This is not an alien practice. The UK and US both did the same thing. The UK in Europe when they bombed Germany using Bomber Harris who bombed wide civilians areas in Dresden and elsewhere.

The US did even worse in Japan where they exploded nuclear bombs on two big cities.

I am definitly against Initiatory Terrorism. Why ? Becuause it is wrong and evil, and because it will result in retaliation that may kill more and more people.

So the blame for the lives of the innocents who are killed in both cases lies on those that initiate the terrorism.

Those who retaliate against the initiatory terrorism will be viewed as freedome fighters even though their means may not justify the ends.

Thos...

This is not an alien practice. The UK and US both did the same thing. The UK in Europe when they bombed Germany using Bomber Harris who bombed wide civilians areas in Dresden and elsewhere.

The US did even worse in Japan where they exploded nuclear bombs on two big cities.

I am definitly against Initiatory Terrorism. Why ? Becuause it is wrong and evil, and because it will result in retaliation that may kill more and more people.

So the blame for the lives of the innocents who are killed in both cases lies on those that initiate the terrorism.

Those who retaliate against the initiatory terrorism will be viewed as freedome fighters even though their means may not justify the ends.

Those who want to solve the problems that exist today should at the one that initiates the terrorism and try to stop him, instead of blaming the retaliator for retaliating.

The retaliator may not retaliate in valid ways but he is only doing it because of the initiator. Stop the initiator and then the retaliator will have no justification to continue his retaliation. If he does then he becomes like the intiator.

I hope this paints a clear picture for those who want to judge by what is right. And not for those who are just interested in being biased.

ali

I refer you to what an american citizen has written about the many occasions of initiatory terrorism unleashed by the US on the rest of humanity. Noam Chomsky. Many of his books are available free on the internet.

The main area of terrorism at present is aimed at the middle east. Mainly because of the strategic oil resouce that exists there. Attacks on Palestine by israel (supported by US) as well as attacks on civilians in Lebanon by US made weapons and cluster bombs. As well as killing of 1 million children in iraq due to sanctions. As well as the continueing iraq war, that had nothing to do with 911 or islamic militants, nor WMDs etc. There is so much terrorism that the US does unforutn...

I refer you to what an american citizen has written about the many occasions of initiatory terrorism unleashed by the US on the rest of humanity. Noam Chomsky. Many of his books are available free on the internet.

The main area of terrorism at present is aimed at the middle east. Mainly because of the strategic oil resouce that exists there. Attacks on Palestine by israel (supported by US) as well as attacks on civilians in Lebanon by US made weapons and cluster bombs. As well as killing of 1 million children in iraq due to sanctions. As well as the continueing iraq war, that had nothing to do with 911 or islamic militants, nor WMDs etc. There is so much terrorism that the US does unforutnately that it is not easy to list it. Thats why i refer you to Noam chomsky.

But for me the most chiling terrorism is that unleashed by the US goverment on its own people in the form of the 911 attacks. The loose change video, made by americans, convinced me that it was the US government that planned it.

regards, ali

I hope this paints a clear picture for those who want to judge by what
is right. And not for those who are just interested in being biased.

Right that’s it! I am sick to the back [insert swear word]
teeth of reading this sentence or something similar at the bottom of every one
of your posts, Ali. You do little more than try to impose your views on
everyone else with this infuriating insistence that yours is the only way, and
if that isn't bad enough, you have to close every comment with some
self-indulgent insult to us all about how wonderfully right you are and how
painfully stupid and unable to think for ourselves the rest of us are. This is
not what Clipmarks is about - we...

I hope this paints a clear picture for those who want to judge by what
is right. And not for those who are just interested in being biased.

Right that’s it! I am sick to the back [insert swear word]
teeth of reading this sentence or something similar at the bottom of every one
of your posts, Ali. You do little more than try to impose your views on
everyone else with this infuriating insistence that yours is the only way, and
if that isn't bad enough, you have to close every comment with some
self-indulgent insult to us all about how wonderfully right you are and how
painfully stupid and unable to think for ourselves the rest of us are. This is
not what Clipmarks is about - we debate, we chat, we discuss, and sometimes we
even fall out with each other. But we are not in the practice of habitually
insulting the entire site at the end of every comment. It’s gratuitous,
unhelpful and downright annoying.

