• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

If we'd known the truth about Islam would we & should we have invaded Iraq?

  • Would we have invaded? Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SHOULD we have invaded? Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
Muslims who engage in jihad can find the legitimacy to do so in the Quran. Christians who engage in any violence are betraying Christianity”s teachings and can find no legitimacy to do what they do in the New Testament.

The Fictional Mohammed - Political Islam


The Rider on a White Horse
11 Then I saw jheaven opened, and behold, ka white horse! The one sitting on it is called lFaithful and True, and min righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 nHis eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are omany diadems, and he has pa name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in qa robe dipped in4 blood, and the name by which he is called is rThe Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, sarrayed in fine linen, white and pure, twere following him on white horses. 15 uFrom his mouth comes a sharp sword vwith which to strike down the nations, and whe will rule them with a rod of iron. xHe will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh yhe has a name written, zKing of kings and Lord of lords.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to aall the birds that fly directly overhead, b“Come, gather for cthe great supper of God, 18 dto eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave,5 both small and great.” 19 And I saw ethe beast and the kings of the earth with their armies fgathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it gthe false prophet hwho in its presence6 had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who iworshiped its image. These two were jthrown alive into the lake of kfire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were slain by the sword lthat came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and mall the birds were gorged with their flesh.
 
Neither were the Islamic Terrorists killing in the name of JC. And that roves what?
What about the RWF attacks?

No, the Islamic Terrorists were killing in the name of Allah.

Here's a 'greatest hits' video. And I lost interest soon after it began so i don't know the actual number, if any. But how many of these attacks or explosions or shootings involving Muslims, DID NOT include the exclamation, "Allahu Akbar"?



I will leave it to the readers to use their own discernment and draw your own conclusions.

That you know all these RW extremist attacker's names suggests to me there weren't all that many of these RWF attacks. And those who you might point to and say they did their deeds in the name of Jesus are repudiated by the facts.

Those folks are an infinitesimal number compared to the total numbers of Christians.

And instead of trying to say, as you do about Islam, that their small number compared to all the Muslims (or in this case Christians) poses no threat, the lesson you should take from the literal handful of nutcases who believed they were acting in defense of or obedience to Christian teachings is that no other Christians are doing the same!

Literally none.

And again,

Muslims who engage in jihad can find the legitimacy to do so in the Quran. Christians who engage in any violence are betraying Christianity”s teachings and can find no legitimacy to do what they do in the New Testament.

The Fictional Mohammed - Political Islam
 
Last edited:
koreans aint muslims, and they have no oil. They're broke and the S Koreans would fix them up real quick. Just like the W Germans fixed the E Germans. it would simply be good riddance to a complete pos.
 
Oh yes they can.
Anyone can twist a religions text(s).

Then tell us why so few Christians do it that you know all their names from memory?

And then try to explain why the numbers of Muslim terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 is 26,114.
 
Then tell us why so few Christians do it that you know all their names from memory?

And then try to explain why the numbers of Muslim terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 is 26,114.

Numbers from a site that demonizes all Muslims. Right.
To you there is no such thing as a Muslim loyal to the country they were born in or immigrated to - I am referring to NA and the EU.
 
Numbers from a site that demonizes all Muslims. Right.
To you there is no such thing as a Muslim loyal to the country they were born in or immigrated to - I am referring to NA and the EU.

Oh, I am CERTAIN they exist!

The problem is no one knows from moment to moment where their allegiances lie.

Not for sure.

(And why should I risk my life, my loved ones' lives or my country for the sake of political correctness???)

They COULD be lying as is allowed by Mohammed.

Or they could be a Kafir/Muslim for all intents and purposes by day yet in their hearts they are actually Muslim/Kafirs or just Muslims.

Like the Chapel Hill Muslim dental students who looked so handsome and lovely and nice and moderate, until their Facebook and Twitter posts were revealed to be anti Jewish, Anti Zionist and hate filled pro Islamic in nature.

See?

You never know.

And the Boston Bombers and their "moderate Muslim friends" well they took the honors for making ALL Muslims suspects in the minds of all Kafirs.

Munafiqs can be reactivated in jihad

One of the surprising things about Islam is how non-practicing Muslims often return to active service in jihad. Sometimes it only takes a personal contact or a rousing sermon to turn a non-practicing, ‘moderate’ Muslim into a jihadist. This is similar to the recruitment of young pacifists in time of war. The Tsarnaev brothers were nice, ‘moderate’ Muslims and then they became religious jihadists.


