• 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!

12 dead, as many as 31 injured in Fort Hood shootings

Catz Part Deux said:
True, but the accounts of his relationship with Aisha all seem to culminate with him having physical relations with her before age 13. On that basis, it seems clear that he was into younger women to a degree that most of us would find criminal.

And, it's important to point this out for one reason, and one reason only: Mohammed's actions influenced Islamic law on the subject. His relationship with Aisha is the primary reason why women can "consent" to rape at age 9 in a lot of middle eastern countries. There is a MODERN relevance to this issue.

IF that weren't the case, I doubt that many of us would care, we'd shrug our shoulders and say, "different times, different values." Except that's a value that is perpetuated TODAY in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

We know they married, we don't know the nature of their sexual relationship if any.

Did they have children together? Answer. The Prophet had seven children all from other wives.

Aisha was a child prodigy of Islam.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
He said flat out that not all muslims are terrorists. And he is correct in that it is difficult to identify those who have the capacity to commit a terrorist act, and those who would NEVER do so. In essence, our current law enforcement strategy is EXACTLY as you describe, Lerxst. To let them show, through their actions, whether they are terrorists or not. We've made arrests in cases where individuals have engaged with undercover operatives and taken responsibility for attempting to blow something up *(though they were set up, and no explosion actually occurred).

For example: Jordanian accused in Dallas bomb plot goes to court - CNN.com
Click to expand...

He also said...
I cannot tell the difference between those who are attempting to blend into our society (sleeper cells) and those who do not take islam literally (bad muslims). Can you tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Catz, I'm no fool. Read what he has said previously on the subject of Islam and couple that with this statement.

And I'll wait for more info on just how involved law enforcement was regarding actually investigating this man. What I think happened is that his blog popped up on the radar and they were monitoring it for key words and things like that. They probably pulled his military records and looked at info from his ISP. I'd be shocked to hear that any LE agency was actively drawing him out.
 
windovervocalcords said:
We know they married, we don't know the nature of their sexual relationship if any.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are a number of Islamic sources, including Aisha herself, that speak to an early sexual relationship.

Again though, that isn't nearly as important as the fact that their relationship continues to influence CURRENT Islamic policies towards women (i.e., that girls as young as 9 can't be "raped" because they can consent to sex).
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Actually, there are a number of Islamic sources, including Aisha herself, that speak to an early sexual relationship.

Again though, that isn't nearly as important as the fact that their relationship continues to influence CURRENT Islamic policies towards women (i.e., that girls as young as 9 can't be "raped" because they can consent to sex).
Click to expand...

That's quite true and is of concern more than whether Aisha was a virgin or not throughout her marriage to Mohammed.
 
windovervocalcords said:
That's quite true and is of concern more than whether Aisha was a virgin or not throughout her marriage to Mohammed.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I think that what people are really trying to point to when they say that Mohammed was a child molester is that Islamic law TODAY excuses child molestation.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I totally agree. I think that what people are really trying to point to when they say that Mohammed was a child molester is that Islamic law TODAY excuses child molestation.
Click to expand...

That's the issue, the use of Mohammed as an example of someone who had a child bride regardless of the real relationship of Mohammed and Aisha. The practice with that sacred justification in mind continues to this day.

I personally feel that when Muslims and others point to Mohammed in this way it is a misuse of religion and doesn't honor Mohammed's place in Islam.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
that's the issue, the use of mohammed as an example of someone who had a child bride regardless of the real relationship of mohammed and aisha. The practice with that sacred justification in mind continues to this day.

I personally feel that point to mohammed in this way is a misuse of religion and doesn't honor mohammed's place in islam.
Click to expand...

absolutely. And, it's worse coming from Islamics than from outsiders.
 
Lerxst said:
Apparently he also liked drinking beer and visiting strip clubs when his fellow soldiers weren't looking. Sounding more and more like many self proclaimed Christians I know. And also somebody who was even more conflicted than some us originally thought.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/59834-alleged-fort-hood-shooter-frequented-local-strip-club.html

Anyway, he's awake and talking. We'll see what comes next.
Click to expand...




Wagers on "dirka dirka, mohammad jihad".......;)
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxYBceSNUrM"]YouTube- Silence, I kill you![/ame]
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Wagers on "dirka dirka, mohammad jihad".......;)
Click to expand...

