Why kill 1.5 billion? Would it be a sane and human loving approach?

1. 50

   paarsurreyposted 14 years ago

   Terrorists are in minority in Muslims. Majority of Muslims are peaceful. Those who think that all 1.5 billion Muslims be killed should, therefore, revise their sentimental approach.
   
   Thanks

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It is going to be the radical Muslims and radical Christians that brings the world to its knees.  While everyone watches and talks about it on the internet.  There is little else can be done.
      
         Cause most people have lost the ability to listen.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         This is why it is actually important to oppose the radical views of both sides everywhere, including here.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The way way I see it.   the more resistence that it gets. the faster it will escilate.
            
               Damned if we do and damned if we don't ??

            replyreport
   2. 76

      skyfireposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It's the other way around. Peaceful, tolerant islamics are in minority in islam.

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Peaceful Muslims are in majority but they won't use force to quell the terrorists.

         replyreport
         1. 64

            Greek Oneposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How very brave of the majority.  Would you suggest we deploy the tickling method to prevent the minority's acts violence?

            replyreport
         2. 60

            skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            sorry Paar even you can admit 'peacefull muslims' are the minority  there is nothing wrong in admitting fact, I live in a part of Australia that HAS a high Muslin presence and there is NOTHING PEACEFULL ABOUT THEM, except my neighbour but he and his family are Turks ( and Muslim ) we get on peacefully with them but it is rare to even talk to muslims either they start to talk in Arabic or IGNORE YOU and they preach HATE that has been PROVEN, So how do you even try to live peacefully with them????
            your sect might be peacefull, but mainstream Islam will not let you go to Mecca so how is peacefull Muslims in the majority.......................

            replyreport
   3. 76

      skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why 50% in 1.5 billion wants to kill non-islamics, americans ?

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think it is true.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I do not CARE what you 'think' paar prove that statement WRONG!!!!!
            we need facts , we need proof , NOT WHAT YOU THINK!!!!

            replyreport
2. 67

   Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago

   In the case of a country like Iran, since the state is ruled by religious people and the president has threatened to nuke the US, if they attack us we are justified in attacking defensively or retaliating.  That might happen sooner that expected if they find a way of weaponizing uranium.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It is this kind of retaliation that is going to escalate until the earths population will all be at war ..or.. refuse to enter into the madness in which case they will be early victims of war.
      
      The handwriting is on the wall.
      A dozen people are going to decide the fate of the world.
      
        If we could convince "THEM"  of their insanity we might be able to avert the situation.
        But as I said before, Those that are responceable seems to have lost the ability to listen.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It's a difficult situation.  It is going to end badly.  It wasn't that long ago that the Times Square Bomber was caught by luck.  I'm sure there will be more attempts.  How do you convince a madman?  Did anyone dissuade Hitler?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I think that you just about summed it up.
            
               I think that a few may have tried but their names are not in the history books. I bet they didn't live long enough to see the invasions begin??

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I know there was a Tom Cruise movie which showed that there were people who tried to assassinate him but had failed.  I didn't see the movie though.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  It is Men such as Hitler and Napoleon that causes me to believe the prophetic scriptures. But not as the church teaches them.
                   
                  
                  I don't think that they can be killed until their mission has been completed.

                  replyreport
         2. 60

            skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            flightkeeper a few did try to stop Hitler they paid with their lives I'm sorry to say

            replyreport
   2. 0

      china manposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      To get a balanced view of things it is helpful to consider that what you say here could equally be said of the US.  Bush became your 'leader' through the backing of hte religious right, different scenario but the same effect, the US is continually threatening Iran - which is how they justify their nuclear programme in the first place.  And the US has shedloads of nuclear weapons, if you want someone else not to have them then you should give them up yourself. And the idea tha the US is the peaceful victim of world plots is contrary to the reality of the US being the only country (with the UK tagging along behind) that is actively into aggression on a world wide scale.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         China Man I do not belive the USA or the UK  want to be terrorising the world after all Islam did do 9/11 Islam did take Iran by force the Taliban did take the Afgan's by force, Islam keeps attacking the Jews on a daily bassis, Islam still spreads terror around the world. Many countries are still not free, even your China is not free ( but that is another subject) please show me one country that is run by Islam that is stable and the people have freedom of Religion, freedom of speach or freedom to travel, at least you presented your post well without insults thank you , I hope we can agree to disagree.

         replyreport
   3. 50

      paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This rational and justifiable right of being  "justified in attacking defensively or retaliating" is not given to Muhammad who was always attacked by Meccans at Madina; and Muhammad only defended his poistion.
      
      I request everybody to understand this

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Beelzedadposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Islamic conquests.
         
         http://www.iranchamber.com/history/isla … nquest.php

         replyreport
         1. 73

            earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for posting that Beelzedad. Nice link.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Paar Mohammed forced the Meccan's to adopt Islam after they told Mohammed he was a 'false' prophet get your facts right Mohammed was the agressor , Mohammed was attacking the Meccans ( not the other way round) the Meccans were trying to metain their God and reject Islam. Read History and do not try to CHANGE HISTORY!!!!
         
