He's simply setting up the next point, which is that most people will avoid doing the mixing on the plane or in a secure area and will instead simply bring the pre-mixed explosive onboard. The problem with that interpretation is that the "pre-mixed explosive" is NOT A LIQUID. It is a precipitate. See the wikipedia entry for Oplan Bojinka where an al-quaeda guy did exactly that - mixed it up in apartment and brought it on board, left it and blew up the guy who sat in the same seat on the next flight.
In that case, the mixture was soaked into a bunch of cotton balls that eventually dried out.
Not only does Islam say it is ok to kill, it is required. Of course these Jehadists should not be first killing brothers of the book but rather the Hindus and Buddhists first as their sins against Allah are much greater Blah, blah, blah.
If that's true, when the moguls ran india, how come they didn't slaughter all the hindus?
wouldn't it be more productive to take the verse quoted and put it INTO context, to teach others and show that your original point remains true? Ok, here is the context
New marketing slogan: "Comcast Internet Service: It's Craptastic!" Just yesterday I saw a tv advert for Comcast which ended with "It's Comcastic!" -- I couldn't stop laughing about how stupid their ad agency was to ignore the obvious "It's Craptastic!" parody. How many millions did they pour down the toilet for that?
FYI, the website he cites (Juancole.com) is the website of far-left Islamist apologist Juan Cole, a man who has been known to engage in antisemitic conspiracies, and has no real background in Islamic history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole#Criticism FYI, the website you cite does not make any such claims. The closest it comes is where it cites a guy as claiming Cole has not studied the modern middle-east - which has absolutely nothing to do with interpreting the quran in its historical context.
Here's a simple question to ask yourself. What religion do most(I dare say close to 99.999%) of the world's suicide bombers subscribe to? Statistically speaking, it doesn't look good for Islam. Here's a simple question to ask yourself. Statistically speaking, how many muslims are suicide bombers? A couple of thousand out of a population of a billion, and when you eliminate the israeli and iraqi conflicts which are essentially civil wars - you are down into the double digits for the last couple of decades. So, 99 out of 1,000,000,000 to be generous to your innumerate point. Can you really draw a valid conclusion from such a minuscule number?
Oh yeah? How do you explain that most suicide bombers are among the elite? They are not. Unless you only want to talk about the suicide bombers outside of the middle-east. And the answer there is pretty obvious - the poor don't have the resources. Anyone can riot in their home country. It takes a lot of money and other resources to get to the west. Its pretty much the same reason that there are so few suicide bombings outside of the middle-east.
How do you explain the British born Muslims going out on the streets shouting, "We will behead those who insult Islam" A tiny minority of the british born muslims get all worked up - most of them teenage and early-20s males. That sort of demonstrating (which is fucking far far away from bombing, suicide or not) is mostly a bunch of guys who are young, dumb and full of cum. The whole abstinence until marriage thing really sucks for them.
They wanted to use terror and property destruction to achieve their goals, but without actually killing large numbers of people.
That's a little different from Muslims. Do you even perceive the bias in your choice of words? Do you really believe that "muslims" think killing people is OK?
This is a political fight, and very different from blowing people up in totally different countries because your religion demands it. How many suicide bombers have there been outside of the "political fight" of some sort of civil war? Less than 20 over the last two decades I would wager, but lets say more than twice that at 50 to give you the benefit of the doubt. 50 out of about a billion muslims. Do you really think that is any sort of a meaningful number?
9:5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." You obviously don't care about the truth of the matter, only condemning the religion. Because if you did care about the truth, 1 minute of googling would have given you the context of 9:5.
That context being that the specific "pagans" in question were those who had been waging war against Mohammed and his followers before he marched on Mecca (and took it without a single fight). 9:5 is saying that once you captured the guys, keep them in prison for about 4 months and then given them a chance to convert to Islam. If they won't renounce their violence towards muslims, then you better kill them because they are just going to keep trying to kill you.
Note that by repenting and establishing regular prayers and the like, "Pagans" (translated elsewhere as "idolaters" or non-Muslims) have converted to Islam. Note that you completely ignored the context of 9:5, you should have read 9:6 too: "If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure."
So, taken together 9:5 and 9:6 give the prisoners the option of converting to islam or just renouncing their intent to kill muslims at which point they have to suffer through a little preaching about Allah and then will be freed from prison and left to their own devices.
Kind of takes the wind out of your sails don't it? I'm not going to bother contextualizing your other misquotes - if you gave a shit you would have done it yourself and realized they are not what the dhimmi-wannabees tell you they mean.
Muslims do not rebel in the US only because, being a minority, they know very well what would come next. Yeah right. You probably believe that if it weren't for the police, everyone would be trying to murder each other in the USA too. Get a freaking grip.
