If Islam is the best religion , why are many of the muslims criminals? (Europe)

[camping!]

Originally Posted by cncracer

There is good reason to raise a flag in regards to the Catholic Church. I think in my case it is to keep eyes open. The church has changed it pattern only to hide the acts it commits. The last 100 years it has been connected with the largest religious holocaust in a thousand years. In the last ten years it was involved in ten of thousands of deaths. Scattered between that time period is the undercurrent of crime, murders, control, organized crime, and in general bad decisions by the church. This Leopard has not changed it spots. You need to open your eyes and look!

Oh for the love of God! Take off your tinfoil hat already

[Annemieke Roell]

Originally Posted by souhilo1

Many people have observed the actions of a handful of Muslims and immediately recorded it as an action condoned by Islam.....

*Islamic Shield Muslim Defence*

Probably for the same reason many of the Christians ar criminals.......

[HsvMike]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

The forming of Israel is the start of 9/11.
I mean if there was no Israel there would have been to trouble between America an the Middle East.

9/11 is more a political statement than religious, why else would America declare war on the Islam?
Riddle me this; Did your American government formed an alliance with Israel only out of political reasons or does religion also play a part in it?
Or is it possible that it maybe is both?

Honestly this alliance was formed before I was born and I don't know all the reasons in which the United States started backing Israel. And America did not declare a war on "Islam", it declared a war on terrorism ( the people that attacked us ) and the terrorists that attacked us are Islamic fundamentalists. Last I checked we are protecting Muslim's in Iraq, so the war isn't against them all, just a select few.

I'm sure it works fine on paper but explain to me how Bush was able to invade Iraq while they had no WMD?

All the reports that the President, House, and Senate received all stated that Iraq did have them, and they were used previously in that country to kill their own people. Republicans and Democrats both were almost certain that there were WMDs in Iraq, not just the President. The President has to have approval before doing it, he just can't say we are going to invade a country and then do it, it does not work that way.

I'm sure that explaining dreams is a lot easier than explaining reality. When you explain dreams you cannot be wrong because you cannot prove that your explanations are wrong.
Fortunately reality has cause and affect, so once you can prove causalities you can also prove which theories are implausible and / or unrealistic.

When I was talking about a "dream", I was referring to that the terrorists were hoping that it would cripple us. Most dreams do not come true. Fortunately theirs did not.

BTW I believe that only dropping a nuke will cripple a nation.

Again I disagree. While a nuke would do the job, it isn't the only way. If the military would be able to do what they need to do to get the job done without having their hands tied, it could be over pretty quickly. It might not be the prettiest thing, but I guarantee they could do it and quickly.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by HsvMike

Last I checked we are protecting Muslim's in Iraq, so the war isn't against them all, just a select few.

This is not the reason why America invaded Iraq.
But it sure came in handy when the American government had to acknowledge that Iraq had no WMD.

The President has to have approval before doing it, he just can't say we are going to invade a country and then do it, it does not work that way.

Your president could easily get the approval by linking Iraq with 9/11, the real problem was the UN.
This is why Powell was sacrificed by the Bush administration, because he was ordered to convince the UN that Iraq had WMD so the US would not alienate themselves from the rest of the world.

If the military would be able to do what they need to do to get the job done without having their hands tied, it could be over pretty quickly.

I was talking about the 9/11 terorists.
The only way to cripple America is by nuking a city.

And if as you believe that the terrorist were waging a religious war why did they then not target a religious person (or building) instead of the Twin towers and the Pentagon?
So I still say that the Americans turned it into a religious war by invading Iraq.

[HsvMike]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

This is not the reason why America invaded Iraq.
But it sure came in handy when the American government had to acknowledge that Iraq had no WMD.

You took the line I said completely out of context. I did not say at all that it is the reason we invaded Iraq. That line was a rebuttal for you saying that America declared war on Islam which in fact we did not. Why do you keep on saying that the terrorists are not waging a religious war but America is? It does not make any sense. They are doing everything in the name of Allah and we are stomping them out because of the horendous things they are doing. Sounds like to me it is the other way around.

