Just not there

[sirs]

Sorry, we're not in a court of law, where one must prove that Bin ladin is the spirtual leader for Islam.  If he were THEN we could entertain your notion that all Muslims are terrorists.

Good thing, no one is arguing that

So i just should take your word for it, because it's what ..... obvious... that Bin Laden speaks for Islam?

Boy, you really are on a roll in putting words in other people's mouths, mine in particular currently.  1st it was that this Imam was a radical in cahoots with AlQeada.  Now its that Bin Laden speaks for all of Islam.  What next, do I need to refute, never having said or even impled??

Looks to me like he is appealing to Islam to rise up against the "occupiers and the custodians of Mecca"

Ahhh, more in line with what I've actually implied, that of advocating to Muslims to rise up, in the name of Islam, to take on us evil Westerners (and Israel of course).  And those who actually take up the call, are the radicals in question that mutate the message of Islam, justifying their murders.  Imagine that.      And if they die in the process, dozens of virgins behind door #1, per their religion. 

Sure wish I knew where you were trying to go with this

[BT]

Sure wish I knew where you were trying to go with this

Pretty simple. If he were speaking on behalf of Islam, he wouldn't be appealing to Islam to rise up with him.

[sirs]

So, bascially you're helping to enfore the point I made in the lower paragrapgh of the previous post...thank you very much

Ironically helping also to debunk what you falsely claimed I was implying

[BT]

So, bascially you're helping to enfore the point I made in the lower paragrapgh of the previous post...thank you very much

No. You said Bin Laden spoke on behalf of Islam. His choice of words in his fatwa indicates he doesn't.

[sirs]

I said he didn't represent Islam.  Please keep it honest

[BT]

View Profile Email Personal Message (Online)
   
   
Re: Just not there
? Reply #190 on: Today at 11:08:58 AM ?
   Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Quote
Gets refuted each and every time when you'll note my support of Muslims praying & building anywhere they want, outside of such close proximity to thousands killed in the name of their religion

Who says it was done in the name of their religion?

   Report to moderator   68.154.220.129 (?)
sirs
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10982



View Profile Email Personal Message (Online)
   
   
Re: Just not there
? Reply #191 on: Today at 11:37:38 AM ?
   Reply with quoteQuote Modify messageModify Remove messageRemove Split TopicSplit Topic
Bin Laden, last I checked.  The fella behind the attacks.  Not to mention that's the theme of AlQeada, sprinkled with how terrible the U.S. and Israel are supposed to be.  A bunch of virgins apparently await, following thier "courageous" act, in the name of Allah

[sirs]

Yea....and??  If you want to get nuts & bolts, Bin Laden represents the mutation of Islam.  He however neither speaks as the authority on Islam, nor as its representative, so you can dispense with that misapplied claim to me.  

He, as you rightly have referenced, advocates that Islam rise up and take out the evil west.  The highjacksers on 911, took up the calling, and at the behest (& planning) of Bin Laden, and in thier screwed up rendition of Islam, murdered 3+thousand American men, women & children.

As screwed up as they were, they did so, in the name of Islam

[BT]

You seem to have short term memory loss.

I posted the claim where you stated Bin Laden acted on behalf of Islam. first you denied, then you modified.

You also claimed that Rauf said the US was worse than Al Queda. He never did. Then you modified that though what he did say was true, you didn't like the way he said it. You didn't like who he said it to, where he said it or the context in which he said it because it just shows how far from the truth his claims of bridging intolerance and seeking reconciliation really are. Yet he was invited to Australia to speak to a group whose whole purpose is to bridge gaps between cultures and to foster understanding.

And just a minor quibble:

As screwed up as they were, they did so, in the name of Islam

No they did so as part of the fatwa.
Using your logic the US Government responded in the name of Christianity.

[sirs]

Yes, as a mutated representative of Islam.  His Fatwa is specific to the religion of Islam.  His cry is for Islam to rise up and defeat the evil west.  911 Highjackers did precisely that

gads, I don't know why we're going over this AGAIN.  And that includes your attempt at rationalizing the Imam's speech.  1st it's a report that's largely positive, in that of course we're taking out more of them than they are of us....we're bigger, and that's our goal.  Then its largely neutral, a mere reporting of the facts.  Then its negative in providing an attempted bridge of reconciliation, by being honest in how much blood Western Civi.....ooops, just the U.S. has spilt

I love the political ability you have to be everywhere in answering a question, but I'm not one of your consituents

And my logic is specific to current events, thank you very much

[BT]

First off I am no longer an elected official.

Secondly, did the US respond to Bin Laden in the name of Christianity?

Simple question.

[sirs]

First off I am no longer an elected official.

The skills are still impressive

Secondly, did the US respond to Bin Laden in the name of Christianity?

Nope

Simple answer

[BT]

Nope

Simple answer

Good we have established that military responses and actions  do not necessarily have to be based on religious beliefs.

Woud you consider it a fair statement to say the 911 attacks were a military action in the prosecution of Bin Ladens fatwa?

[sirs]

...more accurately a terrorist action, in the name of Islam, per the Fatwa, absolutely

[sirs]

You really like to accuse others of "lying", it appears.

Oh here we go again....Xo.....the lie here is you lying about my supposed accusing others of lying.  I requested examples of these supposed accusations on my part.  And as I expected, right on cue, you failed to respond.  Bt is the one who has originated the claim of lying this go around, NOT me, yet there you are perpetating the same garbage you couldn't validate the 1st go around

So, put up (examples of this plethora of sirs merely accusing others of lying), or be shown to be either
a) grossly in error
or
b) perpetuating a lie

Your silence & failure to respond with actual examples vs the standard personal attack tact, will merely allow others to decide a) or b), based on your own track record

I think we can now put that accusation to rest, not to mention a stark reminder any time it comes up in the future.  Thanks, Xo

[BT]

...more accurately a terrorist action, in the name of Islam, per the Fatwa, absolutely

terrorist actions often have the same components as a military action, accept the targets are not soldiers they are civilians. You have planning, logistics, target acquisition, choice of weapons, staffing and execution.

I'm not convinced 9-11 was done in the name of Islam. Even mutant islam, whatever that is.

I think it was done as part of Bin Laden's Fatwa.