So what if he says that and is also determined to criminally insane at the time of his actions? The point is this, killing solely in the name of Allah is one thing...being in an emotional breakdown and saying "Allah told me to kill" or some iteration thereof is completely different. People only seem to want to go to that level of detail that satisfies their agenda for some reason. You don't just stop at "but he said Allah Akbar!" You have to look at all the factors involved. Ignoring the details of a situation is what has gotten us into decades of trouble in the Middle East already. This event is just a microcosm of that issue if you ask me.

This man is being used to vilify all of Islam by people claiming he was acting solely out of religious duty. And that has not been proven. I'll put this to you since nobody else can really muster an answer: If Islam is the issue, then how do you explain away the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world?

Are you going to claim, like bhkad or SgtRock, that Islam is a seed that cause a violent awakening or that "you can't tell a peaceful Muslim from a violent one so not trusting any of them is the answer"?
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Sweet, yet another cut and paste anti-Islam fear mongering post. Awesome. If you do it enough times it maybe Islam will go away.

Here is the thing, you can post that stuff all you want, but how do you account for the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims who don't kill infidels?

Just answer that for me and we'll continue.
Click to expand...

They haven't killed anyone...yet >.>

I'm keeping my eye on everyone, just that Muslims have some real wackos in their ranks so I have to be ready for anything...I'm also the same way about Bilderberg types, my Federal Government, and a myriad of other groups that are capable, and have a record, of crazy ****. Do I get all bent out of shape when someone says "Oh you're a Catholic, you must love molesting little boys" no. I say, thanks for the stereotype and I don't touch little boys, thus slowly chipping away at the stereotype. If you do nothing to remove a stereotype from your group, you're just a step above those actually committing the acts of lunacy. It's doesn't seem fair, but **** happens and life isn't fair.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
So what if he says that and is also determined to criminally insane at the time of his actions? The point is this, killing solely in the name of Allah is one thing...being in an emotional breakdown and saying "Allah told me to kill" or some iteration thereof is completely different. People only seem to want to go to that level of detail that satisfies their agenda for some reason. You don't just stop at "but he said Allah Akbar!" You have to look at all the factors involved. Ignoring the details of a situation is what has gotten us into decades of trouble in the Middle East already. This event is just a microcosm of that issue if you ask me.

This man is being used to vilify all of Islam by people claiming he was acting solely out of religious duty. And that has not been proven. I'll put this to you since nobody else can really muster an answer: If Islam is the issue, then how do you explain away the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world?
Click to expand...


I think some are indeed using this man to vilify an entire religion. I also think however, now that its coming out he sought out contacts with AQ, and other nonsense, this was his excuse making, but all the trappings of radicalization and fundamental islamic fascist views perculating over....


Are you going to claim, like bhkad or SgtRock, that Islam is a seed that cause a violent awakening or that "you can't tell a peaceful Muslim from a violent one so not trusting any of them is the answer"?
Click to expand...



If I did that, you would have to ask me to go get the guy called Reverend Hellh0und who was posting last week with Laila..... ;)


But Let me help your argument....


You can't tell a peaceful Great Reverend from a violent Great Reverend either.... ;)



Violent doesn't have a look.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und;1058353820 Violent doesn't have a look.[/QUOTE said:
Stay on your feet everyone, Muslims get a +5 initiative and attack bonus if they catch us flat footed.
Click to expand...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
But they're EVERYWHERE, Sir. We're clearly surrounded.
Click to expand...

Surrounded? >: D I couldn't imagine better odds!

n53502627_31217318_1548.jpg
 
Lerxst said:
ruse to mask intolerance, fear, and ignorance.
Click to expand...

How much excess negative baggage should we be expected to tolerate?
 
Lerxst said:
So what if he says that and is also determined to criminally insane at the time of his actions? The point is this, killing solely in the name of Allah is one thing...being in an emotional breakdown and saying "Allah told me to kill" or some iteration thereof is completely different. People only seem to want to go to that level of detail that satisfies their agenda for some reason. You don't just stop at "but he said Allah Akbar!" You have to look at all the factors involved. Ignoring the details of a situation is what has gotten us into decades of trouble in the Middle East already. This event is just a microcosm of that issue if you ask me.

This man is being used to vilify all of Islam by people claiming he was acting solely out of religious duty. And that has not been proven. I'll put this to you since nobody else can really muster an answer: If Islam is the issue, then how do you explain away the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims all over the world?

Are you going to claim, like bhkad or SgtRock, that Islam is a seed that cause a violent awakening or that "you can't tell a peaceful Muslim from a violent one so not trusting any of them is the answer"?
Click to expand...

Not saying this is my credo, but what is the answer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom