline to help me through) seems to work pretty well for me :)

Al Qaeda-linked terror suspect sets off explosives on Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/12/25/2009-12-25_passenger_sets_off_firecrackers_aboard_detroit_ bound_delta_plane.html)
peaceful bastard :rolleyes:

The American Muslim community, is now saying we should basically accept this incident as yet another isolated case of a "mentally deranged" person, just as they routinely condemn many attacks on civilians done in the name of their faith. :sly:

Let’s not forget that there are more than a billion Muslims around the world, most of who have engaged in no more (or less) violent activity than members of any other faith.

Yet, there is that small fraction of Muslims who take another, horrible meaning from their sacred texts and act upon it. We will try to be conservative in our estimates and assume that only one-tenth of one percent of Muslims in the world hold to this violent ideology, now that's only one million Islamic terrorist looking for an opportunity to commit jihad! :eek7:


Terrorism Suspect Had Privileged Upbringing (http://www.sphere.com/nc/article/bomb-suspect-from-elite-family-schools/19295067?ncid=webmaildl1)


http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/6/4/643122/1262025938951.JPEG

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is accused of trying to detonate an explosive device aboard a jet as it approached Detroit on Christmas. (saharareporters.com)


LAGOS, Nigeria (Dec. 27) -- As a member of an uppercrust Nigerian family, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab received the best schooling, from the elite British International School in West Africa to the vaunted University College London.

But the education he wanted was of a different sort: Nigerian officials say his interest in extremist Islam prompted his father to warn U.S. authorities. As Abdulmutallab was being escorted in handcuffs off the Detroit-bound airliner he attempted to blow up on Christmas Day, he told U.S. officials that he had sought an extremist education at an Islamist hotbed in Yemen.

It's truely only the grace of God, giving ordinary citizens like the passenger on flight 253, courage to stand up to these terrorists, that we haven't had another successful terrorist attack like 911.

Every American must agree these type of terrorists need to be subdued and taken out for the murderous criminals they really are.
God had nothing to do with it. God is either a flawed sadist to create/allow such religious conflict, (often in his name :shakehead) or simply doesn't exist. :)

The full credit goes to some passengers, crew and the incompetency of the bomb-maker.

Unfortunately, even though the plane did not crash, the bomber has already won, so to speak. His actions precipitated new rules and procedures which has produced delays, annoyance, frustration and increased expenses for airlines, security agencies and thousands of travellers, making it another blow to Western society.

[CENTER][LEFT]
The American Muslim community, is now saying we should basically accept this incident as yet another isolated case of a "mentally deranged" person, just as they routinely condemn many attacks on civilians done in the name of their faith. :sly:

Let’s not forget that there are more than a billion Muslims around the world, most of who have engaged in no more (or less) violent activity than members of any other faith.


A good friend of mine who is Muslim hates seeing events like this. Each one only serves to reinforce anti-Muslim opinions and actions. It does not help their lives, their religion and offends their sensibilities. IMO moderate Islam around the world needs to do more to eliminate the causes of such radicalization.

Here is a great article (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/26/robert-fulford-the-west-has-work-to-do.aspx) on the challange at hand:


Robert Fulford: The West has work to do
Posted: December 26, 2009, 10:30 AM by NP Editor
Robert Fulford

Of all the lessons learned in this painful decade, the most terrifying by far is that the West faces a long-term challenge from radical Islam. Crucial ideas about the future of democracy will increasingly focus on the passionate, articulate jihadist movement that is now making war on the West and everything the West cherishes.

There’s small comfort to be found in the fact that most Muslims deplore violence. Even if Islamists and their sympathizers are only a tiny minority, the vehemence and dedication of their movement can exert great influence in many countries. One Islamist dream, to begin by introducing shariah law, is not crazy. There are politicians who think of it as an interesting compromise.

What should worry us, at this stage, is our response to Islamists. Are we strong enough to fight them off? They assume we are not. They consider us lazy, decadent and complacent — and they have plenty of evidence to support their argument.

Above all, we lack self-confidence. Since the success of Martin Luther in the sixteenth century, the West has revered self-criticism. We all know that the states in North and South America established themselves by violence and that Europe grew rich through its colonies. In the universities the young learn one central belief: We are guilty! In comparing ourselves with other forms of society, our first self-hating instinct is to adopt a perverse moral disarmament.

We need a bracing new leadership, indifferent to popularity and fashion, willing to emphasize the virtues of the West in education, business and the media as well as government. Multiculturalism has taught us the outlandish belief that no culture is better than another.

We badly need to unlearn that lesson, which no one else believes or ever has. We must also recall that every generation has to re-assert the value of free speech. Otherwise (history teaches) it dies.

The 1989 fatwa that sentenced Salman Rushdie to death for a novel looks in retrospect like a declaration of war, a message sent by the 10-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran and its leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini: We despise freedom of speech and we will violate it on your own ground. That was outrageous but some in the West, offering a perverse version of what they considered tolerance, thought that perhaps anti-Rushdie hatred was justified, given that he had violated Islamic principles. Some journalists argued that he mainly wanted to create a sensation. In Canada the CBC put on the air Muslim professors who defended Khomeini’s decision. Rushdie himself was given state protection in Britain but publishers delayed or cancelled paperback editions out of fear. Violent riots in Muslim countries proved that Islamic opinion, when sufficiently outraged, could be formidable.

In 2005, when an obscure Danish cartoonist made satirical drawings of Mohammed, riots were more widespread and more frightening. In the West governments tried to distance themselves from the cartoonist and many publishers avoided reproducing the drawings. A little of the principle of free speech was chipped away. It was another victory for Khomeini’s way of thinking.

In Europe, opposition to the Muslim presence currently expresses itself in symbolic terms, not always in ways that express traditional European values. In November the Swiss voted to ban the construction of minarets. Many Muslim-dominated countries persecute Christians but making laws on religious architecture has not previously been a part of Swiss democracy.

The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose country has far more Muslims than any other in Europe (between five and six million) feels he must address the problem with ambiguous delicacy. This month he once more came down on both sides. He promised to maintain the right of “my Muslim countrymen” to practice their religion but warned that Muslims must avoid “ostentation or provocation.” Sarkozy has said “the burqa has no place in France,” but the French constitution probably wouldn’t permit him to outlaw it. At the moment he has his Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, holding public meetings on French values, clearly in the hope of winning non-Muslim votes in the March regional elections.

In 1940, when Britain and the Dominions stood alone against Nazi Germany, the National Film Board in Ottawa devoted itself to producing anti-Nazi propaganda. The first director of the NFB, John Grierson, tried to make clear how important their work was. At that time Oswald Spengler’s best-selling treatise, Decline of the West, was being discussed. Grierson said to his colleagues, “Decline of the West? Do you believe that? If you do, you’re wasting your time here, because we’ve work to do.”

True story....

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Some more "pronouncments" from Emo!
Subject: Emo, Emo and More Emo!

[In case you don't know Emo, here, by way of introduction, are a few of his
pronouncements... -psl]

Forwarded-by: bostic@vangogh.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)

Emo Phillips was pulled over in Massachusetts for reckless driving. When
brought before the judge, Emo was asked if he knew what the punishment for
drunk driving in that state was. His reply: "I don't know, reelection to
the Senate?"

...and always remember the last words of my grandfather, who said "A truck!"
-- Emo Phillips

I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to
mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh,
yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very
well."
-- Emo Phillips

The toughest time... in anyone's life... is when you have to kill a loved
one just because they're the devil.
-- Emo Phillips

I ran three miles today, finally I said "Lady, take your purse."
-- Emo Phillips

I'm a great lover, I'll bet.
-- Emo Phillips

People come up to me and say, "Emo, do people really come up to you?"
-- Emo Phillips

People come up to me and they're worried... that I'll reproduce.
-- Emo Phillips

Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather

straps.
-- Emo Phillips

I was at a bar nursing a beer. My nipple was getting quite soggy.
-- Emo Phillips

I was walking down the street, something caught my eye... and dragged
it fifteen feet.
-- Emo Phillips

I went into Gus's artificial organ and taco stand. I said "Give me a
bladder por favor." The guy said "Is that to go?" I said, "Well, what
else would I want it for?"
-- Emo Phillips

You know, a lot of girls go out with me just to further their careers...
damn anthropologists.
-- Emo Phillips

I was in a bar the other night, hopping from barstool to barstool, trying
to get lucky -- but there wasn't any gum under any of them.
-- Emo Phillips

The other day a woman came up to me and said, "Didn't I see you on
television?" I said, "I don't know. You can't see out the other way."
-- Emo Phillips

I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little children jump
up and down and run around yelling and screaming... They don't know I'm only
using blanks.
-- Emo Phillips

I discovered my wife in bed with another man, and I was crushed.
So I said, "Get off me, you two!"
-- Emo Phillips

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the
edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well... are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God
or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of God!" I said,
"Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed
Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I
said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of
1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said,
"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die,
heretic scum", and pushed him off.
-- Emo Phillips

At my lemonade stand I used to give the first glass away free and charge
five dollars for the second glass. The refill contained the antidote.
-- Emo Phillips

I'm from Downers Grove, Illinois. We had a blackout there the other day,
but fortunately the police made him get back into his car before he got
too far.
-- Emo Phillips

The IRS sent back my tax return saying I owed $800. I said "If you'll
notice, I sent a paper clip with my return. Given what you've been paying
for things lately, that should more than make up the difference."
-- Emo Phillips

A friend of mine gave me a Philip Glass record. I listened to it for five
hours before I realized it had a scratch on it.
-- Emo Phillips

You know what I hate? Indian givers... no, I take that back.
-- Emo Phillips

Some more "pronouncments" from Emo!

LOL at the epic win :rofl:

Yeah....they ARE the peaceful ones! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8450713.stm) The bastards!
There have been more attacks on churches in Malaysia, in a growing dispute over the use of the word Allah by non-Muslims.

The police say petrol bombs were thrown at a church and a convent school in the northern state of Perak, and at a church on the island of Sarawak.

Another church in the south of the country was daubed with black paint.

The attacks come days after four churches near the capital, Kuala Lumpur, were hit by petrol bombs.

The American Muslim community, is now saying we should basically accept this incident as yet another isolated case of a "mentally deranged" person, just as they routinely condemn many attacks on civilians done in the name of their faith.

Hmmm....well you certainly don't see mentally deranged Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Protestants, Lutherans or Atheists trying to blow up planes, themselves, or bunches of women and children in a marketplace.

Hmmm....well you certainly don't see mentally deranged Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Protestants, Lutherans or Atheists trying to blow up planes, themselves, or bunches of women and children in a marketplace.[/LEFT]
I understand your point, but just to clarify, plenty of these people perform violent acts daily. It's the motivation that is different. Motivation for commiting violence is complex, so, imo the only violence that is of concern here are those that exist to further radical religious and cultural goals at the expense of others.

As an example, the Tamil people of Sri Lanka are mostly Hindu or Catholic. Yet they carried on a lengthy, violent civil war, complete with terrorism, suicide bombings etc directed at the Sri Lankan people, which killed about 80,000 people. So why do we condemn all Muslims for terrorism, but not the Tamils? Imho, it's because the Tamil terrorism was not directed at the West, so western nations mostly don't care. <cough-double standard-cough> :)



Now, sane Muslims are usually very decent people, like this guy:
From this site (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100113/world/us_samaritan_cabbie)

NYC cabbie follows mother's advice to be honest, returns over $21,000 lost by tourist

Wed Jan 13, 1:27 AM

By Virginia Byrne, The Associated Press
NEW YORK - A Bangladeshi taxi driver in New York City said he returned a lost purse containing more than $21,000 in cash and expensive jewelry because his mother always advised him to be honest.

"I'm broke, but I'm honest," 28-year-old Mohammad "Mukal" Asadujjaman said Tuesday.

Felicia Lettieri, of Pompeii, Italy, and six relatives had taken two cabs from midtown Manhattan to Penn Station on Christmas Eve. The 72-year-old Lettieri left her purse behind, with more than $21,000 of the group's travelling money, jewelry worth thousands more, and some of their passports.