Rant over.

anonymology , your comment is not in its right place man.

Why do you think i am insulting all people on clippers. My comments are general and apply to people who are of a certain type , not people who are in clippers and certainly not specifically to americans. There are some very courageous americans eg noam chomsky who i repetedly quote. And also those that did the loosechange video.

In Islam , the concept of nationality and nationalism doesnt exist. Islam encompasses all human beings and doesnt judge them on race, colour or nationality. It judges them only on how they think, and accepts those that do not believe in Islam as citizens similar to Muslims. That is why there still to this d...

anonymology , your comment is not in its right place man.

Why do you think i am insulting all people on clippers. My comments are general and apply to people who are of a certain type , not people who are in clippers and certainly not specifically to americans. There are some very courageous americans eg noam chomsky who i repetedly quote. And also those that did the loosechange video.

In Islam , the concept of nationality and nationalism doesnt exist. Islam encompasses all human beings and doesnt judge them on race, colour or nationality. It judges them only on how they think, and accepts those that do not believe in Islam as citizens similar to Muslims. That is why there still to this day are christians and jews living in Muslim land.

I hope i have explained my situation clearly. If not please tell me what i have missed out.

My closing statement was there because i have noticed some (not all and certainly not most) people here acting biasedly , especially when they are asked for evidence for their statements and they dont give any.

And finally, I dont consider you to be one of them.

No, Ali, if you've seen my profile, you should know that I'm KGB. But don't be afraid, we're not coming in black helicopters to get you. You got one thing right out of your speeches here - this IS a country with free speech, not just a claim, otherwise your comments would never be made public, which as you can see - they have been.

As for counter argument - a couple of things, if you truly believe what you claim and like the muslims I see on TV in palestine etc. - it would be a waste of time - since you have a 'closed mind'. If you do happen to have some opening there - we can certainly debate until CM servers buckle under pressure. But that's later. Right now, in the great, free speec...

No, Ali, if you've seen my profile, you should know that I'm KGB. But don't be afraid, we're not coming in black helicopters to get you. You got one thing right out of your speeches here - this IS a country with free speech, not just a claim, otherwise your comments would never be made public, which as you can see - they have been.

As for counter argument - a couple of things, if you truly believe what you claim and like the muslims I see on TV in palestine etc. - it would be a waste of time - since you have a 'closed mind'. If you do happen to have some opening there - we can certainly debate until CM servers buckle under pressure. But that's later. Right now, in the great, free speech, country of mine... one still must work to feed the family... so with that - I better go make a few dollars, so I can keep my Net access live, thus get to CM and debate you in the future. You have a nice day!

Actually arifsali, it's not so much against a religion as it is against the ones that hide behind it to do some very nasty things, as is the case with islam these days. As I stated earlier, I have zero problems with muslims who went to show their support to the Jewish families who lost their loved ones in the senseless shooting in Seattle a few months ago. I'm sure these women follow their religion, based on how they were described, and if so - obviously there are 2 faces of islam. I have zero problems with people like that or if their religion if it preaches what these ladies practice.

But when you look at what was done on 9/11 and more currently, what's going on in Iraq, where people a...

Actually arifsali, it's not so much against a religion as it is against the ones that hide behind it to do some very nasty things, as is the case with islam these days. As I stated earlier, I have zero problems with muslims who went to show their support to the Jewish families who lost their loved ones in the senseless shooting in Seattle a few months ago. I'm sure these women follow their religion, based on how they were described, and if so - obviously there are 2 faces of islam. I have zero problems with people like that or if their religion if it preaches what these ladies practice.

But when you look at what was done on 9/11 and more currently, what's going on in Iraq, where people actively and ruthlessly kill their own fellow neighbors even though not are they only their neighbors, but actually follow the SAME religion, when you have clerics of the highest order (supposedly) coming out with a statement like "any woman who doesn't cover her face is inviting rape" - you have to wonder what kind of religion is this? Or, all of these people claiming to be doing this supposedly for the sake of their religion are nothing but thugs and liars who aren't following the religion at all.

In the end, regardless of the religion and what it preaches, people should always be held responsible for their actions, regardless of their motives and justifications.

