Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice

[Litofsky]

Good to know that we've all got such a high opinion of the Iraqi citizenry.

 

Well, we did invade their country, disrupt their equilibrium, and cut off their oil-selling abilities for a long period of time. Of course, one might argue that we removed a 'dictator,' but that completely obliterated the order.

 

So, you were saying?

[Web Rider]

Good to know that we've all got such a high opinion of the Iraqi citizenry.

 

I'm sure you'd be happy and cheery when a sniper in a foreign army blows the Bible out of the hands of the guy leading your Sunday ceremonies.

[Totenkopf]

Not the same thing, at all. While use of alcohol may upset some of the Muslim faith, it is not the same a disrespecting their holy book. Besides if Iraq were safe enough for an American soldier to go into a local establishment and get drunk this entire thread would be moot.

 

If Sharia, which they hold dear, prohibits the use of alcohol, then it would be suitably offensive enough to "endanger the lives" of other soldiers. Of course the danger of Vietnam didn't make it impossible for soldiers to go to bars or utilize brothels in that war zone, so don't see your point. Fact is, though, we both pretty much agree that the soldier should be reassigned.

[Litofsky]

I'm sure you'd be happy and cheery when a sniper in a foreign army blows the Bible out of the hands of the guy leading your Sunday ceremonies.

 

I think you mean occupying army. A country that's being controlled (more or less) by another is bound to erupt at any tiny action, no matter what it is. If I was living in an occupied country, with soldiers that completely destroyed my life patrolling on the sidewalk, I'd be willing to do anything to get them out.

 

So, when we look at the response from the sniper shooting a Holy Book, you should probably keep that in mind.

[Corinthian]

Anyway, I believe my work here is done given that no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for how Islam is a religion of peace despite declaring to Kill the Enemy without the use of Orwellian Psychology.

[Litofsky]

Anyway, I believe my work here is done given that no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for how Islam is a religion of peace despite declaring to Kill the Enemy without the use of Orwellian Psychology.

 

How do you prove that Muslims are worshiping a contradictory ideal? That would be your opinion, as I've stated, and that makes it open to debate. Claiming that you have won only makes it seem that you want 'out' of this argument.

 

As for Doublethink, haven't you seen it in real life? I don't want to give real examples, just yet, but I will if pressed.

[Corinthian]

Hey, I don't doubt you (Although I'd love to see some examples.)

 

As for proving that they're worshiping a contradictory ideal, well, killing is war, and war is the opposite of peace. It's not really all that complicated.

[Litofsky]

Hey, I don't doubt you (Although I'd love to see some examples.)

 

As for proving that they're worshiping a contradictory ideal, well, killing is war, and war is the opposite of peace. It's not really all that complicated.

 

Or is it? "War is Peace." I'll leave that open to interpretation, but I've come to my own conclusion about Blair's writings.

 

Anyways, for an example of Doublethink in the real world... Why not use one from 1984? The Generals of a war know that a situation is impossible (possibly winning a war), but firmly insistent that they will overcome said situation.

[Jae Onasi]

It's forbidden to have alcohol on US military posts that are in Muslim countries. Now does that mean soldiers don't get access to it? No. Muslims manage to find alcohol, too....

 

Still, despite Muslim laws about alcohol, having a drink is still viewed as far less of an offense as shooting their holy book.

[Litofsky]

It's forbidden to have alcohol on US military posts that are in Muslim countries. Now does that mean soldiers don't get access to it? No. Muslims manage to find alcohol, too....

 

Still, despite Muslim laws about alcohol, having a drink is still viewed as far less of an offense as shooting their holy book.

 

If someone shot the Bible, or Torah, or any other Holy Book for that matter, how do you think that we would react? Our cultures seem to hate each other, for a reason long forgotten.

 

As for finding alcohol, Prohibition showed everyone that rules are meant to be broken. If someone wants something enough, and has the capability to accomplish, you better bet that they'll try, at the very least.

[Rogue Nine]

Anyway, I believe my work here is done given that no one has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation for how Islam is a religion of peace despite declaring to Kill the Enemy without the use of Orwellian Psychology.

 

You like quoting that particular part of the Qur'an because it serves your purposes. Why not put it in the context it was meant to be read in?

 

Quoting from the Shakir translation on this online text of the Qur'an:

002.190 And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

002.191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

002.192 But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

002.193 And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

 

Again, you like quoting verse 191, but you don't quote the verses that bookend it, verses that advocate temperance and moderation with their actions. In light of this, I don't think it's a far stretch at all for Muslims to promote their religion as one of peace. They only spur their followers into deadly action when threatened, so it's not as if they preach that Muslims should just go randomly killing unbelievers they see on the streets.

[Corinthian]

If someone shot a Bible? There'd be a couple people angry and then it would fade away. You'll notice the idiot who made the Crucifix suspended in Urine didn't get carbombed.

 

1984 is not the real world.

 

War is not Peace. It's a generally understood fact that either War is a period between Peaces or Peace is a period between Wars.

 

AH! Rogue! You're finally back. Took you long enough.

 

So what? They still advocate killing the enemy, definitely not a pacifistic doctrine. Besides, if Islam were really a religion of peace, why are they so violent? The Middle-East is a hellhole jam-packed with petty dictators and fighting. Why is it that there are only a handful of stable nations controlled by Islam? Why is it that the phrase 'Stable as the Middle-East' is a statement on bad architecture, among other things?

[Litofsky]

Again, you like quoting verse 191, but you don't quote the verses that bookend it, verses that advocate temperance and moderation with their actions. In light of this, I don't think it's a far stretch at all for Muslims to promote their religion as one of peace. They only spur their followers into deadly action when threatened, so it's not as if they preach that Muslims should just go randomly killing unbelievers they see on the streets.

 

Thanks for finding actual evidence, Niner.

 

1984 is not the real world.

 

War is not Peace. It's a generally understood fact that either War is a period between Peaces or Peace is a period between Wars.

 

I prefer to think of 1984 as more of a warning and a symbol. I like to look at when Blair wrote it, why he did, and see how it compares to today. I assure you, if you look hard enough, it's pretty scary. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Corinthian]

Blair? Who's Blair? 1984 was written by George Orwell.

[Litofsky]

Blair? Who's Blair? 1984 was written by George Orwell.

 

George Orwell was a pseudonym. Or was Eric Blair the pseudonym? I've heard people go both way, but he used both, so I'd assume that both are acceptable.

[Web Rider]

If someone shot a Bible? There'd be a couple people angry and then it would fade away. You'll notice the idiot who made the Crucifix suspended in Urine didn't get carbombed.

Nobody has carbombed anyone over this.

 

1984 is not the real world.

In some places and at some times it would be a quite accurate picture of a nation.

 

War is not Peace. It's a generally understood fact that either War is a period between Peaces or Peace is a period between Wars.

and you're completely missing the point. Part of the statement is tied into the belief that war is the only means to achieve peace. That through force of arms we can eliminate the "bad people" and then there'll be peace.

 

So what? They still advocate killing the enemy, definitely not a pacifistic doctrine.

And the US is a republic, that doesn't stop us from calling ourselves a democracy.

 

Besides, if Islam were really a religion of peace, why are they so violent? The Middle-East is a hellhole jam-packed with petty dictators and fighting. Why is it that there are only a handful of stable nations controlled by Islam? Why is it that the phrase 'Stable as the Middle-East' is a statement on bad architecture, among other things?

Maybe it's because you're confusing the practicioners of a religion with the religion itsself. People are violent. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, ect. Very few people in this world are true pacifists. What the people do does not necessarily mean their holy books told them too.

[Rogue Nine]

So what? They still advocate killing the enemy, definitely not a pacifistic doctrine.

Read the parts of the Qur'an I quoted, please. They only advocate killing WHEN THREATENED OR ATTACKED FIRST. You can hardly fault them for self-preservation.

 

Besides, if Islam were really a religion of peace, why are they so violent?

Right, all Muslims everywhere are violent.

 

The Middle-East is a hellhole jam-packed with petty dictators and fighting. Why is it that there are only a handful of stable nations controlled by Islam? Why is it that the phrase 'Stable as the Middle-East' is a statement on bad architecture, among other things?

The Middle East has always been a hotbed of activity, and it's unfair to put it all on the Muslims when the Christians and the Jews have equal culpability throughout history.

 

And in modern times, the fighting in the Middle East has as much to do with socioeconomic and cultural factors as it does religion, so again, placing the blame solely on Islam is not only improper, but unfounded.

[Litofsky]

Read the parts of the Qur'an I quoted, please. They only advocate killing WHEN THREATENED OR ATTACKED FIRST. You can hardly fault them for self-preservation.

 

Self-preservation is one of our basic instincts, and we, as human beings, will react violently if one's life is threatened.

 

 

And in modern times, the fighting in the Middle East has as much to do with socioeconomic and cultural factors as it does religion, so again, placing the blame solely on Islam is not only improper, but unfounded.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the 'instability' in the Middle East originated from quite a few things. The first would be Israel's formation using Arab land (although, it was a British colony), and quite a few more would be the sponsored coups (I won't name names for this one) that occasionally rock the region.