Police advised the tourists they had little chance of recovering the lost goods.

Felicia Lettieri returned to Pompeii and could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday. Her sister, Francesca Lettieri, 79, of Long Island, told Newsday that the honest driver had saved her family's vacation, and said "We really love what he did."

The driver, a native of Bangladesh, saw the rolls of euros when he opened the bag to look for an address, but didn't even count the money. "My mother is my inspiration," the soft-spoken cabbie said. "She always said to be honest and work hard."

The driver called a friend with a car and drove some 50 miles (80 kilometres) to a Long Island address in the purse. No one was home, so Asadujjaman left his cellphone number and a note. His phone rang a short time later and he drove back to return the bag.

"They were so, so, so happy," Asadujjaman beamed.

The immigrant is a full-time student at a city college near his apartment in Jamaica, Queens. He began driving a cab a few days a week about three months ago, after his hours were cut back at a former factory job.

Asked if he was tempted to keep the cash, Asadujjaman acknowledged the money would have allowed him more time to study, "but my heart said this is not good." He also turned down a reward, saying he could not accept it as an observant Muslim.

"I'm needy, but I'm not greedy," said Asadujjaman. "It's better to be honest.

Hmmm....well you certainly don't see mentally deranged Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Protestants, Lutherans or Atheists trying to blow up planes, themselves, or bunches of women and children in a marketplace.[/left]

I hate to say it, but Timothy McVeigh was a practicing Roman Catholic.

McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) and regularly attended daily Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29) at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

I hate to say it, but Timothy McVeigh was a practicing Roman Catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh


Hmm...well your own quote of McVeigh`s comment:

McVeigh professed his belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic) and regularly attended daily Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28liturgy%29) at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York.


Sorry, but some critical thinking is missing here. Your own quote of Mr. McVeigh`s statement indicates he was not, in fact, a practicing Catholic. What one does as an adult is NOT the same as what you are raised with. Sorry CL8, but I cannot agree with you. He said himself that he had lost touch with it and never picked it up. How can you say he`s a practicing Catholic...


Rat as usual you are correct. However I must say that the rebels in Sri Lanka directed their terrorism inward, for one goal. If they had directed their terrorism OUTward, say at India or any other country that was not involved in the situation, then they would have had more international coverage.

Terrorism IMO is in large part a war fought on nontraditional terms. The direction of terrorism against the west is immaterial; if you involve others outside of the conflict of which you are involved, then you are in the wrong. For example, setting off a bomb in Cairo to make a point about your plight in Iran is external terrorism. Setting off a bomb in Iran to fight the fight you are involved with in Iran is, to me a different thing entirely. The first is simply terrorism for it`s own sake and involving others that are not in your fight. The second is an act of war against the entity you are fighting against. This is a distinction that many people are unable to make.

And before anyone gets all crazy (waving my hands in circles like a crazy person) yes, I`m aware that the terrorists attacking the west view the west as the enemy in a larger scale war.

I still believe that if the Middle East had been completely left alone by the west, that they would be killing each other off - as they have been for thousands of years.

Does ETA count as a mainly Catholic group that regulary carries out acts of terrorism?

This is an area that highlights a difference being Muslim and being Christian.
Those born into a Muslim culture/society by and large stay in that culture/society.
That is to say a person born Muslim will by and large remain muslim.
However, those born into a Christian culture/society are not neccesarily Christian.

Such a bad way of putting it....

What I mean is, there is a large difference in numbers between those that are nominally Muslim in a Muslim country and those that are nominally Christian in a Christian one.
Take a person from an Islamic country like Iraq and chances are, he's a practicing Muslim.
Take a person from a mainly Christian country and it's more than likely that they are not a practicing Christian.

Does that make any sense?

Does ETA count as a mainly Catholic group that regulary carries out acts of terrorism?

This is an area that highlights a difference being Muslim and being Christian.
Those born into a Muslim culture/society by and large stay in that culture/society.
That is to say a person born Muslim will by and large remain muslim.
However, those born into a Christian culture/society are not neccesarily Christian.

Such a bad way of putting it....

