The Saudi regime seems to want to have it both ways.
posted on 10/11/2001 3:15:35 PM PDT
If Islam means peace, the taliban cannot be called muslims. Why do muslims countries oppose the bombing of the non-muslim taliban?
posted on 10/11/2001 3:27:54 PM PDT
History has taught us that alliances change quickly. It would not suprise me to see a treaty between Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the near future if the countries felt that they could humiliate and destroy Israel and the West. Evil, power, jealousy, religious fanaticism and hatred make strange bedfellows.
If Muslim leaders thought that they could destroy even a portion of the West, they would gladly do so. Why shouldn't they bio-terrorize, bomb and possibly nuke us? The Koran exhorts them to kill the infidel if the infidel refuses to embrace Islam. There are rivers of wine and 72 virgins waiting to satisfy them in the afterlife if they murder us.
And if I hear another stupid Muslim say that we brought the attacks on ourselves for supporting Israel, sanctioning Iraq and not allowing the blood-thirsty, gloating Palestinians to have a homeland where they can wage war on and destroy Israel and Western culture, I'm gonna spit in their eye. My ears are plugged and my eyes are blind to Palestinian whining and 'suffering,' after thousands of innocent people were killed and they cheered!!!
posted on 10/11/2001 3:51:16 PM PDT
I often hear the defenders of Islam saying that their religion does not allow "the killing of innocent" people.
That doesn't tell the whole story, acording to the Koran we "non-believers" are not innocent.
Another thing done by many Islamanics is unequivical condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, saying how the perpetrators have committed a terrible crime against humanity. Then they go on the blame the Jews:
either indirectly, by saying that our "pro-Israel" foreign policy has hurt Islamic feelings worldwide,
Or directly, by ridiculously claiming Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks.
posted on 10/11/2001 4:13:00 PM PDT
If this is not now a Crusade, then what is it? Typical journalistic yadda-ing. Next, he'll be defending Cliton's parsing of the most ontologically exact word in existence: "is."
It wasn't a bad article until this line, "Islam is no more a threat to world peace than Christianity, Buddhism or communism have been in the past," reared its ugly head.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson