Sure thing. Wow one minor error because I was typing fast and didn't proof read the post before I hit the submit button and you send it back for correction. What is this...grammar school or something?:mrgreen:
I'll have to remember that one next time I get a tough question I can't reasonably answer!:mrgreen:
Indeed, if I didn't know better I might believe you were trying to dodge the question. Anyway here it is:
Just out of curiosity can you point to any single incidence of violence, attack, or war against non-Muslims or Muslims alike anywhere in the world and during any period of time for that matter when the Muslims involved didn't resort to the tactics of terrorism in emulation of their prophet, Muhammad, the uswa hasana, the perfect model and excellent example for emulation, and instead where the Muslims involved abided by the rules of engagement as set forth in the Geneva Conventions?
The above was in response to the following:
It still doesn't make any sense.
First how does that possibly relate to the common sense statement that not all terrorists are muslim?
Are you saying all terrorists are muslim? That being a non-muslim means you can't be a terrorist?
I just can't see how it relates.
Second, the sentence structure still doesn't make any sense. I gave an example of the odd verb usage, but I knew that wasn't "are" and that it should be "or". The rest
still doesn't make any sense.
Let me explain by breaking it down:
"...can you point to any single incidence of violence, attack, or war against non-Muslims or Muslims alike anywhere in the world and during any period of time..."
From this, you look like you are asking about any act of violence, attack or war perpetrated against any people, anywhere, ever in history.
"...when the Muslims involved..."
See, the part above basically states any attack against any people during any time any where. This would include native american wars in teh past. Of course in such a case muslims would not be involved. So I don;t get the lack of agreement.
didn't resort to the tactics of terrorism in emulation of their prophet, Muhammad
Terrorism is a very, very new concept. It did not exist until the 20th century. Targetting civilians was the norm for all people before that time, and was the norm for the US as recently as Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to name a couple of trifling incidents.
Terrorism could not have been preached in the Koran or by Muhammad because the concept didn't even exist.
and instead where the Muslims involved abided by the rules of engagement as set forth in the Geneva Conventions?"
Again, a very recent creation, and not exactly something religiously adhered to by even the US today. I doubt I can accurately show a single instance of any group abiding by tehse conventions without incident, let alone a group that wasn't a signatory of that treaty (i.e. a religion)
So the question makes no sense. It asks questions that are unanswerable. In fact, it is a loaded question, which is a logical fallacy, because it can't be answered for any group of people based on religious reasons. You cannot cite a single example of christians, Atheists, Jews, hindus, Pagans or satanists abiding by the geneva conventions.