I do live in a so-called 3rd world country, a latin american one (call it "christian" if you like). Do you live in 3rd-world conditions? No, you are clearly part of the privileged class of your country if you are even able to post here. So fuck off with the faux sympathy for the poor.
People hate the US and blame that country for this and that, but I've _never_ heard anyone, even semi-seriously, talking about being a suicide bomber. Big fucking deal. That's not even close to what I said. I said people riot in the streets because they are angry at how much their lives suck and they feel like they are being taken advantage of. Do you dispute that? Do you believe there are no angry mobs in your country?
Here's a simple question to ask yourself. What religion do most(I dare say close to 99.999%) of the world's suicide bombers subscribe to? Statistically speaking, it doesn't look good for Islam. What's so special about suicide bombers? Isn't it the killing that matters? In fact, if you can kill a bunch of people and the walk away unscathed, isn't that worse than becoming a victim of your own handiwork?
PS, what religion are the Tamil Tigers? Or the Basques separatists? Or the IRA?
Statistically speaking, all you can say is that the muslims get more TV time than the other groups.
Its not about the number of dead. Where does any holy book say that one life is more important than another?
Its about intent.
Israel targets only militants, but due to them hiding in condensed civilian populace, civilians get killed. Really? Obviously israel knows they will be killing civilians, after all they've been doing it for a long, long time. So clearly they intend that innocent civilians will get killed too. They just don't care.
The Palestinians are targeting innocent civilians, even though they could target just the military without getting any civilians killed at all. They could target those whom they can't kill. But that wouldn't have much of an effect would it? If you are going to kill the enemy, one dead is as bad as another - see my first sentence in this post. Perhaps it is the israel military's fault for hiding in fortified bases, while they leave the general population out in the open...
However, there is violence in the Sharia law and the Koran (sp?) that seem to be an integral part of Islam. It seems in Islam, the extremists are almost the majority of the members...they can sure easily fill a street screaming, protesting and dragging bodies through the streets. I dare say you couldn't fill a block with violent Christians and any given time. You haven't actually read the koran have you? Only a few translated excerpts without any context, right? Lines like "Go and kill the infidels" without the line right before that said something like "and when the infidels break their peace treaty with you and attack without warning..."
PS, I bet you've never been to a 3rd world catholic country - lots of angry violent mobs in those places too. It has more to do with being a 3rd world country - or living in 3rd world conditions - than it does with being catholic, or muslim. We've got a few million muslims in the US and you don't see them forming up violent mobs - certainly nothing like we get here after some big sporting events...
Regardless of atrocities committed (and atrocities are committed by humans, not religions), there certainly seems to be a higher atrocity/individual rate in current Islamic culture than any other current faiths. Really? Is killing because you are a uniformed soldier any better in the eyes of god than killing because you are a guerrilla soldier?
Because if you want to count 'atrocities' the muslim culture is way behind most other cultures. For example, Israel's been averaging 3 dead palestinians for every 1 dead israeli. And of course the US has slaughtered tens of thousands of muslims in iraq and afghanistan.
I can assure you that "Muslims" who bomb people they think are repressing them and picket actors'/soldiers' deaths because of whatever sexual orientation they might be- are hardly Muslims at all. While mainstream Islam disagrees with the issues behind those things, the isolated reactions by a fanatical few are totally uncalled for and vile. Mohammed didn't put to death the woman who was caught in adultery- he reviled her accusers (who had committed a greater sin) and told the woman to go and sin no more. I, however, take great offense at Islam being likened to Christianity.
Never mind that that joke went completely over your head.
Just what policies of Joseph Stalin were based on a lack of belief in a deity? Are you sure that those policies weren't based on a lack of belief in faeries?
This being Islam we're talking about, it propably won't take too long before death threats start flying, and it's always possible some lunatic will decide to carry them out,... Cue a hundred replies claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance; Cue a hundred people asking you why people in other religions, or even just other non-denominational groups never let death threats fly nor are ever lunatics?
so I dispute your claim that Israel is the source of all those countries political, economic and social problems. Try again. That's not even close to what I said.
Better luck with poverty-stricken Egypt, Baathist Syria, little poor Jordan, crumbly Lebanon and war-torn Iraq. All of whom might not be in such dire straits if it weren't for the US's 'friendship' with Israel in the first place. Those billions upon billions of US dollars spent on building up Israel might have been strategically used to make all of those other countries better places. Interesting you didn't mention Dubai, guess it would kind of contradict your rant.
It'd be nice to think that there was a golden age of air travel when nobody wanted to use aircraft as political weapons, but that only existed prior to the 1960s Gee, how do you define safe? Is driving to work in a car "safe?" Because, you know, there are at least 100x less deaths per mile traveled via car than there are via airplane.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, the mixture was soaked into a bunch of cotton balls that eventually dried out.
BTW, Oplan Bojinka happened years before 9/11.
If that's true, when the moguls ran india, how come they didn't slaughter all the hindus?
Bingo.
That's a little different from Muslims. Do you even perceive the bias in your choice of words? Do you really believe that "muslims" think killing people is OK? This is a political fight, and very different from blowing people up in totally different countries because your religion demands it. How many suicide bombers have there been outside of the "political fight" of some sort of civil war? Less than 20 over the last two decades I would wager, but lets say more than twice that at 50 to give you the benefit of the doubt. 50 out of about a billion muslims. Do you really think that is any sort of a meaningful number?
That context being that the specific "pagans" in question were those who had been waging war against Mohammed and his followers before he marched on Mecca (and took it without a single fight). 9:5 is saying that once you captured the guys, keep them in prison for about 4 months and then given them a chance to convert to Islam. If they won't renounce their violence towards muslims, then you better kill them because they are just going to keep trying to kill you. Note that by repenting and establishing regular prayers and the like, "Pagans" (translated elsewhere as "idolaters" or non-Muslims) have converted to Islam. Note that you completely ignored the context of 9:5, you should have read 9:6 too:
"If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure."
So, taken together 9:5 and 9:6 give the prisoners the option of converting to islam or just renouncing their intent to kill muslims at which point they have to suffer through a little preaching about Allah and then will be freed from prison and left to their own devices.
Kind of takes the wind out of your sails don't it? I'm not going to bother contextualizing your other misquotes - if you gave a shit you would have done it yourself and realized they are not what the dhimmi-wannabees tell you they mean.
PS, what religion are the Tamil Tigers? Or the Basques separatists? Or the IRA?
Statistically speaking, all you can say is that the muslims get more TV time than the other groups.
Tons of dhimmi-wannabes running around misquoting and taking quotes out of context. Those are really easy to find in google. Good for you.
Israel targets only militants, but due to them hiding in condensed civilian populace, civilians get killed. Really? Obviously israel knows they will be killing civilians, after all they've been doing it for a long, long time. So clearly they intend that innocent civilians will get killed too. They just don't care. The Palestinians are targeting innocent civilians, even though they could target just the military without getting any civilians killed at all. They could target those whom they can't kill. But that wouldn't have much of an effect would it? If you are going to kill the enemy, one dead is as bad as another - see my first sentence in this post. Perhaps it is the israel military's fault for hiding in fortified bases, while they leave the general population out in the open...
25:63: The worshippers of the All-Merciful are they who tread gently upon the earth, and when the ignorant address them, they reply, "Peace!"
5:69 (Arberry): "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
4:90: Exempt those who join a people with whom you have concluded a peace treaty, and those who come to you with hearts unwilling to fight you, nor to fight their relatives. Had God willed, he could have placed them in power over you and they would have made war on you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way to go against them.
4:94:
PS, I bet you've never been to a 3rd world catholic country - lots of angry violent mobs in those places too. It has more to do with being a 3rd world country - or living in 3rd world conditions - than it does with being catholic, or muslim. We've got a few million muslims in the US and you don't see them forming up violent mobs - certainly nothing like we get here after some big sporting events...
Because if you want to count 'atrocities' the muslim culture is way behind most other cultures. For example, Israel's been averaging 3 dead palestinians for every 1 dead israeli. And of course the US has slaughtered tens of thousands of muslims in iraq and afghanistan.
I can assure you that "Muslims" who bomb people they think are repressing them and picket actors'/soldiers' deaths because of whatever sexual orientation they might be- are hardly Muslims at all. While mainstream Islam disagrees with the issues behind those things, the isolated reactions by a fanatical few are totally uncalled for and vile. Mohammed didn't put to death the woman who was caught in adultery- he reviled her accusers (who had committed a greater sin) and told the woman to go and sin no more. I, however, take great offense at Islam being likened to Christianity.
Never mind that that joke went completely over your head.
Just what policies of Joseph Stalin were based on a lack of belief in a deity?
Are you sure that those policies weren't based on a lack of belief in faeries?
Cue a hundred replies claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance; Cue a hundred people asking you why people in other religions, or even just other non-denominational groups never let death threats fly nor are ever lunatics?
Or is it really that you just are bad at math?
Yeah I was just mixing it up to see if anyone would notice.
It'd be nice to think that there was a golden age of air travel when nobody wanted to use aircraft as political weapons, but that only existed prior to the 1960s Gee, how do you define safe? Is driving to work in a car "safe?" Because, you know, there are at least 100x less deaths per mile traveled via car than there are via airplane.