Boston Munafiqs

How did ‘munafiqs’ behave during the Boston Marathon Bombings? When Djokhar Tsarnaev was about to be arrested, he called his non-practicing, ‘secular’ Muslim friends to dispose of incriminating evidence in his dorm room. They eagerly complied. When members of the Tsarnaevs’ mosque were asked about the two brothers, they kept silent about what they knew. When recruited, the munafiqs acted on the side of jihad.

When The Jihad Comes, Whose Side Will You Be On? - Political Islam
 
Last edited:
Numbers from a site that demonizes all Muslims. Right.
To you there is no such thing as a Muslim loyal to the country they were born in or immigrated to - I am referring to NA and the EU.


Look, if you REALLY wanted to convince us of your solidarity with Westerners you would be more truthful with us about Islam.

You would tell us what the Koran says about how Kafirs should be treated.

You should reveal what you know about the plans to conquer America and the world and etc.

Get my drift?

It really hurts your cause for us to find the truth on our own and realize you were either lying to us all along or you were content to say nothing while we would be led to the (figurative or literal) slaughter!

You can't be trusted.

And everything you do to deny, deny, deny and conceal, cover up and spin the truth into a half lie and attack anyone who tries to tell the truth or spread the truth only tightens the figurative nooses around your own necks.

You are taught that war is deceit.

In the Koran. From the perfect Muslim.

And you are taught to emulate the example of the perfect Muslim.

And that is how you were taught. It is what you believe. And when we weren't alarmed nor aware of the threat of Islam you could carry on a double life with no problem.

Muslim when you needed to be and kafir when you wanted to be.
or vice versa.

But now you are being squeezed such that you must choose and it may be too late already.

Your deception has worked against you.

Now the time has come to lie in the bed you've chosen.

You aren't worth trusting.

And it is too late to really earn our trust.

I don't envy your plight.
 
Last edited:
Look, if you REALLY wanted to convince us of your solidarity with Westerners you would be more truthful with us about Islam.
I do not give a hoot about a persons religion

You would tell us what the Koran says about how Kafirs should be treated.
Aware as well as some nasty things in the OT

You should reveal what you know about the plans to conquer America and the world and etc.
You really believe your own tripe?
Get my drift?
Yes your mind has drifted into a conspiracy theorist reality. Quite the trip.

It really hurts your cause for us to find the truth on our own and realize you were either lying to us all along or you were content to say nothing while we would be led to the (figurative or literal) slaughter!

Lying, where have i lied. You are the one insulting members on the board.

You can't be trusted.
Depends upon what you are referring to now don't it.

And everything you do to deny, deny , deny, conceal, cover up, spin the truth into a half lie and attack anyone who tries to tell the truth or spread the truth only tightens the figurative nooses around your own necks.
I see you stutter while typing. Try singing when typing, I heard it can work. Well it did for a country singer. Who knows.
Myself, my opinion based only upon your posts, your insults, your deflection of answer questions, your temper tantrums,with members show you to be a ERWF with an agenda
Who, how, and where have I attacked?
Do you know what ERWF means?
 
So, Taz, based on the content of your posts, the only logical conclusion is that either the Muslims are going to take over the world, or we need to start an all out war against all of Islam.

Interesting position, I must say.
 
Gee, then it shouldn't be at all difficult for you to discredit his quotations from the Koran....
I'm not going to waste my time debunking a crank who has absolutely no education in the field, and makes a profit off of fear-mongering. But thanks for the invitation.

By the way, Christians turned to the Bible for centuries to justify countless wars on one another and other nations. Crack open a history book one of these years.
 
So, Taz, based on the content of your posts, the only logical conclusion is that either the Muslims are going to take over the world, or we need to start an all out war against all of Islam.

Interesting position, I must say.

I have been infracted for posting more than three paragraphs from texts which permit full copying without edits. However, I will abide by the DP rules.

Three paragraphs. (Check the source) However, for readability's sake I will format them into more than three DP paragraphs.


An Ethical Basis for War
Aug 8 2007 | by Bill Warner

11

by Bill Warner

KNOW THE ENEMY

This work is based upon Sun Tsu’s The Art of War a 2,500 year old Chinese book of strategy.

THE ENEMY The word islam means submission . “ Submission” is a political thought. Islam claims that all who do not submit are unbelievers (kafirs). It is time to reject being named by Islam. We are not “unbelievers.” Muslims are the slaves of Allah. We are not the slaves of Allah. We do not submit. We are the Free . Instead of Muslims and nonbelievers, it is Muslims and the Free. Muslims, therefore, are the un-Free. [If you don’t know a word, look it up on the last page.] The story of Islam starts with the Jews since Islam is a Jewish heresy. The Koran endlessly adapts Jewish stories such as those of Moses and Noah to show that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah.

The Ten Commandments is a good place to start looking at Islam. They fall into two categories—religious and ethical. Ten Commandments—Religious

Do not have any other gods before Me.
Do not make an image or any likeness of Me.
Do not swear falsely by the name of the Lord.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Ten Commandments—Ethical
Honor your father and your mother.
Do not murder.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Do not covet your neighbor’s property.


The only religion that follows all the religious commandments is that of the Jews. Christians do not follow the Sabbath commandment and some would argue that the Catholics and Orthodox sects use images that violate the image commandment. Hindus, Buddhists and atheists don’t follow any of the religious commandments. There are no two religions that agree on the Ten Commandments.


An Ethical Basis for War - Political Islam
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Muslims who engage in jihad can find the legitimacy to do so in the Quran. Christians who engage in any violence are betraying Christianity”s teachings and can find no legitimacy to do what they do in the New Testament.
lol

Ah yes, the good ol' No True Scotsman fallacy. The only "True" Muslims are the ones who attack Christians, and the only "True" Christians are the ones who did not interpret Bible passages to justify centuries of violence and warfare. We should ignore the hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims who want to live in peace, and the Christians who want to bomb any nation that does not bend to our will back to the Stone Age.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the historical fact is that people justified centuries of warfare, violence, invasions, slavery, forced conversions and oppression based on the New Testament, pronouncements of Christian institutions, and declarations of leading Christian leaders. This is not to say that Christianity is exclusively negative, only that exculpating Christianity and Christians from their legacy of violence is utterly ridiculous.
 
lol

Ah yes, the good ol' No True Scotsman fallacy. The only "True" Muslims are the ones who attack Christians, and the only "True" Christians are the ones who did not interpret Bible passages to justify centuries of violence and warfare. We should ignore the hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims who want to live in peace, and the Christians who want to bomb any nation that does not bend to our will back to the Stone Age.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the historical fact is that people justified centuries of warfare, violence, invasions, slavery, forced conversions and oppression based on the New Testament, pronouncements of Christian institutions, and declarations of leading Christian leaders. This is not to say that Christianity is exclusively negative, only that exculpating Christianity and Christians from their legacy of violence is utterly ridiculous.

You will, no doubt, be interested in seeing a graphic illustration of how Islam spread due to violent Jihad.



I will give everyone time to absorb and digest the information I have posted here.

Cya later.

:2wave:
 
You will, no doubt, be interested in seeing a graphic illustration of how Islam spread due to violent Jihad.
Again... lol

I am more than well aware that Islam was spread by force. I'm also aware that Christians, in the name of Christ and His Church, enslaved Central and South America; decimated the indigenous tribes of North America; enforced conversion in the New World on a wide-spread scale; enslaved millions of the indigenous population that survived the onslaught of pestilence brought by the Europeans; enslaved and forced conversions on millions of Africans. Millions of Europeans also died in wars where the choice of Christian denomination was a major issue -- right up until 2001, when the Catholics and Protestants were still blowing each other up over Northern Ireland. How many Christians were driven out of Europe and into the New World, because of their beliefs? How well did Christians treat the other Christians who immigrated only a few generations later?

Again... This is not to say that "all Christianity is bad." Rather, you're obviously whitewashing Christianity in your attempts to vilify Islam. But in doing so, you ignore how Christianity and Christians so often did the same things which you classify as intolerable for Islam.

Forced conversion? √
Killing people in the name of deity? √
Terrorism? √
Slavery? √
Wanting to spread their religion, ideology, ethics etc to the entire world? √

Oh, and let's not forget how many cite Christian beliefs as a justification for capital punishment (despite the objections of the Catholic Church).

