I say they should capture a Ghurka …
Ghurkas like knives too.
Posted on 06/26/2004 10:22:08 AM PDT by kcvl
Claiming they will BEHEAD them.
Allow us, let us loose, etc.. Man that is so conceited!
Regards, Ivan
Yeah, I get all that. So if you want to look at the individual trees that make up this forest, look no further: they're here on FR..
I say they should capture a Ghurka …
Ghurkas like knives too.
By all means missy, don't respond.
btw, too many folks here know about your government shutting down Christian churches and radio stations for you to try that old lie that turkey protects Christians' rights.
The thing about Ataturk was that he did not get carried away with the momentum he had. He could have gone much further but didn't. Smart man, considering that a larger mass would have been far less manageable particularly for the other more "interesting" menthalities just outside our borders..
He would have seethed but have not shown it I think. What do you think?
Regards, Ivan
Still, I have had the idea that God has dealt with his creation in different ways. Lately I've read some disturbing books about Islam and it's intent to put the whole world under Sharia.
When judging things in this world I recall that Jesus told us, "By their fruits you shall know them." It is my feeling that evil hides it's face. Good does not have to hide. We never see the face of terrorism, but we see their fruits of death and destruction. That is the difference that bothers me. I want to be loving and tolerant because my faith calls me to love everyone and "tell" them that Jesus died for their sins, and that if they believe in Jesus, they will have eternal life. How do I accept a religion that calls on its faithful to kill in order to spread its message? Telling someone a good news message and letting them make the decision to accept or reject, and killing someone or making them a second class citizen unless they accept is quite different. Just some of my random thoughts.
I deleted and didn't re-add that I believe a lot of FReepers are quoting the Hadiths in place of the Qu'ran. This results in serious confusion, especially in a group of people that only woke up and became interested three years ago.
"So I find it pretty funny that these guys put themselves on video and sent it to a television channel."
OK, I have been interpreting it right all along. My apologies for wording the questions as I did, but believe it was very important to leave no room for accusations that I was prompting you. Yes it is funny, in a blackly ironic sort of way, which is why many of us can't understand why fatwas haven't been issued against these idiots so in love with their faces on film that they can't stay away from a camera for love or money. Also Saddam, who had...well, IIRC it was 4,000 portraits of himself painted. He's an example of those who talk the talk, since he only started mentioning Allah right before the coalition invaded.
"Muslims should be taking Jews and Christians as friends, at least should 'tolerate' them. That is exactly what Ottoman Empire did during its centuries-long rule"
I personally have a hard time with any prosctription against making friends where you find them. Real friends are hard enough to find, without putting so many weird restrictions on what makes them accepable as a friend.
"What I, and a_Turk here (although he has gotten pretty much tired of saying the same things over and over) have been saying since a long time is: You just cannot hate all Muslims because of the terrorists. They are not the Muslims, they use Islam as an excuse to spread their hate and support their war against whole of the Civilization."
Agreed! I get tired of repeating it too, as a_Turk darned well knows. This is why I get flamed as a terrorist apologist when I defend the Muslim population in general from the moronic proclamations of the "nuke 'em all" crowd. NOWHERE should it ever need to be written not to condemn millions for the actions of thousands. That understanding should be an intrinsic part of our makeup as human beings.
"I personally believe that the religion of Islam has many problems in itself and should be reformed, somehow"
If the terrorists are not allowed to win and rule the world under the banner of the Kahlifah, it will be. Such is how societal evolution works.
"I despise anyone who would use a book that brings faith and compassion to many people, and make people like you believe it is something between pure evil and a joke."
I don't believe the Qu'Ran is evil or a joke, though having read 4 seperate Ebglish interpretations of it, can understand why and how terrorists get away with wacko interpretations of it. As for reform, it's better to make our own interpretations, rather than depend upon those of third parties, sich as clerics - or in the case of Christianity, priests or preachers. It's better for all of us to think for ourselves. That's why I'm a lapsed Catholic. (there was a rash of book burnings when I was a child, I was railing against the local preacher, and the adults kept telling me to shut up even though they knew it was wrong)
Yes, very conceited - but as the USA is running the show in Iraq right now it is appropriate.
Tolerance isn't a bad thing. You're thinking of it as an insult: "I don't like her, but I tolerate here to keep the peace." However, even that kind of pseudo-tolorance is better than the bloodbaths we've been seeing for centuries. I prefer to interpret it as Tolerance, a virtue.
Um...THAT is exactly the example of talking the religious talk but not waking the walk that you demanded I provide for you. Of COURSE the purity part is defined for the women, just as it is in Christianity, because that's an intrinsic part of Judaeism, upon which both Islam and Christianity are based.
Historically, because of death in childbirth and the physical cost of nursing and rearing children while also taking care of a whole family, women have been at a premuim due to the high death rate. Therefore the idea of protecting the women from the invaders who want to steal them came into being in many cultures.
Due to never being at home and the lack of genetic testing, men were never able to tell for sure if they're REALLY the father of their children. Thus in many cultures throughout history, the child carried his dam's name, because it was easier to confirm the mother than the father. Thus the strict definitions of purity for women were developed, so the guys knew we women weren't messing around on them while they were off to the wars. It was a way of controlling the parentage of children, and knowing they deserved whatever inheritance you might give them.
Admittedly, in Muslim culture, women don't inherit equally the way men do, but that's way off track.
The same definitions of purity, while expected of men were not defined. Boys will be boys after all, and there were always loose women to satisfy their needs...but they weren't expected to MARRY one. The rules WERE written by men, not all of whom had the best interests of society or religion at heart.
You're getting into the basic cultural paradox of the past 8,000 years...which is actually off track for this thread.
It boils down to: you either walk the walk or you simply talk the talk. The head terrorists talk the talk, to recruit those who walk the walk as bomb fodder. Obviously, the recruits aren't generally the sharpest knives in the drawer, either. The sharp knives aim to become head terrorist themselves, talking the talk to recruit those who walk the walk as bomb fodder.
Oh c'mon, bitterness does not become you! You know darned well only a minority of those 'trees' are here at FR. Yes, they're...they're....disruptorbot trees? How about just bot trees? Easier to remember. You have them in your country. Every country has them. They can easily be recognized by their loud mouths and obnoxious, insulting habits. Yes, they make up the 'forest'. The BULK of the individual trees making up the forest are ALSO here at FR. You're here, aren't you? Aren't you an individual? You're being patently unfair to the majority of us because of the nastyness of a few.
MAN, the typos are getting WORSE!!
Prior to the tenth century, almost all of what is now Turkey was part of the Byzantine Empire. Unless, I misread several different maps.
Do the Turks actually bow down 5 times a day toward Saudi Arabia?
Point taken. But perhaps you could explain to us non-Muslims why over 90% of the armed conflicts on the planet today involve Muslims attacking non-Muslims, and that practically all terrorist attacks on the planet over the past 30+ years have been perpetrated by Muslims (or at least by people invoking Allah) who were attacking non-Muslims. Given these FACTS, the moral equivalence you draw between Islam and Christianity (I presume we could include the other major religions of the world) rings rather shallow. Please do not construe my comment as a personal attack against you, as this is not my intent, friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.