What Ali dropped here has so many holes, one can't see the substance, if one actually thinks about it, but as the man said - he lives in a free country and as much as he may hate it - he certainly has the right to spew garbage on it (although makes one wonder why would anyone want to live in a society you despise?)

He says he doesn't understand me... well that could be my English, could be a hint of my Russian humor (we didn't export humor to the Middle East, just weapons, so I can understand his lack in this department) and in part because he's so versed in AlJazeera that any other thought becomes unclear...

So what is the Garbage I have spewed then?

Also does living in a Western society mean you are not allowed to critisize it? And if you do critisize it you are told to leave? Is this what freedom of speech means?

So when I said there is a claim of free speech , this is exactly what i mean. As soon as it is used in a way that offends the society it tells them to leave the country. Even though all they have done is practiced free speech.

Third, the issue of Despising the society. What i despise is evil wherever I see it. Whether in my society or in another society, i speak out against because this is part of my faith , or way of life (Enjoining good and forbidding evil). This is a fundamental...

So what is the Garbage I have spewed then?

Also does living in a Western society mean you are not allowed to critisize it? And if you do critisize it you are told to leave? Is this what freedom of speech means?

So when I said there is a claim of free speech , this is exactly what i mean. As soon as it is used in a way that offends the society it tells them to leave the country. Even though all they have done is practiced free speech.

Third, the issue of Despising the society. What i despise is evil wherever I see it. Whether in my society or in another society, i speak out against because this is part of my faith , or way of life (Enjoining good and forbidding evil). This is a fundamental teaching in Islam. So critisizing some evil in society does not mean i despise society. Infact it means the opposite. It means i am working to improve the society and that means i actually care for it. If I saw evil and did not critisize it then you could say i despise or didnt care about that society.

ali

Ali_Muslim said:

I am definitly against Initiatory Terrorism. Why ? Becuause it is wrong and evil, and because it will result in retaliation that may kill more and more people.

So the blame for the lives of the innocents who are killed in both cases lies on those that initiate the terrorism.

Those who retaliate against the initiatory terrorism will be viewed as freedom fighters even though their means may not justify the ends.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that "Initiated Terrorism" is evil and wrong, but "Retaliatory Terrorism" is noble and good?

Determining which side offended the other first or caused the "initial injury" is almost impossible. Not only is mis...

Ali_Muslim said:

I am definitly against Initiatory Terrorism. Why ? Becuause it is wrong and evil, and because it will result in retaliation that may kill more and more people.

So the blame for the lives of the innocents who are killed in both cases lies on those that initiate the terrorism.

Those who retaliate against the initiatory terrorism will be viewed as freedom fighters even though their means may not justify the ends.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that "Initiated Terrorism" is evil and wrong, but "Retaliatory Terrorism" is noble and good?

Determining which side offended the other first or caused the "initial injury" is almost impossible. Not only is misunderstanding and miscommunication steeped in "tradition", faded among the pages of history, rendered incomprehensible by the retelling of a thousand lips.... it is also 100% based on individual perception. What you may consider a blasphemous insult, someone else may recognize as friendly banter.

Retaliation is not the answer, and remains just as evil and wrong as the initial (real or perceived) injury.

Joshua seemed to have the solution on war...

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

Enbar, clarity. I think your ideological mishaps are
purposeful. 1st, Lazerus was not resurrected. Being brought back from
an inanimate state is not resurrection.
Resurrection is becoming wholley of God, without end and ditinguishbly separate from human.
AliIslam...To say the resurrection did not happen, again
discredits the claims of the person Islam says is a profit. This
inconsistency cannot be answered or defended, making the Koran highly
suspect. We could discus others, but this one example is enough.
Also, denying resurrection suggests that the witnesses and
apostles, were stupid for dying for a cause they knew to be a lie.
Further the Quran was written 600 years after the ev...

