Posted on 11/10/2005 10:35:34 AM PST by F14 Pilot
Maybe this prominent film maker will mount his own hunt for Zahakawi and Al Quaeda
Akkad was the producer:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002160/
Time for an 'agonizing re-appraisal", non?
Very sad.
Killing muslims - wonder if that disqualifies them for the 72 virgins? Of course, we know that the reality is they land in hell and say "oh _ _ _ t" I just blew myself up for the devil!
Ah thanks, should've searched by Akkad's name instead of
the movie.
Was John Carpenter rich when he started in film? He has a long history of stunning film work.
"make everyone see that these terrorists aren't Muslims, they are cold blooded killers."
WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING? Or are you from DU, or are you a member of TROP?
People, I've seen conserv13 make some idiotic clueless statements in the past. But WTF? Conserv, what are your core beliefs? Just a quick summary.
I have no sympathy for terrorists. But I know that not all Muslims are terrorists.
You said that the terrorists were not Muslims. That's sheer nonsense. Just because they target other Muslims doesn't mean they aren't Muslims. Look at Iraq - they're constantly killing fellow Muslims they think aren't on thier side.
One Marine's View of Fighting Terrorists in Iraq (Vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519598/posts
"Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off."
"The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cant reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.)."
Examples of Muslim terrorists killing other Muslims.
I meant they are not 'real' Muslims. Just like someone going around killing in the name of Jesus isn't a 'real' Christian.
Not Jordanian, but Syrian, but yes...
the infowarrior
" I meant they are not 'real' Muslims. Just like someone going around killing in the name of Jesus isn't a 'real' Christian."
Guess you never read the Koran:
So says the tree: "Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"
The terrorist types are the authentic Muslims. The rest are apostates of varying degrees.
Possibly true --- but how many Armed Muslims, exclusive of the Iraqi and Afghans who live there and have joined the coalition forces -- are fighting the Terrorists in their country?
I remain suspect of ALL that are not visibly and physically at risk and supporting us OPENLY and fighting terrorism and terrorists AND their supporters on the battlefield..
Muslims fit in one or more of several categories:
1. Long toothed murderous Jihadists.
2. Supporters and Cheering sections for the Jihadists.
3. "Moderate" Muslims --- those who haven't yet decided who is going to win and haven't yet pulled the pin on their grenade.
4. Muslims who quietly refuse to bow to or anger the Jihadists.
5. Muslims who attempt to fight the Jihadist with words, without drawing too much attention to themselves..
6. Muslims who fight the Jihadists OPENLY and with WEAPONS...
Category 6 Muslims are the only ones to trust....
The rest should be held suspect, until the achieve Cat-6 standing.
Semper Fi
Same for me. It was a very well made movie, but that doesn't mask the fact it was annoying in its utter propaganda.
More like the Religion of Pieces.
Without Muslim support the terrorists could not survive for a week. Thery are like the Irish--and Irish-Americans--who funded the IRA. The term is emablers.
I will have to take a look. BTW, I am reminded that westerners who are so skeptical of the Bible and the "historical Jesus" have little interest in the "historical Mohammed." Almost nothing of what we know about him is based on non-Islamic sources. They simply accepts as true all that the Muslims says about him. But even the earliest versions of the Koran were assembled a full generation after his death, the first history written almost two generations later.
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.