The fact that we've outsourced the attacks on Muslims to our increasingly detached military does not change anything other than perceptions. You ignore how our nation kills Muslims, including the occasional innocent wedding party, because it's done by a military rather than a small terrorist cell.

By the way, how many wars did Bush start because he was inspired by Christian prophecies? How many Muslims died as a result of those wars? Hmmmm. (Bush Gog and Magog | Andrew Brown | Comment is free | The Guardian)

Again, your incredible selective interpretation of events is not impressive.


I will give everyone time to absorb and digest the information I have posted here.
Thankfully, it only takes a few minutes to spit out the poison.
 
You see, I am not trying to whitewash Christianity as much as I am trying to keep Muslim apologists from using it to hide behind.

Jihadists are using VIOLENT JIHAD AND NON VIOLENT JIHAD to conquer the world and they are currently targeting the USA as well as other territories and peoples (hypocritical Muslims and non believers, i.e., Atheists, Christians, Jews and anyone else who isn't Muslim or Muslim enough) around the world.

And to prevent Jihad from succeeding in the USA it is important that Kafirs (non Muslims) be made aware of the facts about Islam which Muslim apologists would rather be kept secret.

Every criticism of my posts is evidence of how much they would rather keep us all in the dark, as we have been pretty much until recently.

But nowhere have you seen anyone dispute the information I present.

That is because they can't.

They twist and turn and spin and try to bait and trap me and they do whatever they can to prevent you from believing what I post and/or to prevent my posting it.

But so far they have only revealed themselves to be everything I have said.

The best thing they could do would be to simply not respond at all.

But by engaging me they give me more opportunities to present more truths which they can't stand for you to know.

With every criticism they indict and further expose themselves.
 
Just skipping the vague nature of the phrase "truth about Islam," the War in Iraq was not a question of religion. It was a question of possession of WMDs, and given that Iraq did not possess WMDs, invading was clearly the wrong decision in hindsight.
 
I have been infracted for posting more than three paragraphs from texts which permit full copying without edits. However, I will abide by the DP rules.

Three paragraphs. (Check the source) However, for readability's sake I will format them into more than three DP paragraphs.


An Ethical Basis for War
Aug 8 2007 | by Bill Warner

11

by Bill Warner

KNOW THE ENEMY

This work is based upon Sun Tsu’s The Art of War a 2,500 year old Chinese book of strategy.

THE ENEMY The word islam means submission . “ Submission” is a political thought. Islam claims that all who do not submit are unbelievers (kafirs). It is time to reject being named by Islam. We are not “unbelievers.” Muslims are the slaves of Allah. We are not the slaves of Allah. We do not submit. We are the Free . Instead of Muslims and nonbelievers, it is Muslims and the Free. Muslims, therefore, are the un-Free. [If you don’t know a word, look it up on the last page.] The story of Islam starts with the Jews since Islam is a Jewish heresy. The Koran endlessly adapts Jewish stories such as those of Moses and Noah to show that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah.

The Ten Commandments is a good place to start looking at Islam. They fall into two categories—religious and ethical. Ten Commandments—Religious

Do not have any other gods before Me.
Do not make an image or any likeness of Me.
Do not swear falsely by the name of the Lord.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Ten Commandments—Ethical
Honor your father and your mother.
Do not murder.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Do not covet your neighbor’s property.


The only religion that follows all the religious commandments is that of the Jews. Christians do not follow the Sabbath commandment and some would argue that the Catholics and Orthodox sects use images that violate the image commandment. Hindus, Buddhists and atheists don’t follow any of the religious commandments. There are no two religions that agree on the Ten Commandments.


An Ethical Basis for War - Political Islam


So, the Muslims are subject to Allah, the Arabic word for god.

and the Jews follow the Ten Commandments.

and so....??
 
Just skipping the vague nature of the phrase "truth about Islam," the War in Iraq was not a question of religion. It was a question of possession of WMDs, and given that Iraq did not possess WMDs, invading was clearly the wrong decision in hindsight.

There you go again, trying to use reason and logic.
 
There was no reason to invade.

Absolutely, there was never a reason to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. Invading Iraq was one of the gravest mistakes of the GWB/Dick Cheney regime. We are reaping the consequences as we speak. Saddam Hussein, even though a dictator, had a system that worked. The structure he had in place kept the ethnic factions, Shia, Sunni and Kurds, from warring upon each other. Now with that structure gone, Iraq is broken, there is open war, and there is an opening for Iran to enter. The US broke Iraq and it's incumbent among the US and Britain to stabilize that country for the people there. The poll asks the wrong question.
 