[Rogue Nine]

Yes, I probably should have mentioned political factors as well. Apologies.

[Litofsky]

Yes, I probably should have mentioned political factors as well. Apologies.

 

No need to apologize. It was an honest mistake, if you even call it that. I say that it was a momentary lapse in mental faculties.

 

Anyways, the Middle East seems to be an incredibly difficult place to tread. One false move there, in particular, would be catastrophic for everyone involved.

[Corinthian]

They sure do hate the Israelis too...

 

Killing for self-preservation is still killing. It's not pacifistic. In other words, it proves that the too-often made statement that Islam is a religion of peace is a lie. But I don't think we really needed any convincing of THAT after the Six-Day War.

 

War cannot be the only means to achieve peace - There is either Peace or there is War. Besides, there's always the option of kowtowing to the enemy. A nation cannot be both at war and at peace. As soon as it goes to war it has broken it's own peace. Now, I agree with self-defense in war. Hell, I think that offense can, and often is, the proper course of action, but going to War for Peace is as ridiculous as blowing your legs off to gain height.

 

What's your point? That's us playing semantic games, not using contradictory terms. Republics and Democracies are close enough to being the same thing that it makes no real difference.

 

What's your point, Rogue? Killing for self-preservation is still killing. Not a peaceful act. Take a good look at pacifism. It's not that I disagree with what the Qur'an says in this regard - It's the sheep-like acceptance that Islam is a religion that can best be described as a huggy-muggy jolly bunch of people who like to gather in circles in sing Kum-Bay-Yah.

 

Interesting statement, there, Litofsky. One false move...truly, a peaceful people, from a religion of peace.

[Litofsky]

I'd like to raise the point that being in a constant state of fear, or even in a constant state of warning, does wonders to crime rates. Here is a link showing crime rates in Israel. The Murder Rate is particularly astounding, if I do say so. Compared to America, that's pretty interesting. Not to mention the use of the Death Penalty and total prisoners.

 

Anyways, killing in the name of self-preservation should be, and is, justified (that is, where I live). If someone is attempting to end your life, you have every right to stop that by any means necessary.

 

However, that's a point of debate, and would take us away from the topic. I'm not sure we have enough to discuss about the original topic, sadly.

[Web Rider]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the 'instability' in the Middle East originated from quite a few things. The first would be Israel's formation using Arab land (although, it was a British colony), and quite a few more would be the sponsored coups (I won't name names for this one) that occasionally rock the region.

 

the CURRENT instability perhaps. The overthrow of Iran, WWII, the Crusades, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the separation of Pakistan and India, there's a laundry list throughout history of why the Middle East has been plagued with instability.

 

 

War cannot be the only means to achieve peace - There is either Peace or there is War. Besides, there's always the option of kowtowing to the enemy. A nation cannot be both at war and at peace. As soon as it goes to war it has broken it's own peace. Now, I agree with self-defense in war. Hell, I think that offense can, and often is, the proper course of action, but going to War for Peace is as ridiculous as blowing your legs off to gain height.

Your black and white perspective of war and peace is nice, but that's not the point. Try considering the idea that war is used the achieve peace in the REAL WORLD and RIGHT NOW.

 

What's your point? That's us playing semantic games, not using contradictory terms. Republics and Democracies are close enough to being the same thing that it makes no real difference.

Do you elect the president?

Do you vote on new laws?

the answer is no. You don't. That's the important difference between a republic and a democracy.

 

We are constiutional democractic republic. IE: we use voting to pick most of our leaders/representatives and have a constitution that nobody can violate.

[Litofsky]

Do you elect the president?

Do you vote on new laws?

the answer is no. You don't. That's the important difference between a republic and a democracy.

 

We are constiutional democractic republic. IE: we use voting to pick most of our leaders/representatives and have a constitution that nobody can violate.

 

That's an interesting point. The Middle East has, historically, been a strategic location, what with it being the crossing points of three continents.

 

Of course, I'd like to raise a point about the voting, and perhaps some of the faults that have been documented, presented, and ignored, but that'd be getting way too off-topic. I'll make a separate thread if I really want to discuss voting.

[Corinthian]

Democracies are an impossibility on a national level, or, hell, even a state level. There's too many people, who, besides which, have no real knowledge to be making these decisions and don't have all the information anyway. Yes, there is a difference, but it's mostly because setting up a true Democracy over a nation of 300,000,000 people would be like trying to have a Town Council in New York City with 1/10th of the city coming.

 

You cannot have War to gain Peace. Now, you can have War to gain Safety or to not fight a war later in your own territory, but fighting a war for peace is like setting your computer on fire because you've got a bad RAM stick. Once you go to War, the Peace is broken until the War stops.