American Muslim Threatens Us Over Support For Israel

[Guest]

Im taking it to the "extreme"

Jesus said whoever is not for me is against me.

I mean the man suffered hung and died on a cross so we could LIVE.

Its a pretty sensitve issue with him. If you are not for him you are against him.

Notice the line he is drawing ?

So then you have your extreme muslims who are teaching that christains must be killed.

They teach Jesus is but a prophet and that the Holy Father will correct him.

It is more then just to call these men terrorist as they seek to destroy Gods people.

You then have those who are closer to the line that Jesus drew.

Again, Jesus said if you are not for me you are against me.

So these people better hop over the line and be for him or its not going to be good.

Do I think all who are not for Jesus are terrorist ?

Ya and some worse then others but still terrorist all the same.

I also love my enemeis as Jesus requested and pray they come to know Christ and His Church.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Guest

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1747668' date='Jan 9 2009, 08:50 PM']It is not a "tirade". It is an article from a website.[/quote]


What did you want us to draw from this article? Why was it important to you?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1747691' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:15 PM']Im taking it to the "extreme"

Jesus said whoever is not for me is against me.

I mean the man suffered hung and died on a cross so we could LIVE.

Its a pretty sensitve issue with him. If you are not for him you are against him.

Notice the line he is drawing ?

So then you have your extreme muslims who are teaching that christains must be killed.

They teach Jesus is but a prophet and that the Holy Father will correct him.

It is more then just to call these men terrorist as they seek to destroy Gods people.

You then have those who are closer to the line that Jesus drew.

Again, Jesus said if you are not for me you are against me.

So these people better hop over the line and be for him or its not going to be good.

Do I think all who are not for Jesus are terrorist ?

Ya and some worse then others but still terrorist all the same.

I also love my enemeis as Jesus requested and pray they come to know Christ and His Church.[/quote]

What exactly do you mean by "for Jesus"?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1747227' date='Jan 9 2009, 03:18 PM']And hijacking isn't appropriate in a thread about Muslims [i]why[/i]?[/quote]
What are you implying by [i]that[/i] comment?

[Guest]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1747697' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:20 PM']What exactly do you mean by "for Jesus"?[/quote]

for him, love him, accept him as the lord and savior of your life, communicate to the father through him, be obedient to him, eat his body and drink his bood, confess sins that seperate one from the father, have no partnership with those who usher in evil but rather expose their evil works, but most of all walk in love for love makes up a multitude of sins.

one cannot have love if they are killing in a false prophets name while also training the militant below them to kill christains who wont convert to their false religion.

[BG45]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1747696' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:19 PM']What did you want us to draw from this article? Why was it important to you?[/quote]

Seriously Hassan, flashbacks to third grade here.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1747674' date='Jan 9 2009, 07:56 PM']Where have I defended terrorists?[/quote]

By disagreeing with "terrorists are lunatics". Do you think of them as fluffy bunnies instead?

[quote name='Hassan' post='1747678' date='Jan 9 2009, 08:00 PM']They certianly fall under [i]my[/i] definition of terrorists, but seeing as you have yet to define what [i]you[/i] mean by the term I can't say. How do you define "terrorist" and how do you define "lunatic"?[/quote]

[i]Clearly[/i] they (those who destroyed the World Trade Center) fall under my definition as well, otherwise I would not have mentioned them. In fact, they fall under [i]the[/i] definition of "terrorist".” There are many different [i]kinds[/i] of terrorists but the word "terrorist" is not subjective. Do you really need me to look it up in the dictionary for you?

Edited January 10, 2009 by HisChildForever

[BG45]

One must remember the United States government does not have a single definition of terrorist even, in fact almost every federal agency has a different definition. In general though, most people would define it like HCF is: people who use violence and acts that inspire fear to get their way who are motivated by religious or ideological reasons that go against modern society.

Edited January 10, 2009 by BG45

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='BG45' post='1747729' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:01 PM']One must remember the United States government does not have a single definition of terrorist even, in fact almost every federal agency has a different definition.[/quote]

That being so there is still a fundamental definition.

[b]Terrorism[/b]
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism[/url]

[b]Terrorist[/b]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist[/url]

Edited January 10, 2009 by HisChildForever

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1747722' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:49 PM']By disagreeing with "terrorists are lunatics". Do you think of them as fluffy bunnies instead? [/quote]

That's not defending terrorists; it is rejecting your sloppy and unscientific claim. I don't mean anything personal by that but that's an unbelievable vague claim.



[quote][i]Clearly[/i] they (those who destroyed the World Trade Center) fall under my definition as well, otherwise I would not have mentioned them. In fact, they fall under [i]the[/i] definition of "terrorist".” There are many different [i]kinds[/i] of terrorists but the word "terrorist" is not subjective. Do you really need me to look it up in the dictionary for you?[/quote]

The word terrorist certainly is up for dispute. I don't care where your definition from, I just want to know how you define "terrorist" and "lunatic"

[Guest]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1747733' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:05 PM']I don't care where your definition from, I just want to know how you define "terrorist" and "lunatic"[/quote]

anyone who opposes christ and his church
real simple

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1747733' date='Jan 9 2009, 09:05 PM']The word terrorist certainly is up for dispute. I don't care where your definition from, I just want to know how you define "terrorist" and "lunatic"[/quote]

I do not define those words because they already HAVE definitions. But why don't you stop obsessing over definitions and instead try and justify your defense of terrorists?

[HisChildForever]

If terrorists aren't lunatics then what are they, Hassan? Let's hear a straight answer.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1747737' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:08 PM']I do not define those words because they already HAVE definitions.[/quote]

No they don't. There is not even universal agreement over whether only NGO's may engage in terrorism. For example the Defense Department (I believe) offers a definition of terrorism which implies that only NGO's are classifiable as terrorists. Would this mean that Hamas cannot be guilty of terrorism or engage in terrorist acts as they are a now government? Obviously most people would consider Hamas a terrorist organization despite its new found governmental status. Online dictionaries give general, common understanding of what people mean by the term you look up (hence DICTIONary) but not serious, scientific definitions. Within studies of political science and international relations there is still a great deal of dispute over just what terrorism [b]is[/b].


[quote]But why don't you stop obsessing over definitions and instead try and justify your defense of terrorists?[/quote]


Because definitions are important. Analytic reasoning is not always nice as it generally takes the wind out of rhetorical sails but if you want to have a discussion with any relevance to the real world and that is intelectually viable you need some rigor in your discourse. I have not defended terrorism and your sophomoric attempts to again imply I am are just pathetic.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1747738' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:10 PM']If terrorists aren't lunatics then what are they, Hassan? Let's hear a straight answer.[/quote]

That's difficult to say as I still have no clear definition of what you mean by terrorists and so don’t know how wide a scope to use. Does someone have t actually engage in violent acts to be a terrorist or can they simply support the actions of individuals who do?