Christianity vs Islam

[Faithfulee]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020769.php

April 23, 2008
Nigeria: Muslims rioting, attacking Christians over claim that a Christian blasphemed Muhammad
Thousands of Christians trapped in churches as Muslims riot, looking for them.
"Nigeria: Muslim Rioters Attack Christians In Kano: Claim of ‘blasphemy’ in city market leads to looting, destruction," from Compass Direct News (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):
KANO, Nigeria, April 23 (Compass Direct News) – Hundreds of Muslims took to the streets of this northern Nigerian city on Sunday (April 20), attacking Christians and their shops and setting vehicles on fire on claims that a Christian had blasphemed Muhammad, the prophet of Islam.
Thousands of Christians were trapped in churches until police dispersed rioters. Fearing that Muslims may attack again, many Christians have relocated to army and police barracks in the city.
An as yet unidentified Christian was said to have written an inscription on a shop wall that disparaged the prophet of Islam. Muslims at a market in the Sabon Garia area of the city reportedly attacked the Christian, whom police rescued and took to the area police station.
\
Can you Imagine the outrage if a Christian were to do the same to a group of Muslims, anywhere in the world?

I have heard no comment from Cair or from any US Muslim group, or for that matter any Muslims anywhere in the world.

[jacknky]

Lee,
"That is a common response, but I ask "why must we be careful?""

Because we don't want to make a bad situation worse. We don't want to prove the Bin Ladens right by giving them ammunition to say that the Christian West is anti-Muslim wanting to occupy their lands. We want to be careful because we don't want to create more terrorists by giving them a reason to hate us more. We also want to be careful because it's not true that most Muslims are or support terrorists.

I'm not saying let's not defend ourselves. I'm saying let's not be stupid. Like, invading a Muslim country was stupid and created more terrorism, not less.

[Faithfulee]

Lee,
"That is a common response, but I ask "why must we be careful?""

Because we don't want to make a bad situation worse. We don't want to prove the Bin Ladens right by giving them ammunition to say that the Christian West is anti-Muslim wanting to occupy their lands.

No one wants to "occupy their land"  We drove ruthless dictators from Iraq and Aghanistan and we facilitated democracy in both instances.  We are working to have the people of these lands to be able to defend themselves from Islamic extremists and to preserve their democracy.  THAT objective is what infuriates the Islamic Terrorists because their goal is to destroy democracy, replace it with a Islamic Armies and force and bring back Islamic law.

We want to be careful because we don't want to create more terrorists by giving them a reason to hate us more. We also want to be careful because it's not true that most Muslims are or support terrorists.
They demostrated their hatred and 9/11/01,  we don't need to do anything to reveal the hatred that is at the heart of Islamic extremists.

I'm not saying let's not defend ourselves. I'm saying let's not be stupid. Like, invading a Muslim country was stupid and created more terrorism, not less.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I see Iraq and Afghanistan being legitimate and very positive responses to the "Jihad against Western Civilizaton."  That is a term that I use frequently and it must infuriate the Islamic Extremists.  That is my right because I know what "Jiahd" means in the minds of Islamists.  I also support Condi Rice in her call for officials not to use "Jihad" because it is unnecessarily confrontational for a government agency.   I would hope that the Mosques in America reinforce the real meaning of "jihad" but I suspect that many justify the Jihad against western civilization.  I base this on the lack of opposition by many Muslim organization to the Islamic terrorism that goes on every day all over the world.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"You are entitled to your opinion, but I see Iraq and Afghanistan being legitimate and very positive responses to the "Jihad against Western Civilizaton." 


Why would youi think that?

IRAQ did NOTHING to the US.

Why would invading them under false pretenses and destroying their country be seen by you as "a positive response" to anything?


In order for there to be a "response" there has to be a First Action. With Iraq there was none.

[Acumen]

Why would invading them under false pretenses and destroying their country be seen by you as "a positive response" to anything?

How many terrorist attacks have we had on our native soil since 911?

[Faithfulee]

FFLee says--

"You are entitled to your opinion, but I see Iraq and Afghanistan being legitimate and very positive responses to the "Jihad against Western Civilizaton." 


Why would youi think that?

IRAQ did NOTHING to the US.

Why would invading them under false pretenses and destroying their country be seen by you as "a positive response" to anything?


In order for there to be a "response" there has to be a First Action. With Iraq there was none.

Sad man did a pretty good job of destroying Iraq, and attempting the same to Kuait  etc.  In fact our deposing sad man resulted in a democratic Iraq.  Democracy is the antidote to Islamic terrorism and If Iraq does maintain its ability to defend itself  the US has taken a huge step toward a more peaceful world.
I hope you want to see Democracy flourish in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

You are repeating the Islamic Terrorist claim that the US is an Invader.  With the government taking more and more responsibility to combat the Islamic Terrorists,  that claim will lose credibility. 

In fact the Iraq people have authenticated our removal of the tyrant sad man, but trying him in a court of civil law and executing him. 

Thank yo Acumen for reminding us that there have been no successful Islamic Terror attacks on the US since 9/11/01.  That is another tribute to the Bush Administratio and it is a very tough act to follow.

[Acumen]

Thank yo Acumen for reminding us that there have been no successful Islamic Terror attacks on the US since 9/11/01.  That is another tribute to the Bush Administratio and it is a very tough act to follow.

The Bush Administration has done a marvelous job protecting the U.S. from further attacks -- it is something that will reflect much better on Bush in years to follow than it does right now.  And what's really brilliant about invasion and occupation of Iraq is that it takes the battle to a place more suitable for fighting terrorists.  By invading Iraq, we drew terrorists by the droves into a single geographical space for a fight.  Could you imagine if we had to fight them on the streets of Chicago, New York, or other metropolitan areas?  Instead, the terrorists are preoccupied fighting for a lose/lose cause in Iraq.  For every terrorist killed in Iraq, there is one less terrorist that can strap a bomb to his chest and kill American citizens. 

[WorldWarrior]

"How many terrorist attacks have we had on our native soil since 911?"


At least two.

[WorldWarrior]

"Sad man did a pretty good job of destroying Iraq, and attempting the same to Kuait  etc.  In fact our deposing sad man resulted in a democratic Iraq.  Democracy is the antidote to Islamic terrorism and If Iraq does maintain its ability to defend itself  the US has taken a huge step toward a more peaceful world."



Iraq did NOTHING to the US.

Attacking them for some trumped up reason of "Terrorism" against the US makes no sense at all.

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"You are repeating the Islamic Terrorist claim that the US is an Invader."



Is it your contention that IRAQ INVITED the US ARMY SERVICES to come in and bomb--"shock and Awe"--much of the country?

[Faithfulee]

Do you remember sad man??

Oil for food

Invasion of Kuwait

Use of gas to kill thousands of Iraqis?

Given the choice, I do believe that the Iraq people would have invited the US in to remove sad man.  They obviously didn't have that option.

The election that followed the "invasion" is further evidence that the wanted sad man out and the political structure changed.

And if they loved Sad man,  they wouldn't have brought him to justice and executed him.

For the above reasons it is reasonable to say we were Invited in. 

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee--


Please post the name of the document or declaration or proclamation by which Iraq invited the US to invade.

[Acumen]

"How many terrorist attacks have we had on our native soil since 911?"


At least two.

Could you leave links to them?

[WorldWarrior]

Go to the bottom of the page and google anthrax attacks october 2001.

One in Washington and one in New York.



But don't feel bad for forgetting those. It seems to happen to a lot of the prez's supporters.

[WorldWarrior]

btw--since the US (muy gigante) Embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad is technically US soil--as are all US embassies around the world--

Every time al Sadr's Madhi Army launches another mortar attack against the Green Zone it is technically a "terrorist attack."

And there are those there almost every day.

[Faithfulee]

FFLee--


Please post the name of the document or declaration or proclamation by which Iraq invited the US to invade.

It came on a hallmark Card, that has been lost in the bureaucracy somehwere.  It was addressed to VP Chaney and he wants to make it part of his library.

Thanks for the link to the Anthrax attacks.  Do you categorize them as "successful"?  Were they proven to be initiated by Islamic Terrorists?

[Faithfulee]

This topic has to do with the differences between Christianity and Islam.

Let's discuss Iraq in "Victory in Iraq".

There is a difference in the way Muslims and Christians think.  Christians generally think in "Socratic Dialogue" vs "Islamic Dialogue"

<http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020800.php>
has a good discussion of the topic.

In Summary,  Islam has taken the best of western science and translated it into arabic and then destroyed the original.  This gives Islam the ability to claim science for itself and typically not tolerate any discussion.  That is much like the way Muslims deal with the Koran.  The interpretation by the Mullah is absolute and has the authority of Allah.

Christians are more prone to discuss and debate issues, including their faith.  This yields a maturing understanding of God's action in the modern world.

The problem arises when Muslims move to western countries and don't assimilate.  The Mosque is a gathering place where the "doctrine" is disseminated.  Too often it is the dogmatic instructions to do violence on non-muslims.

Our courts are getting crowded with Muslims being accused of terrorist plots.  At least those in NJ are.  As I have said,  I have had close association with several Mosques, and would not be surprised if the current detainees had preached at these Mosques. 

[WorldWarrior]

FFLee says--

"Thanks for the link to the Anthrax attacks.  Do you categorize them as "successful"?



Since several people were KILLED by the Anthrax I'd guess that the TERRORISTS consider them "successful."

What's the point of asking me that?

[Faithfulee]

It was to check your sense of values.

The attacks took place in the wake of the 9/11/01 attacks but BEFORE we really got engaged in the war against Islamic Terrorism.

Those who are concerned about the security of our nation are more concerned about the success we have had in preventing attacks.  And that record is nearly unblemished.

And this is in the face of our laws and the groups that defend their own interests to assure that our laws and our customs are adhered to as we fight the war against Islamic Terrorists who play by a far different playbook.

That is the record that as a Republican, I proudly defend.

And as a Christian, I see the basic freedom of our country threatened by Islamists and that also justifies the expense of the war against Islamic terror, and the infrequent times when we stretch our laws customs to protect our people.

[WorldWarrior]

Are you aware of the new Counter Terrorism Unit in Britain?