What I mean is, there is a large difference in numbers between those that are nominally Muslim in a Muslim country and those that are nominally Christian in a Christian one.
Take a person from an Islamic country like Iraq and chances are, he's a practicing Muslim.
Take a person from a mainly Christian country and it's more than likely that they are not a practicing Christian.

Does that make any sense?

I believe the difference is in "Christian" countries there is freedom of religion.
In Muslim countries there is not freedom of religion with rarely, if ever, an exception.

Hmm...well your own quote of McVeigh`s comment:

Sorry, but some critical thinking is missing here. Your own quote of Mr. McVeigh`s statement indicates he was not, in fact, a practicing Catholic. What one does as an adult is NOT the same as what you are raised with. Sorry CL8, but I cannot agree with you. He said himself that he had lost touch with it and never picked it up. How can you say he`s a practicing Catholic...

I'm glad you picked up on that point about McVeigh Fred.
Many unbelievers would go along with McVeigh as being a practicing Catholic because of that quote.
I also agree just because he went to church as a kid doesn't mean did as an adult, or that he believed that faith as an adult.

I believe the difference is in "Christian" countries there is freedom of religion.
In Muslim countries there is not freedom of religion with rarely, if ever, an exception.
I would expand on this a bit by saying that many Christian countries have strong secular traditions, such as separation of church and state, a secular legal system etc, which is lacking in some Muslim nations. Therefore, may people can live as atheists without difficulty.

But I do take exception to the idea that predominantly Muslim nations have no freedom of religion. This is untrue. Some of the largest Muslim populations live in nations with strong secular traditions, such as a secular government, legal system and freedom of religion.
Such nations include Indonesia, Turkey and India; and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

I would expand on this a bit by saying that many Christian countries have strong secular traditions, such as separation of church and state, a secular legal system etc, which is lacking in some Muslim nations. Therefore, may people can live as atheists without difficulty.

But I do take exception to the idea that predominantly Muslim nations have no freedom of religion. This is untrue. Some of the largest Muslim populations live in nations with strong secular traditions, such as a secular government, legal system and freedom of religion.
Such nations include Indonesia, Turkey and India; and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Hmm,
according to these sites, Turkey may "officially" have freedom of religion, but the persecution against certain religions makes it not very free or tolerable.

India is more dominantly hindu than Muslim

And Indonesia has strong roots in hindu and budhism, only recently has the Muslim faith grown there, the government isn't officially Muslim.

http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=670&pdf=Y

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Religion_in_Indonesia

http://adaniel.tripod.com/religions.htm

Hmm,
according to these sites, Turkey may "officially" have freedom of religion, but the persecution against certain religions makes it not very free or tolerable.

India is more dominantly hindu than Muslim

And Indonesia has strong roots in hindu and budhism, only recently has the Muslim faith grown there, the government isn't officially Muslim.

http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=670&pdf=Y

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Religion_in_Indonesia

http://adaniel.tripod.com/religions.htm
Hundreds of millions of Muslims live in democratic societies where freedom of religion is entrenched.

Turkey's government and legislative tradition is secular and does not want anything to do with adopting Islam as an official religion. (Even your link indicates Islamic religions as well as others face restrictions in Turkey). But there are Islamic parties who want this...... just as there are Christian groups wanting the US to be officially labelled a Christian nation.

India has 160 million Muslims! This is hardly an insignificant number. And India is well - known as the world's largest democracy.

And Indonesia is the worlds most populous Muslim nation. Their political institutions and culture means that their versions of Islam are mostly moderate and inclusive of other religions.

So, clearly, Islam is NOT the problem here. The problem is specifically totalitarian regimes such as Iran and judicially primitive nations, such as Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Their problems are not Islamic by nature, but are based in their oppressive culture.

Finally, these regimes not only oppress Christians. They oppress members of other religions as well as women and homosexuals

So, clearly, Islam is NOT the problem here. The problem is specifically totalitarian regimes such as Iran and judicially primitive nations, such as Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Their problems are not Islamic by nature, but are based in their oppressive culture.

Finally, these regimes not only oppress Christians. They oppress members of other religions as well as women and homosexuals

MagicRat, you are trying to break down a concrete wall with you bare hands.