Your president could easily get the approval by linking Iraq with 9/11, the real problem was the UN.
This is why Powell was sacrificed by the Bush administration, because he was ordered to convince the UN that Iraq had WMD so the US would not alienate themselves from the rest of the world.

It was common knowledge throughout the world that he had them. As I said, Saddam had used them before on his own people. With hindsight being 20/20, we should not have gone into Iraq. I think everyone knows that, and if there was mis-information or if we were deceived are two totally different things.

I was talking about the 9/11 terorists.
The only way to cripple America is by nuking a city.

I am sure they would have done just that if they could get their hands on one and were able to launch it. They had to make due with what they had, or could do.

And if as you believe that the terrorist were waging a religious war why did they then not target a religious person (or building) instead of the Twin towers and the Pentagon?

Are you kidding? If a church got blown up on American soil, it would maybe be on the news for a week tops. They went for shock value, to get their names out there plain and simple. I can't even think of a high profile religious leader or church that would make the whole country care about it here on our soil.

So I still say that the Americans turned it into a religious war by invading Iraq.

Well I guess no amount of reasoning will change your mind. If it was America vs. all of Islam, wouldnt we be killing everyone instead of protecting 99% of them? I don't see an athiest soldier killing a muslim in the name of God. I would see the invasion of Iraq more of a personal vendetta against Saddam more than against any religion. I think you have been watching too much anti-American tv.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by HsvMike

Why do you keep on saying that the terrorists are not waging a religious war but America is?

My point was that the 9/11 terrorists provoked the US into entering a religious war and the US fell for it. Only when you retaliate do you enter a (religious) war.
If the US could have restrained themselves Al Qaeda's influence might not have grown to what it is now.

Religious terrorists are political activists who hide behind religion by justifying their behaviour with their religion.
Unfortunately I see no difference between the American government and a terrorist, especially when they both start to use the same terrorist tacticts (like torture and kidnapping people).

It was common knowledge throughout the world that he had them.

If this was the case, why did Powell than had to convince the UN?
Even the US government lied to Powell, because I believe him when he claims that he believed that the info he was given by the US intelligence was true.
While in reality the reports Powell had read were not finished or inconclusive at best.

I can't even think of a high profile religious leader or church that would make the whole country care about it here on our soil.

What about the many monuments in Washington?
Would that not be concidered to be the symbollic heart of the nation America?

I don't see an athiest soldier killing a muslim in the name of God.

To an American soldier their superior officer outranks God, or one could say that God has been replaced by the nation America.
Terrorists or patriots, I still see no difference, in both cases it is all about blind loyalty and the willingness to do whatever it takes.
I find it a dangerous combination.

[HsvMike]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

My point was that the 9/11 terrorists provoked the US into entering a religious war and the US fell for it. Only when you retaliate do you enter a (religious) war.
If the US could have restrained themselves Al Qaeda's influence might not have grown to what it is now.

You have got to be kidding, hopefully you are. What would of happened if the United States would have "restrained" themselves and did not retaliate for what happened on 9/11? We would have been looked at as weak and would have opened ourselves up for numerous future attacks because anyone could and would get away with it.

What would happen if someone would walk up to you and punch you as hard as they could in your face? Would you practice restraint and forgive them, or would you retaliate?

Religious terrorists are political activists who hide behind religion by justifying their behaviour with their religion.
Unfortunately I see no difference between the American government and a terrorist, especially when they both start to use the same terrorist tacticts (like torture and kidnapping people).

The American government doesn't trick soldiers or citizens to strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves up in a crowded city street.

So first you say it is a religious war, but now you are saying that the terrorists are just pretending to be religious to justify their actions?

We do those things to protect our own, not for popularity or to invoke terror.

If this was the case, why did Powell than had to convince the UN?
Even the US government lied to Powell, because I believe him when he claims that he believed that the info he was given by the US intelligence was true.
While in reality the reports Powell had read were not finished or inconclusive at best.

It wasn't a matter of if Saddam ever had WMDs. It was whether or not he had them at the time and was planning on using them. One of the main problems was with different intelligence agencies not communicating with one another, and that has since been changed. That was a big reason for the miscommunication and non-action.

What about the many monuments in Washington?
Would that not be concidered to be the symbollic heart of the nation America?

