Muslim Suicide Bomber Kills 55

[JohnRich 4]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/6159006.html

Not surprising at all and very tame considering muslim terrorist history but still worth a look at what peaceful Iraqi people deal with every day.

I wonder if the innocent diners hate al-Qaida for this because of there actions or just because they disagree with their ethnic religion.

Wake up people, and see the truth.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/6159006.html

Not surprising at all and very tame considering muslim terrorist history but still worth a look at what peaceful Iraqi people deal with every day.

I wonder if the innocent diners hate al-Qaida for this because of there actions or just because they disagree with their ethnic religion.

Wake up people, and see the truth.

It's a pity we didn't focus on AQ when we had the chance, instead of diverting attention to Iraq and acting as AQ's recruiting agent.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnDeere 0]

Couldn't have been a Muslim! They are the religion of peace It had to be our fault

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,120]

>but still worth a look at what peaceful Iraqi people deal with every day.

Ah, progress. Why, it seems like only yesterday that we were paying muslim extremists to do such things - and celebrating their kills.

>Wake up people, and see the truth.

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Let's hope we learn this time.

[tumbler 0]

Quote

Couldn't have been a Muslim! They are the religion of peace It had to be our fault

I am kind of surprised at the title of this one.

Come on, do you really think this has anything to do with being a Muslim? This happens to occur on the last day of Hajj, the most sacred week in their religion. The largest gathering of people, anywhere in the world, is the 3.5 million that go to Mecca each year for their faith. Peacefully worshipping. I don’t believe this has anything to do with being a Muslim. No more so than the Hindu’s that attacked Mumbai were doing it for religion. That is just silly.

I work with MIW’s (men in white) every day and almost all of them care about the exact same things we do… are their families happy and healthy, are their kids going to get the best education they can, are they safe and secure, and most of them even like boobies!!

The object of terror attacks is to inflict terror. They accomplished that goal.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

No more so than the Hindu’s that attacked Mumbai were doing it for religion.

Want to choose another religion come on.. three guesses.

[tumbler 0]

Sorry I miss your point.

Pakistan is primarily Islamic

India is primarily Hindu

Are you saying this attack was relgion based as well?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I don’t believe this has anything to do with being a Muslim. No more so than the Hindu’s that attacked Mumbai were doing it for religion

You answered it for yourself... think who was the attacker and who was the attackees...

Check the history of WHY there is even a Pakistan..... it all USED to be India.

[tumbler 0]

And it use to all be governed by Britain so we can blame the British...

To me... and I have been wrong many times...

Religion itself is pure. It is what man has done with it that makes it a sick and twisted mantra to justify murder and a calling card to allow suicide bombings while letting the people doing it and setting it up off the hook.

In the simplest form, all religions teach peace, understanding and acceptance. You can take many passages from any religion and twist it into meaning you can kill and your God is OK with it. I just don’t believe that to actually be true.

[JackC 0]

Quote

In the simplest form, all religions teach peace, understanding and acceptance. You can take many passages from any religion and twist it into meaning you can kill and your God is OK with it. I just don’t believe that to actually be true.

I disagree, religion is what it is. The fact that religion apparently justifies evil acts is just as much a problem with religion as it is with some of it's followers. If your religious tome says "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads" and believers go around lopping unbelievers heads off, you cannot put all the blame on misinterpretation.

[vortexring 0]

The recent attacks in Bombay had little to do with religion. They were to increase tensions between India and Pakistan so as to reduce the increasingly effective anti-Taliban/ Al'Q actions Pakistan has been conducting.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[tumbler 0]

Oh my goodness, you are making my point. You can take many lines from many different religious doctrine and turn or twist them however you want.

How about asking Christians or Jews to reconcile Christianity or Judaism in light of an out-of-context verse from the Bible, such as: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3)

Or this verse: "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

This is certainly not a fair or scientific way to understand the Bible nor the peaceful message of Christianity or Judaism. The Quran, like all other scriptures, cannot be understood except within its context. Taking a verse out of its theological or historical context can lead to misinterpretations, often the hallmark of extremists. Just as the Bible has been abused by fanatics to justify slavery and holocaust, so have Muslim fanatics abused the Quran to further their murderous agenda.

The verse that you referred to, verse 4 from chapter 47, specifically refers to Muslim armies involved in a battle encounter. Here is a more authentic -- and less sensational -- translation:
"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterward either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates."

That hardly seems to me to say what you are implying.

[shropshire 0]

With respect, come off it John, how do you know that the bomber was Muslim? any more than we knew that some Irish bombers claimed to be Catholics or Protestants...

Real people of religion do not do such things so
their claims to be true followers are automatically null and void.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[tumbler 0]

Quote

The recent attacks in Bombay had little to do with religion. They were to increase tensions between India and Pakistan so as to reduce the increasingly effective anti-Taliban/ Al'Q actions Pakistan has been conducting.

I agree. I do not believe it was based on religion. If I gave that impression then it was a poorly worded post. Sorry.

[JackC 0]

I seriously disagree. Most religious books are written very obviously as an argument from authority, as a set of instructions from a divine being to be believed and followed. Unfortunately most religious books are also very poorly written and as a result are very easy to interpret (or misinterpret if you prefer) as justifying violent acts. This is undoubtedly the fault of the author of the book, who must have been either:
a) utterly incompetent
b) intentionally convoluted and ambiguous for some reason or
c) actually wanted people to use the book to justify violence

You can blame any person dumb enough to believe and act on those justifications, but you can't blame the person for misinterpreting them.

[vortexring 0]

Bollocks.

And you can't blame the person for misinterpreting them!?

You been sniffin' glue!!??

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Many holy books contain shite that can easily be interpreted as justification for violence and people do just that. You may not like that interpretation (I don't) and you may blame a person for acting on it (I do) but these people believe the justification is there. That is because the author of the book was either incompetent or he wanted it that way. If a person brainwashes other impressionable people into commiting murder, by intent or by negligence, then that person would also be guilty of murder. So the book (or more correctly the author) is not entirely blameless.

[tumbler 0]

Quote

Many holy books contain shite that can easily be interpreted as justification for violence and people do just that. You may not like that interpretation (I don't) and you may blame a person for acting on it (I do) but these people believe the justification is there. That is because the author of the book was either incompetent or he wanted it that way. If a person brainwashes other impressionable people into commiting murder, by intent or by negligence, then that person would also be guilty of murder. So the book (or more correctly the author) is not entirely blameless.

JackC your argument holds no water.

If I understand what you are saying then we should

1) hold McDonalds responsible because there are fat people
2) Hold Glock responsible when their gun is used in a crime
3) Even sue GM when their car is used in a drunk driving case. Follow that in with holding Johnny Walker responsible for making the swill that was drank

I don’t see the validity of your argument, and I don’t need to. Your opinion is yours, it just seems based far more on emotion than fact.

It also seems like you are writing as though you have read every religious book and teaching and you know what the real deal and you speak in absolutes. Have you read them all? I know I haven’t.

Good discussion though.

Cheers

[JackC 0]

Quote

JackC your argument holds no water.

If I understand what you are saying then we should

1) hold McDonalds responsible because there are fat people

You would have a point if Ronald McDonald was in fact God, or if the Bible/Koran/whatever was theologically equal to a McDonalds advert (for the purposes of the argument, I'll give you either of those).

But most believers would argue that their book is significantly more influential than a McDonalds Advert and that God being likened to a clown is blasphemy.

But wait... some people are trying to blame McDonalds for obesity. and blame gun makers for shootings. They are obviously quite mad.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Many holy books contain shite that can easily be interpreted as justification for violence and people do just that. You may not like that interpretation (I don't) and you may blame a person for acting on it (I do). . .

But Jack! You said earlier you can't blame the person for acting on it - and now you say you do!

'Just say NO!'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/6159006.html

Not surprising at all and very tame considering muslim terrorist history but still worth a look at what peaceful Iraqi people deal with every day.

I wonder if the innocent diners hate al-Qaida for this because of there actions or just because they disagree with their ethnic religion.

Wake up people, and see the truth.

Hey!! This thread is in direct response to a thread posted earlier by Darius regarding someone from the IDF head butting a lady.

Did anyone else notice? Do I win a prize?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Couldn't have been a Muslim! They are the religion of peace It had to be our fault

How original.....did you think of that all on your own?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

The recent attacks in Bombay had little to do with religion. They were to increase tensions between India and Pakistan so as to reduce the increasingly effective anti-Taliban/ Al'Q actions Pakistan has been conducting.

There you go being all rational and factual again..

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Many holy books contain shite that can easily be interpreted as justification for violence and people do just that. You may not like that interpretation (I don't) and you may blame a person for acting on it (I do). . .

But Jack! You said earlier you can't blame the person for acting on it - and now you say you do!

'Just say NO!'

Mr Vortexring, please read my post again, you have misunderstood.

Now the question is do I blame you for misunderstanding or me for being a crap writer? Let me think...

[vortexring 0]

Eh?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'