It's not going to happen.

You are deliberately ignoring the grave truth about Islamic belief and leadership.

Your are also trying to say certain nations have Islamic leadership when they do not.

Also it doesn't matter how many Muslims are in a nation, it's what belief system do the leaders rule by that is at issue here.:rolleyes:

MagicRat, you are trying to break down a concrete wall with you bare hands.

It's not going to happen.

You are deliberately ignoring the grave truth about Islamic belief and leadership.

Your are also trying to say certain nations have Islamic leadership when they do not.

Also it doesn't matter how many Muslims are in a nation, it's what belief system do the leaders rule by that is at issue here.:rolleyes:
That's irrelevant to my point.

I am discussing national leadership, not Islamic leadership. The nations with the largest Muslim populations , as I listed, are secular. This means their politics and political leadership is not islamic.
Therefore, moderate Islam is compatible with nations which separate religion and state, as proven by the hundreds of millions of Muslims that happily live in such places.


You are letting your feelings about a few totalitarian Islamic states blind you to the fact that not all Muslims are the same. Most are moderate. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

That's irrelevant to my point.

I am discussing national leadership, not Islamic leadership. The nations with the largest Muslim populations , as I listed, are secular. This means their politics and political leadership is not islamic.
Therefore, moderate Islam is compatible with nations which separate religion and state, as proven by the hundreds of millions of Muslims that happily live in such places.


You are letting your feelings about a few totalitarian Islamic states blind you to the fact that not all Muslims are the same. Most are moderate. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Ok, so MR, you said in this statement that, these three nations, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan Have "oppresive culture" but are not Islamic.


So, clearly, Islam is NOT the problem here. The problem is specifically totalitarian regimes such as Iran and judicially primitive nations, such as Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Their problems are not Islamic by nature, but are based in their oppressive culture.The three links below refute that.
All three nations have their official religion as Islam, and are ruled by Islamic law.
And you admit they are three of the most totalitarian and oppressive nations.

On the other hand as you and I pointed out, those other nations (Turkey, Indonesia and India) are NOT officially Muslim nations.
And they give MORE freedom of religion to their citizens than the other three which ARE officially Muslim!


I agree, just because someone practices the Muslim faith doesn't make them a terrorist or a murderer.

But given the evidence I think you will agree the religion of Islam is a poison in the minds and hearts of those who take it seriously,
leading many of them to oppress, kill and take freedom away from others.

But just like cigarette smoke is poison,
not ALL smokers die from it, so not all Muslims become oppresive terrorists from the poison of the Islamic doctrine.:smile:



http://hormuz.robertstrausscenter.org/religion

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/525348/Saudi-Arabia

http://www.espac.org/sudan_region/religion_in_sudan.asp

Ok, so MR, you said in this statement that, these three nations, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan Have "oppresive culture" but are not Islamic.


The three links below refute that.
All three nations have their official religion as Islam, and are ruled by Islamic law.
And you admit they are three of the most totalitarian and oppressive nations.

On the other hand as you and I pointed out, those other nations (Turkey, Indonesia and India) are NOT officially Muslim nations.
And they give MORE freedom of religion to their citizens than the other three which ARE officially Muslim!


I agree, just because someone practices the Muslim faith doesn't make them a terrorist or a murderer.

But given the evidence I think you will agree the religion of Islam is a poison in the minds and hearts of those who take it seriously,
leading many of them to oppress, kill and take freedom away from others.

CL8, you have just agreed with me :) Thank you!!!!!!!

The vast majority of Muslims believe they are good people and try to behave in what they believe is a reasonable fashion, just as people everywhere do.
IMO such people are good becase of who they are, not because of their religion. Good Muslims would be good Christians if they were raised with Christian people.

Islam, like Communism, has been shown to be a very poor basis for societies to administer themselves. Communism, regardless of the idyllic, egalitarian principles, has universally been adopted by despotic regimes, just as Islam has.
But these societies became despotic not because of Islam, or Communism, but because of complex historical and cultural issues.

For this reason, Islam, like ANY religion, is a terrible basis to run a society, because it is subject interpretation and manipulation. It can be used to support a whole range of barbaric and restrictive practices. But Islam does not always lead to this. Millions of Muslims live in relatively free societies quite happily.

So, what makes Indonesia, Turkey and India relatively free societies, dispite their religious populations? The rule of secular law.

I should point out that Christianity has been used to justify equally repressive and despotic behaviors in the past. The fact that Western nations are relatively free democratic and prize individual freedoms happened in spite of Chritianity, not because of it.

CL8, you have just agreed with me :) Thank you!!!!!!!

The vast majority of Muslims believe they are good people and try to behave in what they believe is a reasonable fashion, just as people everywhere do.
IMO such people are good becase of who they are, not because of their religion. Good Muslims would be good Christians if they were raised with Christian people. "There is none good but one, that is God." quote from Christ himself Mt. 19:17

Islam, like Communism, has been shown to be a very poor basis for societies to administer themselves. Communism, regardless of the idyllic, egalitarian principles, has universally been adopted by despotic regimes, just as Islam has.
But these societies became despotic not because of Islam, or Communism, but because of complex historical and cultural issues.

For this reason, Islam, like ANY religion, is a terrible basis to run a society, Lets see, "thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness...... Yes RELIGIOUS commandments, abiding by them makes life sooo terrible for everyone!:sarcasmsign:because it is subject interpretation and manipulation. It can be used to support a whole range of barbaric and restrictive practices. But Islam does not always lead to this. Millions of Muslims live in relatively free societies quite happily. And those FREE societies are not run by Muslim law.

So, what makes Indonesia, Turkey and India relatively free societies, dispite their religious populations? The rule of secular law. Taken from biblical principles

I should point out that Christianity has been used to justify equally repressive and despotic behaviors in the past. The fact that Western nations are relatively free democratic and prize individual freedoms happened in spite of Chritianity, not because of it.Not BIBLICAL Christianity. I'm sure you are referring to Catholic run nations. Catholicism
is not pure biblical Christianity. They corrupt it with man made rules and doctrine not found in the bible.

And those FREE societies are not run by Muslim law.
And technically speaking, they aren't run by Christian Law (or more correctly, a Christian government) either. Of course, you'd repeat something about laws coming from the Bible but this leads to the next point...

Taken from biblical principles

Secular law (based on humanistic morals) existed before Moses even walked the earth.

Seeing as you like quoting the Bible so much, how does this one strike you?


And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Not BIBLICAL Christianity. I'm sure you are referring to Catholic run nations. Catholicism is not pure biblical Christianity. They corrupt it with man made rules and doctrine not found in the bible.

So are you saying that Cathlocism isn't Christianity then?
Incidentally, congratulations, you have just virtually repeated what we have trying to tell you about the relationship between fundementalism and Islam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244689/Saudi-girl-13--sentenced-90-lashes-took-mobile-phone-school.html

Maggots all!

I can't think of a more appropriate time and place to begin a good piece of science literature... snow on the ground... my faithful dog at my feet, bathed in the warmth of the yule time log in the fireplace.

I am looking forward to visiting this forum regularly.

Looks like you'll add a lot

Looks like you'll add a lot

:) hey, you inspired that contribution :cwm27:


I thought it was <sniff> just beautiful...... :tongue:


Welcome to AF, lubeivngmmee.
Generally, we try and stay on topic and contribute to the subject matter of the thread. But feel free to start a new thread on whatever is on your mind, in the appropriate forum.



:)

:) hey, you inspired that contribution :cwm27:


I thought it was <sniff> just beautiful...... :tongue:


Welcome to AF, lubeivngmmee.
Generally, we try and stay on topic and contribute to the subject matter of the thread. But feel free to start a new thread on whatever is on your mind, in the appropriate forum.



:)

Psh on topic? Who sent that memo? :tongue:

Back on topic, ummmm, darn Muslums! *runs away*

Psh on topic? Who sent that memo? :tongue:


Even you stayed on topic as a newbie,Shpuker. :) And when you wanted to discuss an new subject (I think it was horse penis), you correctly began a new thread.

Even you stayed on topic as a newbie,Shpuker. :) And when you wanted to discuss an new subject (I think it was horse penis), you correctly began a new thread.

