And they were in a heated argument over the attacks.
And not that one was pro Islam and one was pro America.
No, no, no.
One argued that the attacks were the best tactic and strategy to carry out Allah's commands to conquer all of mankind for Islam.
The other argued that the global conquest was best done without violence as non violent Jihad would not awaken the sleeping giant.
Iran is just as committed to global conquest as ISIS.
They just differ in how to achieve that goal.
Choose your poison.
That we Kafirs, et al, are fighting against a deeply held and deeply entrenched religious ideology, culture and tradition.
We would ONLY be able to assume that Middle Eastern Muslims would side with the West, the USA, the Coalition, the Kafirs and our abominable Western idea of Democracy (which doesn't exist in Islam**) through coercion, money and brute force.
And the minute that $, influence and military power was removed (even after 100 years...See the example of Turkey) the region would revert back to it's traditional Islamism.
In short, we could force our will on the people but if ever they were given the uninfluenced and free choice between freedom, Democracy and Liberty such as we know it and love it, vs the comforting restrictions of Islam, the people would overwhelmingly choose Islam.
Why do you think the Iraqi Army fled in the face of ISIS forces?
The Army soldiers KNEW they were fighting on the wrong side.
Just as crooks know they are in the wrong when they are fleeing the police. Just as the Soviets knew Ronald Reagan was right when he called the USSR the "Evil Empire."
In their hearts they know which side is right.
And in the hearts of virtually ALL Middle Easterners they know in their hearts Islam is right and we are wrong.
And with that understanding I don't think we would have or should have invaded such as we did.
Other ways should have been employed.
**http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1138942/postsTo understand a civilisation it is important to understand its vocabulary.
If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.
There was no word in any of the Muslim languages for democracy until the 1890s. Even then the Greek word democracy entered Muslim languages with little change: democrasi in Persian, dimokraytiyah in Arabic, demokratio in Turkish.
Democracy as the proverbial schoolboy would know is based on one fundamental principle: equality.
The Greek word for equal isos is used in more than 200 compound nouns; including isoteos (equality) and Isologia (equal or free speech) and isonomia (equal treatment).
But again we find no equivalent in any of the Muslim languages. The words we have such as barabari in Persian and sawiyah in Arabic mean juxtaposition or levelling.
And we all know that equality is a foreign concept in Islam.
Ibid.Lest us return to the issue of equality.
The idea is unacceptable to Islam.
For the non-believer cannot be the equal of the believer.
Even among the believers only those who subscribe to the three so-called Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam ( Ahl el-Kitab) are regarded as fully human.
Here is the hierarchy of human worth in Islam:
At the summit are free male Muslims
Next come Muslim male slaves
Then come free Muslim women
Next come Muslim slave women.
Then come free Jewish and /or Christian men
Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian men
Then come slave Jewish and/or Christian women.
Each category has rights that must be respected.
The People of the Book have always been protected and relatively well-treated by Muslim rulers, but often in the context of a form of apartheid known as dhimmitude.
The status of the rest of humanity, those whose faiths are not recognised by Islam or who have no faith at all, has never been spelled out although wherever Muslim rulers faced such communities they often treated them with a certain measure of tolerance and respect ( As in the case of Hindus under the Muslim dynasties of India.)
Non-Muslims can, and have often been, treated with decency, but never as equals.
(There is a hierarchy even for animals and plants. Seven animals and seven plants will assuredly go to heaven while seven others of each will end up in Hell.)
Democracy means the rule of the demos, the common people, or what is now known as popular or national sovereignty.
In Islam, however, power belongs only to God: al-hukm l'illah. The man who exercises that power on earth is known as Khalifat al-Allah, the regent of God.
But even then the Khalifah or Caliph cannot act as legislator. The law has already been spelled out and fixed for ever by God.
The only task that remains is its discovery, interpretation and application.
Last edited by Tazmanian Devil; 06-14-15 at 06:53 PM.
I really doubt that Iran has the ability to conquer the world for Islam. Maybe they can pray the Twelfth Imam into existence or something. That should keep them busy for a while.
Meanwhile, let's keep on developing our own oil and researching ways to gain energy independence, so we can tell the Middle Easterners to go and pound sand. They have plenty of that as well.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
You remain resistant to educating yourself about Islam.
How can you look yourself in the mirror?
How can you blithely spew ignorance and still pose as a credible pundit?
They have taken over other countries using a minimum of violence. And others with violent and non violent jihad.
And some by using the promise of Democratic rule only to abolish democracy once they achieved power.
You are woefully uninformed.
Please stop talking about things you have no idea about.
Here is a rough analysis of how they have done it and are doing it elsewhere.
Last edited by Tazmanian Devil; 06-14-15 at 07:14 PM.