You see, I am not trying to whitewash Christianity as much as I am trying to keep Muslim apologists from using it to hide behind.
A more accurate assessment is: You've set up a double standard, AND you tilt the scales even further by misrepresenting Islam.

You also fail to understand the consequences of your actions, namely that you inadvertently grant the most radical and most extreme Muslims a form of legitimacy and importance that they do not deserve, and that almost all other Muslims don't want them to have. Aside from the fact that you utterly lack the standing to declare that ISIL is the "One True Islam," you are giving ISIL exactly what they want when you do so. Good job. :roll:


Jihadists are using VIOLENT JIHAD AND NON VIOLENT JIHAD to conquer the world and they are currently targeting the USA as well as other territories and peoples (hypocritical Muslims and non believers, i.e., Atheists, Christians, Jews and anyone else who isn't Muslim or Muslim enough) around the world.
Christians also use violent and non-violent methods to "conquer the world."

Christian missionaries are clearly and overtly targeting territories, peoples, Muslims, and Jews.

I do agree that Christians mostly halted wide-spread forced conversions a few hundred years after the invasion of the New World. By the same token, Islam mostly stopped conversions by force around the same time. Go figure.


And to prevent Jihad from succeeding in the USA it is important that Kafirs (non Muslims) be made aware of the facts about Islam which Muslim apologists would rather be kept secret.
Please.

The US is not going to undergo a wholesale conversion to Islam, certainly not as a result of terrorist strikes.


Every criticism of my posts is evidence of how much they would rather keep us all in the dark, as we have been pretty much until recently.
Or, your posts are unjustifiably spreading fear, and slandering hundreds of millions of peaceful people.


The best thing they could do would be to simply not respond at all.
On the contrary. We're just giving you plenty of rope.

And who is this "they?"
 
Absolutely, there was never a reason to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. Invading Iraq was one of the gravest mistakes of the GWB/Dick Cheney regime. We are reaping the consequences as we speak. Saddam Hussein, even though a dictator, had a system that worked. The structure he had in place kept the ethnic factions, Shia, Sunni and Kurds, from warring upon each other. Now with that structure gone, Iraq is broken, there is open war, and there is an opening for Iran to enter. The US broke Iraq and it's incumbent among the US and Britain to stabilize that country for the people there. The poll asks the wrong question.


The question that should have been posed was "should we have been able to predict what happens when we pop the cork from a bottle of champagne".

Metaphorically speaking, of course.
 
Just skipping the vague nature of the phrase "truth about Islam," the War in Iraq was not a question of religion. It was a question of possession of WMDs, and given that Iraq did not possess WMDs, invading was clearly the wrong decision in hindsight.

Partially correct.
The rationale for the Iraq war was as following:

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

The rationale was thus to remove the regime; with the given reasoning that it developed and used WMDs, harbored and supported terrorists and terrorism, committed atrocities and human right abuses and defied demands from the UN security council.

That there were no signs of WMDs is correct, all of the rest of the given reasons for the regime removal however did apply and were correct.
 
Absolutely, there was never a reason to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. Invading Iraq was one of the gravest mistakes of the GWB/Dick Cheney regime. We are reaping the consequences as we speak. Saddam Hussein, even though a dictator, had a system that worked. The structure he had in place kept the ethnic factions, Shia, Sunni and Kurds, from warring upon each other. Now with that structure gone, Iraq is broken, there is open war, and there is an opening for Iran to enter. The US broke Iraq and it's incumbent among the US and Britain to stabilize that country for the people there. The poll asks the wrong question.

How can anyone know what would happen had Saddam stayed in power and allowed to continue to commit his atrocities and maintain his tyrannical regime?

You can say that he had a stable regime, sure I guess if that's something one can consider to be stable, but so did Assad until what, four years ago? And the US and the world didn't take him out, so how come Syria suddenly moved from a status of complete stability (again, if you can consider it as such) to the status of chaos and eternal bloodshed that it exists in, in recent years?

I don't think anyone can determine what would be the situation in Iraq by now had Saddam stayed in power.
 
Back
Top Bottom