True, even the most amazing topics need to be in their own thread

Former New York City mayor Ed Koch is OK with profiling Muslims for security purposes, he tells Fox News, since “hundreds of millions” of them are terrorists. “Of course the vast majority of Muslims, there are 400 million, are not terrorists,” Koch, 85, said today. “But there are hundreds of millions who are. They want to kill every Christian, every Jew, every Hindu who won’t convert. And we ought to put it on the table.Source (http://www.newser.com/story/77725/hundreds-of-millions-of-muslims-are-terrorists-koch.html)

Detroit bomber 'singing like a canary' before arrest
President Barack Obama is under fire over claims that the Christmas Day underwear bomber was "singing like a canary" until he was treated as an ordinary criminal and advised of his right to silence.Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6957485/Detroit-bomber-singing-like-a-canary-before-arrest.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1244689/Saudi-girl-13--sentenced-90-lashes-took-mobile-phone-school.html


90 lashes? For a cell phone? :mad:

Whats worse, 90 lashes for bringing a cell phone to school or
$132.00 fine for talking on a cell phone while driving?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_is_ticket_talking_on_cell_phone_while_dri ving_in_California

You gotta LOVE that "Religion of Peace" (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/29/terrorists-strike-russian-rail-system-kill-37/) Freaking gobs of fecal matter!

And the beat goes on and on! What a friendly tribe of Mohammad individuals we have here!

Federal Officials: Arab Diplomat Attempts to Ignite Shoe Bomb on Denver Flight

Wednesday, 07 Apr 2010 10:28 PM
Federal air marshals subdued a man -- identified as an Arab diplomat -- who authorities say attempted to "light his shoes on fire" on a United flight from Washington Reagan to Denver Wednesday night, federal law enforcement officials told ABC News.

ABC reported that authorities say an explosive team is on the way to the airport, and that while the presence of explosives has not yet been confirmed, they believe it was an attempted "shoe bomb."

The suspect was identified by authorities as a diplomat in the Qatar embassy in Washington, Mohammed al Modadi. The FBI said the man had full diplomat immunity as the 3rd secretary and vice-consul.

Authorities said two jet fighters were scrambled from Buckley Air Force Base to accompany United flight 663, a Boeing 757, as it flew the final 40 miles to Denver where it landed safely.

Authorities said the man, identified as from Qatar, was restrained by the air marshals who were on the flight.

The United jet was reportedly being directed to a remote location at the Denver airport.

A spokesman for the FBI in Denver declined to comment to ABC.

And Obama doesn't want them called "Terrorists"!

And the beat goes on and on! What a friendly tribe of Mohammad individuals we have here!

Federal Officials: Arab Diplomat Attempts to Ignite Shoe Bomb on Denver Flight

Let's not have any premature detonation here. The bomb and the threat never existed. The guy was not a terrorist at all, just an idiot from Qatar smoking a cigarette in the washroom.

To compound his idiocy, he joked to the air marshalls that he was not smoking, but just trying to light his shoes on fire.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/qatar-diplomat-charged-bomb-scare/story?id=10317771

And Obama doesn't want them called "Terrorists"!
Isn't it funny how some people refuse to believe anything Obama says but will believe any old Arab terrorist story without any corroboration at all..... so long as it agrees with their prejudices.
:lol2:

Let's not have any premature detonation here. The bomb and the threat never existed. The guy was not a terrorist at all, just an idiot from Qatar smoking a cigarette in the washroom.

To compound his idiocy, he joked to the air marshalls that he was not smoking, but just trying to light his shoes on fire.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/qatar-diplomat-charged-bomb-scare/story?id=10317771


Isn't it funny how some people refuse to believe anything Obama says but will believe any old Arab terrorist story without any corroboration at all..... so long as it agrees with their prejudices.
:lol2:

What is Qatar and the U.S. doing, letting someone with such poor judgment as to joke about lighting his shoes on fire to bomb an aircraft while on a crowded plane be a diplomat????!!!!

"If this was an overreaction, it was not only an understandable one, it was a good one," Nance said.

Accurate quote from that article!