         SO THERE WAS NO RATIONAL OR JUSTIFIABLE RIGHT if there was it belonged to the Meccans NOT MOHAMMED

         replyreport
3. 62

   pisean282311posted 14 years ago

   @paar there is one nice movie called "new york" ..it is bollywood movie..there is interesting dialogue in that movie by irfan khan..the hatred towards  muslims which is seen in many parts of the world has to be converted into love by muslims only...i agree 150 billion are not extremist but to counter extremism muslims themselves would have to take strongest stand..when ever any christian or hindu or jew is killed anywhere muslims need to unite and condemn in same way that they get united when in draw muhammad day or burn quran day ...that would leave extremist outraged...just take burn quran day for example..the voices condemning the pastor came from all quarters  ..many supported pastor but majority condemned his stand..now if muslims too do the same when ever any one in muslim community kills someone , hits some one in name of religion..m sure things would change...

   replyreport
   1. 50

      paarsurreyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you;but who will bell the cat. The Muslim, except our community, are not organized enough. Our community does our part; but we cannot force others.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         we agree Paar but there  there are so many cults in Islam, Islam fights Islam more tham any other religion that is so sad enough said.................

         replyreport
   2. 60

      skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Pisean I agree but first they MUST get a copy of Paars 'peacefull Quran' their Quran is not peacefull........................................

      replyreport
4. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 13 years ago

   Personally, I don't think it's fair to label all muslims terrorists over the acts of a few ignorant individuals, who feel justified in killing for their own selfish needs. 
   
   However to be fair, I think the war that's going on in Iraq is a political war that we may never win.  This is why I hope Barrack or any other President that comes after him, sets up a law to make it illegal for media to follow our soldiers into battle.  as the media has no business, nor right, to be there with our troops.  not only are they a liability, due to the fact that our troops have to protect them, they're often in the way, and they're a huge security risk for our troops.  Anyone remember that Heraldo guy drawing up the military's plan on TV?  I rest my case if you do.
   
   Once they outlaw the media involvement in war, I think the President should give our troops full permission and power to win the war by any means necessary.  If it comes to nuking the hell out of the other nation back to the stone age, then so be it. This is war.  In times of war, the nice guy always finishes last, and there's no time for diplomacy.  You either kill or be killed.  There is no negotiation.  Don't get me wrong, I am a pacifist, and I don't condone violence of any kind.  However, you have to remember we're not dealing with normal enemies here when you talk about Al Quada, as we're talking about men that literally don't fear death.  Not only that, but they welcome death if anything, as they obviously showed on 9/11.  Therefore, how do you fight someone like that?  How do you fight someone that doesn't follow the rules of combat?  How?  That's why in a matter of war, we need to leave our troops alone, and stop criticizing every little thing they do like what they do to their prisoners and such.  Seriously, you know what the Al Quada would do to their prisoners?  Do you?  This is a war.  And in war, you have to win by any means necessary. 
   
   I'm sorry if I offended anyone by saying that, as I mean no offense by it.  And to be honest, I wish we could resolve our differences through peaceful debate, but that's a pipe dream right now.  Some people only recognize peace if you force them to acknowledge it.  Yes, I know what I'm saying might sound cruel, but let me ask you this.  Whats more cruel?  Prolonging a war by trying to fight through fair and politically correct means, as we're forced to watch more of our troops die and our economy suffer financially over this war?  Is it worth it? Or do you think we should just try to win the war by any means necessary where if necessary (but not limited to) to nuking the Al Quada's hideouts back to the stone age.  Sure, there will be a lot of casualties, but it will end the war.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Stevennix, well said friend, I agree the reporters have no place in battle, they get in the road.AND THEY ARE JUST A BLOODY LIBILITY If you are going to have a war let the Soldiers Sailors and Airmen fight it,look at history WW1 a win verry few reporters or political interference, WW2 a win little reporters not much political interference Korea DRAW more reporters more Govt intervention Vietnam a LOSS  on TV every night masses of reporters high Govt interference now the present 'Wars' reporters ;Inbedded wilh ground troops' Verry High Govt interference so it is verry hard to do the job with one hand tied behind your back. So a lot of good men and woman die for NOTHING, that is a ex soldiers view.................... and my friend the first casualty of war it truth............... so let your armed forces get the job done and come home alive......... I thank you for thinking of your Armed Services God bless you'
      and belive me war is the last resort, if you do go to war, as General Patton said ' you will never win a war by dieing for your country , you make some other poor bastard die for his' in war you always try to hit your enemy with everything you have even the 'kitchen sink' you use every wepon you can muster to WIN, no one respects a looser ask a German they have 2 crushing defeats to live down, and memories last a life time. The Japs still think they won..................... and  we will lose here too unless we do what the Jews do ........................... FIGHT 24/7 and stuff the REPORTERS

      replyreport
   2. 50

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      replyreport
      1. 60

         skipper112posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         were is your reply Paar???

         replyreport