See I knew your reasoning is messed up when it comes to religion and this war. The monuments in Washington have nothing to do with religion what-so-ever. They are all symbolic of our country but not religious symbols. They are playing the religion card, not us. Again we do not have a national religion, we have a separation of church and state. Please if you don't live in this country or know our ways other than from what you see coming from your propaganda, then don't pass it off as fact. Your theories are very flawed. I am not trying to be insulting at all, just truthful.

To an American soldier their superior officer outranks God, or one could say that God has been replaced by the nation America.
Terrorists or patriots, I still see no difference, in both cases it is all about blind loyalty and the willingness to do whatever it takes.
I find it a dangerous combination.

You are saying that a superior officer outranks God or that America has replaced God but yet you are saying that the US Army is being led by God in this holy war. Well which is it? You keep on contradicting yourself throughout these posts. Patriots defend their freedom and way of life, terrorists destroy freedom and try to push their way of life onto other people. There is the difference.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by HsvMike

We would have been looked at as weak and would have opened ourselves up for numerous future attacks because anyone could and would get away with it.

And how do you think the Dutch look to most Americans?

How people perceive us (the Dutch) is unimportant, because we even apologized to the Mulsim countries for the Anti-Islam movie of Geert Wilders. The fact is that our government's approach has worked. Wilders wanted to polarise the Dutch population into Muslim and anti-Muslim and provoke all the Islam people around the world. Luckily the Dutch Muslims did not allowed themselves to be provoked and only wanted to debate with Wilders.
This makes them look stronger than Wilders who to this day still avoids any debate with Islam organisations.

The American government doesn't trick soldiers or citizens to strap bombs to their chest and blow themselves up in a crowded city street.

Drafting the poor by promising them an education and seeing the world isn't like being tricked into strapping a bomb to your chest?
BTW didn't your government sent American soldiers to Iraq who were ill-equipped and understaffed?
And that when the Military command complained that they did not have enough men, your government told them not to complain?

We do those things to protect our own, not for popularity or to invoke terror.

Any invading army will be seen as terrorists by the population. How the invading army sees itself is irrelevant.
This is why the Dutch refused to be part of the invading force in Iraq.

It wasn't a matter of if Saddam ever had WMDs. It was whether or not he had them at the time and was planning on using them.

So you're saying that a potential threat has more bearing on the decision to go to war than an actual threat?
Isn't this proof of paranoia?

The monuments in Washington have nothing to do with religion what-so-ever. They are all symbolic of our country but not religious symbols.

I'm only saying that if the 9/11 terrorists only wanted to attack 'the idea of America' they would have chosen the Washington monuments instead of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. So the attacks of 9/11 are more political than religious.
You could compare it with a Muslim-American who robs a white American; it could just be a simple case of robbery, instead of a hate crime or a religious crime.

Well which is it?

They are exactly the same; If God has been replaced with a nation, the nation becomes 'God' and being an atheist or not has then become irrelevant. It all comes down to being patriotic instead of religious.

[HsvMike]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

And how do you think the Dutch look to most Americans?

No offense, but most Americans don't care or even think about the Dutch.

How people perceive us (the Dutch) is unimportant, because we even apologized to the Mulsim countries for the Anti-Islam movie of Geert Wilders. The fact is that our government's approach has worked. Wilders wanted to polarise the Dutch population into Muslim and anti-Muslim and provoke all the Islam people around the world. Luckily the Dutch Muslims did not allowed themselves to be provoked and only wanted to debate with Wilders.
This makes them look stronger than Wilders who to this day still avoids any debate with Islam organisations.

Comparing the Dutch to Americans is like comparing apples to oranges. We are a super power. We are expected to react when a situation arises anywhere in the world, the Dutch aren't. We "can't" be looked upon as weak, it's just the way it is. Too many people hate us because of our freedoms and our way of life. We have to have the mentality that if you mess with us, we will squash you. And when someone does mess with us, then we have to react, so everyone knows not to do it again.

And you never answered my question about what would you do if someone came up and hit you right in the face.

Drafting the poor by promising them an education and seeing the world isn't like being tricked into strapping a bomb to your chest?
BTW didn't your government sent American soldiers to Iraq who were ill-equipped and understaffed?
And that when the Military command complained that they did not have enough men, your government told them not to complain?

If you join the military, what happens? They give you a gun and train you how to kill people, or train you on equipment that can kill people. You have to figure if you have a gun there is a reason for it, because someone might be shooting at you. It is common sense really. There is no draft, every soldier volunteers and know what they are getting into. Going into the military does not guarantee death, strapping a bomb to your chest does, big difference.

I agree that the government is "hand-cuffing" our troops out there. They need to quit tip-toeing and let the troops stomp out the terrorists and end it already. But then every time someone dies there will be people like you saying oh look at the big bad Americans using excessive force. It is war, not a vacation.

Any invading army will be seen as terrorists by the population. How the invading army sees itself is irrelevant.
This is why the Dutch refused to be part of the invading force in Iraq.

An invading army is not considered as a terrorist, they would either be considered heroes or occupiers. I have never heard the term terrorist used if a country takes over another one.

So you're saying that a potential threat has more bearing on the decision to go to war than an actual threat?
Isn't this proof of paranoia?

Again, you are missing my point or turning my words around for you to try and make a point. All I am saying is, that it was always common knowledge that Saddam had WMDs, what the US was doing was telling the UN that they still had them, which a lot of intelligence agencies ( not just the US ) were sure that they did. What is better a dead Saddam, or Saddam with a nuke?

I'm only saying that if the 9/11 terrorists only wanted to attack 'the idea of America' they would have chosen the Washington monuments instead of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. So the attacks of 9/11 are more political than religious.
You could compare it with a Muslim-American who robs a white American; it could just be a simple case of robbery, instead of a hate crime or a religious crime.

They did not want to attack "the idea of America" they wanted to attack something that would give them the most publicity, the most shock value. The WTC was always on terrorists hit list. It was hit once before that. And everyone knows the United States has the best military on Earth, so they try to disrupt that. Hitting the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial would not have had the same effect.

They are exactly the same; If God has been replaced with a nation, the nation becomes 'God' and being an atheist or not has then become irrelevant. It all comes down to being patriotic instead of religious.

No offense but only a non-believer could equate God with a country. Even the terrorists would disagree with you. If America ( or any country for that matter ) = God, then you would not have protests all over this country for us to stop the war. If it was God, then everyone would be following without question. You do not know enough about this country to make these statements, because they simply aren't true.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by HsvMike

No offense, but most Americans don't care or even think about the Dutch.

And this might become a problem, because Americans only care about what other Americans think of them. Whenever a nation behaves like this they might end up practicing isolationist politics.

Comparing the Dutch to Americans is like comparing apples to oranges. We are a super power.

You may find it hard to believe but Holland at 1 point in time has been a super power too.
The thing is that America doesn't know what to do nowadays because since the end of the cold war (the end of the Soviet Power) the balance of power is shifting in the world. America already is not the only centre of economic power anymore and soon the military power will shift too, because nowadays everyone can produce a WMD because the knowledge how to build 1 has become public knowledge. Only acquiring the materials still might pose a problem, but not 1 that is unsolvable.

There is no draft, every soldier volunteers

Because of the economical situation in your country enlisting is not as much a 'free choice’ as it used to be.
Joining the military is a better choice than living the life of a homeless because you couldn't find a job.
There also is no difference between being killed in the ghetto for wearing the wrong colours, or being killed in a foreign country because you were send there by the government.

The WTC was always on terrorists hit list. It was hit once before that. And everyone knows the United States has the best military on Earth, so they try to disrupt that.

The WTC is more an economical target than a political or religious target.
It is called the World Trade Centre is it not?
And not because it is the centre of sports.

What is better a dead Saddam, or Saddam with a nuke?

I guess you don't get the point that Saddam had no nuke. It would be like sentencing a person to death for a crime he did not commit.
Whenever this is the case, it is proof that justice has failed.
The end should never justify the means.

No offense but only a non-believer could equate God with a country.

If this is the case, what would then be the difference between a religious soldier and a patriotic soldier?
Are they not both willing to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs (which btw are much bigger than themselves)?