«

[Tulac]

Dude this isn't flaming, there's a difference between flaming and good old discussion, I don't feel insulted by anyone, and I hope no one feels insulted by me, I haven't seen any problems...
We're straying off topic...

[Mahar Vairo]

It's nice when people want to learn

Jihad loosely translated does mean "Holy War"

But the deeper meaning which the prophet consistently mention(and which a fool like me even knows) is that Jihad is the defense of Islam from being destroyed.

The prophet has been qouted to have said after they ie the muslims returned from a battle(can't remember which battle)

"We have just returned from the small Jihad to the greater Jihad"

When asked what he meant, he said the greatest Jihad is against oneself. Because a muslim's own desires is the greatest threat to Islam. It is far easy to fight other people then it is to control one's own desires.
And the devil will try to use a person's desires to destroy Islam and it is from this that we must defend Islam from.

What I don't get is why so many muslims don't seem to know this.

I will not lie, it is true that the muslims went out to conquer other nations when they grew strong in number.

But there were always guidelines. Those were that when they reached a city or town they gave the people three choices.

First that they should accept Islam.
If not then submit to have a Islamic governor. (they would not be forced to change there religion and would not be persecuted)
And if they did not accept this either then and only then would they meet on the battlefield.

And during battle, muslims were not allowed to kill someone that was defenseless.

For those that agreed not to fight the muslims and allowed them to rule a few laws were implemented.

1. that the non-muslims were to pay a certain tax which was about 5% of a persons earnings(I'm not certain about the amount but it was far less then what taxes are today)
2. you were only allowed to trade with a muslim if you traded according to Islamic law(example muslims are not allowed to accept or give interest.)

This is all I can remember and I could be grossly inaccurate.

It is even said that some of the non-muslims found the new government better.

As I said before this is what I learnt about Islam, and you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

[Playbahnosh]

I was talking about the starting argument about language and understanding, i thought i just prevented. It was me who this is started all about but i feel, I didn't wanted that to develop into flame war with Stroggy and the others. It was not about you Tulac, relax k:

@Mahar Vairo

I know what you are talking about. In fact it is the part of OUR history as well. You see, Hungary was under Turkish(Osman) rule for 200 years. Then we finally got rid of them with the help of the Habsburgs. (Foolishly then we fell under their rule, okay I wont whine about that.) And now I'm preparing for my history exam, so I know exactly what you mean

On the other hand, you don't seem too proud to be muslim after all. :blink: Like you are wearing some heavy burden that you don't want...

[Microprose Veteran]

Hi, I'm a Dutchman.

Most Dutch think Holland is America's lapdog. I agree. Our Prime Minister is the most gutless, spineless old schoolboy we have ever seen. Thanks to him and his cabinet, we had a 1,000 soldiers collaborating with America in their illegal occupation of Iraq.

Stroggy may not like to hear this, but I do not consider America to be the 'good guys.' America is like any other imperialist nation that has existed in history. American propaganda will have you believe they're the most free and noble country in the world. After the Abu Ghraib scandal, they corrected that to "we're not as bad as Saddam." Wow.

What America needs is a new way of electing a president. America has almost 300 million people and only TWO viable political parties? Stroggy likes to have us believe "Democrats are bad." I would say it differently: "Democrats and Republicans are equally bad." They're like 'good cop' and 'bad cop.' Whoever is in power, the poor keep getting poorer while the rich become even richer.

No money for decent national healthcare. But another 80+ billion for the Iraq War? No problem! The American taxpayer is paying for the war. The likes of Lockheed, Halliburton and other big corporations are making zillions from this war. Because they are getting paid (with the American taxpayers' money). It was the same in the Vietnam War.

It's not about winning any war. It's about waging war. The cost: a couple of thousand dead US soldiers (most of whom are poor anyway) plus over a 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. In Vietnam, 1 million civilians were killed ("collateral damage") and they were friendlies, not Vietcong! The profits: billions and billions, most of it taxpayers' money, some of it oil money (Iraq).

It's not the American people's fault. They are brainwashed into believing they're the greatest nation on this planet. The political system in America leaves no room for other political parties. Ralph Nader is the only one who tries to give an alternative, but he hasn't got the enormous funds that the Democrats and Republicans have access to.

Bush said they will not pull their troops back from Iraq. So I guess the taxpayers' money hasn't run out yet. Do you think me cynical? Well, I don't think the military industrials will continue waging war if they do run out of money. There are limits to their patriotism.

Yet, I do not hate America. Believe me, you don't want to know me when I do hate you. Because I know hate. You (conservative Americans) think you know hate. You don't: you've been much too sheltered all your life.

[Shunk Eat Enemy]

i agree with you all the way there but we are not brainwashed most of us are really well aware dont you see we are weak puppets being pulled by our strings by the government and we cant do a thing about it and yes our country sees war=money i wish the punisher or the boondock saints were real because they would kill these greedy heartless bastards in a second :ranting:

[Evad]

Originally posted by Stroggy+Jun 18 2005, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Stroggy @ Jun 18 2005, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Evad@Jun 18 2005, 11:26 PM
Why didn't they want to let the UN weapons specialists continue their search?

Because it is now obvious the UN was working togethet with Saddam.
After taking on Annan's son, the evidence is also stacking up against mr Annan himself.
You can't deny the UN's corruption in the entire case, Annan himself fired numerous UN-employees because of the case.

As I said, politics is a dirty thing, and we'll have to wait 20 years before we get to know what really happened. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, but not at the time. If that were the reason then they would have had no problem saying that, but they actually stated that the wmds were being moved around in mobile facilities, and that the longer they waited, the higher the chance that Sadam and his merry band of chemical terror mongers were gonna start ww3. They played their populous, and that was enough to get the senate to budge and let them do their unilateral thing. The fact that all their info was fabricated as well as the full details of the oil-for-food fiasco only unfolded after the fact, .

[PrejudiceSucks]

The reason that this whole bloody war was started was for oil IMO.

Calling Saddam Hussain evil is a bit hipocritical really for the americans who put him into power and game him weapons. It's the same with the taliban. If the americans hadn't given them guns and massive wealth to fight off the Soviet republic then there would be less of a problem.

Also, for any of you who claim that his gassing of the Kurds is evil you have to take into account that they have been a pain in the arse in that whole region pretty much forever. The americans again gave them money and arms, emboldened them.

They then killed a whole load of innocent iraqi people needlessly. Gassing them could well have been claimed as a War On Terror.

@evad

What they did was try to make a good reason for a stupid war. If american 'gasoline' (petrol) wasn't $2 a gallon then there would be no problem. They should pay $6 a gallon minimum. That's still only around 60 pence a litre, nearly 30p less than the UK.

Then people will pay a reasonable amount for the damage they do to the planet and perhaps wars will not be started over oil any more.

@ all

Jihads were usually called against those who had offended the Muslims (I believe, I may be wrong though) and were a lot like Crusades. On the other hand, the Muslims were kind to their prisoners and brought wisdom all across the world, instead of just killing everyone and destroying things.

Claiming that Islam is an evil religion is a last grasp for ignorant die-hard Christians. For example Bush. He should keep his prejudices to himself.

[Titan]

Originally posted by PrejudiceSucks@Jun 19 2005, 06:49 AM
Calling Saddam Hussain evil is a bit hipocritical really

Tell that to my friend, who was arrested at a cafe, after just saying Saddam was a bad man, thrown into a bunker 20m underground, and spending 7 months there w/o seeing the sun once in a 2x2m cell, untill his rellatives bribed the guards and paid smugglers to get him out of the country (3.000 US$ in bribes and 5.000 US$ for the escape to Jordania).

The things HE have told ME doesn't realy convince me that Saddam and his fellows in the goverment was good guys.

btw, my friend has been here in Sweden for a good 3 years now, so this was all pre-war. He left his car-shop behind, and had to start over.

[PrejudiceSucks]

I did not say that he was a good person.

The USA hire a right load of bastards to do their dirty work and then expect them to stay on their side.

I am just saying that the US government is as corrupt and autocratic as the iraqi one every was.

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by Microprose Veteran@Jun 19 2005, 01:28 AM
Stroggy likes to have us believe "Democrats are bad."

I don't want you to believe that, it's just that some influential people who have come to support the democratic movement are far from being democrats. I'm referring to the so-called enlightened professors in American Universities that promote anti-semitism.

let me give you an example: A few days ago there was this democratic convention, a mock-impeachment case for Bush. Now at this convention democratic supporters would hand out books saying the Jews were responsible for 9/11 and all of the worls problems, and that they control the world. Howard Dean later stated "As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could 'dominate' the Middle East or that Israel was in any way behind the horrific September 11th attacks on America, let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric,"

You may not know this but if there is one guy republicans can't stand it is Howard Dean, they HATE him, but even they (the republican voters) congratulated him for the statement.

So my reason for strongly disliking quite a few democratic supporters is because they aren't reallyd emocratic, they just want to switch one enemy for another.