Ron Paul has voted against every single Congressional pay raise

[Truth-Bringer]

im starting to see the propoganda for what it is here

USMC is an honest person, however, it's plain to see that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with him on this matter. He didn't answer my post on this the first go round on the other thread, and now he's just throwing up Straw Men and accussations of my alleged assumptions without acknowledging his own assumptions.

See, USMC has a conflict of interest in the matter in that as a member of the military, he is actively engaged in enforcing this view. That makes it much harder for him to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Because what if he is wrong? That means his actions have all been meaningless.

Again, one can have all the good intentions in the world, but that won't change the laws of cause and effect.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

USMC is an honest person, however, it's plain to see that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with him on this matter. He didn't answer my post on this the first go round on the other thread, and now he's just throwing up Straw Men and accussations of my alleged assumptions without acknowledging his own assumptions.

See, USMC has a conflict of interest in the matter in that as a member of the military, he is actively engaged in enforcing this view. That makes it much harder for him to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Because what if he is wrong? That means his actions have all been meaningless.

Again, one can have all the good intentions in the world, but that won't change the laws of cause and effect.

Truth, this is not about me.

Saying that every attack the Islamists make on us is because of something we have done in the past is not supported by history.

What foreign policy mishap encouraged the Islamic Barbary Pirates to attack? Why do the Islamists attack countries that positively have no foreign policy?

And please respond to my previous post before accusing me of "throwing up straw men".

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Saying that every attack the Islamists make on us is because of something we have done in the past is not supported by history.

It most certainly is. Does that account for 100% of Islamic attacks? No, and I never claimed it did. Yes, their religion has more references to violence than others, but the fact that the majority of Muslims ignore those teachings disproves your claims.

Regardless, in the final equation, the vast majority of terrorist attacks occur due to U.S. interference abroad and Zionist policies.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

It most certainly is. Does that account for 100% of Islamic attacks? No, and I never claimed it did. Yes, their religion has more references to violence than others, but the fact that the majority of Muslims ignore those teachings disproves your claims.

Excuse me if I am having a hard time fully comprehending your message because it is filled with inconsistencies. So are you saying that attacks in the name of Islam are driven by foreign policy or not? And don't keep this exclusively to the U.S.

The list is of groups enslaved and slaughtered for not submitting to the word of Allah is endless: the pagans of Arabia, the Christians and Jews of the Holy Land, the Zoroastrians of ancient Persia, Christians, Jews, and animists of North Africa and Egypt, the 70-80 million Hindus in India, the people of the Iberian Peninsula, the people of eastern Europe (Vienna -- Suleiman the Magnificent, Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, etc.), the people of Constantinople, the millions (perhaps billion) of Europeans over the centuries, the American sailors (Barbary pirates), Sudanese, Indonesians, Beslans...

Were all of these the result of their specific foreign policies?

Mohammed commanded the destruction of all civilizations except the fanatic Islamic ones in the 6th century AD. This back when the West, including Britain, didn't even know the Middle East existed. What foreign policy was driving this?

The war started back in the 500s and the 21st century extension of the conflict between Islamic imperialists and those who are unwilling to submit to the word of Allah has NOTHING to do with American foreign policy.

This is what you need to understand. The Islamists don't need a pretext for war other than refusal to submit to Sharia law, the word of their "prophet", and the word of allah.

Regardless, in the final equation, the vast majority of terrorist attacks occur due to U.S. interference abroad and Zionist policies.

Now doesn't this line make you feel silly in light of the education you have just been given above?

 

[vyo476]

It most certainly is. Does that account for 100% of Islamic attacks? No, and I never claimed it did. Yes, their religion has more references to violence than others, but the fact that the majority of Muslims ignore those teachings disproves your claims.

For once, we're in total agreement.

 

[vyo476]

This is what you need to understand. The Islamists don't need a pretext for war other than refusal to submit to Sharia law, the word of their "prophet", and the word of allah.

Kind of like how we don't need a pretext for war other than faulty intelligence reports?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Kind of like how we don't need a pretext for war other than faulty intelligence reports?

No, not really.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Mohammed commanded the destruction of all civilizations except the fanatic Islamic ones in the 6th century AD.

Again, you refute your own argument. If Muslims follow this teaching, then why aren't the vast majority of Muslims constantly invading other nations?

Now don't you feel silly?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Again, you refute your own argument. If Muslims follow this teaching, then why aren't the vast majority of Muslims constantly invading other nations?

Now don't you feel silly?

This is such a terrible argument that your hinging your entire position on, Truth.

Some Muslims chose to accept the teachings and others don't. Your same logic would apply to Ron Paul's theory that it's American foreign policy which drives the Islamic terrorists: if American foreign policy created terrorists, then why aren't the vast majority of Muslims flying commerical airliners into our buildings?

So Truth, just to be clear -- do you still believe that it's foreign policy that drives the Islamic terrorists?

Back before Darfur was fashionable, whose foreign policy was driving Muslims to enter Sudanese villages, ask women "Muslims or Christian" and then gang rape and leave to die in the streets those who answered incorrectly?

Or back in the 16th century when Suleiman the Magnificent all but destroyed Vienna in the name of Islam because of their religion...

I've given you all the examples already. You just chose to ignore history and blame the victims.

 

[9sublime]

Remeber the crusades USMC. Its exactly the same.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Remeber the crusades USMC. Its exactly the same.

Except the Crusades were about 800 years ago.

 

[9sublime]

Or back in the 16th century when Suleiman the Magnificent all but destroyed Vienna in the name of Islam because of their religion...

I've given you all the examples already. You just chose to ignore history and blame the victims.

I swear the 16th century was 500 years ago, and that you just told someone not to ignore history.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I swear the 16th century was 500 years ago, and that you just told someone not to ignore history.

Yes, this is one example but others are much more recent. And 9sublime, I'm really not interested in another Muslim vs. Christian debate. We're discussing the validity of blaming American foreign policy for driving the Islamic terrorists. Christians and the Crusades really don't have much to do with this.

 

[vyo476]

Back before Darfur was fashionable, whose foreign policy was driving Muslims to enter Sudanese villages, ask women "Muslims or Christian" and then gang rape and leave to die in the streets those who answered incorrectly?

And where in the Qu'ran does it tell Muslims to rape non-Muslims?

 

[vyo476]

If you read the Qu'ran, you'll see that there are a number of references to how one is supposed to treat civilians and prisoners. There's even an old Muslim anecdote about Muhammad stopping to help an old woman from the opposing side who had been injured, telling his followers that attacking civilians was not okay.

The Islamic terrorists are picking and choosing which tenets of their faith to follow just as much as the peaceful Muslims are.

And have you ever asked yourself why suddenly we're the target? We weren't for a long time; Muslims engaged in uprisings and warfare against the French and British all during the first half of the twentieth century. Was this because Islam told them to? Or was it because when the French and British promised independence to the Middle East they instead got the League of Nations to install them as rulers?

This isn't to say that there aren't some Islamic terrorists who are mostly motivated by their faith. Fanatics exist in all religions; Islam is no different.