Enbar, clarity. I think your ideological mishaps are
purposeful. 1st, Lazerus was not resurrected. Being brought back from
an inanimate state is not resurrection.
Resurrection is becoming wholley of God, without end and ditinguishbly separate from human.
AliIslam...To say the resurrection did not happen, again
discredits the claims of the person Islam says is a profit. This
inconsistency cannot be answered or defended, making the Koran highly
suspect. We could discus others, but this one example is enough.
Also, denying resurrection suggests that the witnesses and
apostles, were stupid for dying for a cause they knew to be a lie.
Further the Quran was written 600 years after the events it claims to
discredit and was written by one man in private. The New Testament
writers and witnesses of this fact number in the hundreds. Mohammed
was not in position to speak against the New Testament, as he stated, he
was just a messenger and could not demonstrate his authority in any
way.
On the other hand Paul and the Apostles were able to hold the truth and
with a small group of witnesses and believers, confidently profess to
their death.
I can honestly say the resurrection in itself is difficult to accept at
face value. However, to discount the resurrection also discounts the
context of the resurrection and this is a gross oversight.
I also understand that other faiths and Universalists use Jesus'
message. But Jesus was not unclear about who he is. Enbar says Jesus did
not claim to be God. However, why should Jesus make a claim that was
already made by Ceasar. Jesus made his claim by speaking from the
authority of God, this is much more than an expression or claim.
However, beside that there are many examples where Jesus claimed to be
God, John 8:52-59, John 10:30-33, Matthew 26:63-66 for example.
You are right Enbar, if Jesus' claim was not accurate, then he was a
blasphemer. So again, What in Jesus' life, teaching, or
nature lends credence to yo

I was just speaking in terms to draw a distinction on the comment you made about resurrection. refer to comments.

http://www.carm.org/

Here is a site that covers this issue. search... resurrection.
It speak breify on this and provides scriptural references. Keep in mind if your interested in this issue, you should look into it deeper. I'm racking my brain to think of an apologist to refer you to on this.

However, if you've studied this awhile it is very common, even obvious distiction. A resurrected body is a body in a state that does not die.
Clearly Lazarus was not in a resurrected state. It would be more accurate to say he was in a ressucitated state....

I was just speaking in terms to draw a distinction on the comment you made about resurrection. refer to comments.

http://www.carm.org/

Here is a site that covers this issue. search... resurrection.
It speak breify on this and provides scriptural references. Keep in mind if your interested in this issue, you should look into it deeper. I'm racking my brain to think of an apologist to refer you to on this.

However, if you've studied this awhile it is very common, even obvious distiction. A resurrected body is a body in a state that does not die.
Clearly Lazarus was not in a resurrected state. It would be more accurate to say he was in a ressucitated state.
As far as you bringing it back to Islam... I don't know how that is relevant. I was only reponding to your comment about Lazarus.

I will not debate, but some factual points:

- Islam does embrace Christians, but also says that it is corrupt. In Islam, if you believe in god, you go to heaven. You burn for your sins first, but if you believe, you have salvation. Therefore, any believers in the god will be let in the heaven. This is controversial among some scholars though, interpretations might vary.

-Bible was written after the events. Kor'an did not have events written by others, all the book is considered to be words of Allah delivered to Mohammed spanning over a long time. Mohammed had many people keeping track of the book both in their minds and in writing. Thus, Kor'an suggests that Bible was corrupted and t...

I will not debate, but some factual points:

- Islam does embrace Christians, but also says that it is corrupt. In Islam, if you believe in god, you go to heaven. You burn for your sins first, but if you believe, you have salvation. Therefore, any believers in the god will be let in the heaven. This is controversial among some scholars though, interpretations might vary.

-Bible was written after the events. Kor'an did not have events written by others, all the book is considered to be words of Allah delivered to Mohammed spanning over a long time. Mohammed had many people keeping track of the book both in their minds and in writing. Thus, Kor'an suggests that Bible was corrupted and transformed into men's word rather than God's; unlike Kor'an which claims that it will never be corrupt (then again Bible has similar implications as well).

-The previous point is the basis for the denial of resurrection. Kor'an says that he was shown to be dead, unlike what the Bible suggests. Since according to Islam Bible is corrupt and Kor'an is the direct word of Allah (whether it has changed or not is a highly controversial and vague discussion, I must add), the god's child, resurrection etc. parts were considered as men's words. It is accepted by Islamic scholars that these were simply myths that were born during the period after Jesus died, when many versions of Bible were being used.