Terrorists and SEALS

[miss fortune]

threads merged

 

[Mustafa]

It is now unlocked thanks to people pointing that out to me!
- - - Updated - - -
Other note... I'm a she, not a he

Beautiful ma'am. I love women. Honestly, I've always sensed you are kind. But i was like blinded by desire to honor. And now, like said, flower , I've discovered a new path. Thanks for unlocking the thread.

 

[Bush]

And how do I start a blog?

Simply make a thread here.

I want to reply to the calm and civil jscrothers,

You're too kind, sir.

I didnt mean longbows were peaceful,

Got it now.

Look, I have to at least partially agree, though from a limited, abstract perspective.

Any Department of Defense contractor can remotely fly a drone around in the Middle East and shoot people, all from the safety from an office at Wright-Patt AFB in Ohio. But ground troops often have to be trained explicitly to get past the psychological burden of killing someone up close. The psychological stakes are higher when you can see your enemy; even higher when you can see the whites of their eyes. Classic, operant conditioning, my friends.

The fact that that burden is there, ingrained in our nature? Well, it arguably takes courage to get past it.

Literally and figuratively.

(This doesn't speak to whether or not it's the right thing to do. It also doesn't speak to terrorism and SEALS specifically. I'm not exactly a Naval expert. I'll probably mull over the specific issue..)

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=26151]Mustafa[/MENTION] Salam new person

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-and-spirituality/79611-terrorists-seals.html
He deprived me of my freedom.

What do you mean?

Before i didnt separate between verbal and battlefield dialectics (open discussion). This is not war and I am not coward. The brave is he who convinces the other of his opinion. &*% failed when he didnt do that. But i want to tell him, that wont be case on the battlefield.

Thanks [MENTION=1180]whatever[/MENTION]

On the battlefield?

 

[Mustafa]

I don't want to defend myself. Sorry about that.

 

[indra]

The longbow... yes. The French were destroyed by their pride.

 

[Riva]

The OP is clearly quite young or as he claim does indeed have Asperger.

this is your first in thread warning to knock it off

Warnings are public now? They used to be done through PMs.

Sounds like a troll, but ill play along a bit. Quran forbids terrorism and it only causes harm to islam as a whole. Muslims who think otherwise are not reading quran as it is, but follow interpretations of ill minded people of it. They follow man guided by evil, not god. What islam allows is killing soldiers invading your country, but planting a bomb in paris metro is attacking against what god made(according to quran).

Lets say an Iraqi group that is against US occupation attacks a US troops while outside of Iraq. Perhaps a US training camp. Is that also forbidden according to the Quran?

Following a religion is all about correctly interpreting its (the religion's) context and integrating it into one's life.

You can't blame its followers for misunderstanding, if the texts are so complex or vague; and the founder and the four caliph's used the sword to spread its message over and over again though they preached peace.

Mahathma Gandhi spread his word. Never used a sword. Can't say the same about Mohomed and the four Caliphs who came afterwards.

This is why the life of the founder also matters.

 

[geedoenfj]

I couldn't read all of this article because I find myself unable to understand the general idea.. I felt you were just so taken by tigers and lioness myths than practically making yourself clear..
If it is troll (hopefully) I think you needed to make your sarcasm more obvious..
If you're serious and really believe in terrorism, so what made you stay around peaceful people with different ethnicities and backgrounds? Are you trying to justify killing us all or what Mustafa? Be careful with what you say and keep away from terrorists..

 

[INTP]

Lets say an Iraqi group that is against US occupation attacks a US troops while outside of Iraq. Perhaps a US training camp. Is that also forbidden according to the Quran?

Following a religion is all about correctly interpreting its (the religion's) context and integrating it into one's life.

You can't blame its followers for misunderstanding, if the texts are so complex or vague; and the founder and the four caliph's used the sword to spread its message over and over again though they preached peace.

Mahathma Gandhi spread his word. Never used a sword. Can't say the same about Mohomed and the four Caliphs who came afterwards.

This is why the life of the founder also matters.

Well, my personal view is that US soldiers in iraq(for example) are invading their country and thus are to be considered as the enemy soldiers. I dont see any problem with otherwise good muslims fighting them, since they are the aggressors. I have said it before that the aggressors in any war deserve to get shot in the head. Soldiers in US training camps do not necessarily go to iraq or other missions in the middle east to fight muslims, so basically those not yet soldiers are not aggressors. But US training camps that train people to go to middle east kinda are, so its bit of a gray area. In many countries(like finland) army is not optional as it is in US, so it would be pretty stupid to attack all finnish males(who didnt go to civilian service or jail because they didnt want to go to army), because there might be few finnish mercenaries there..

Quran says its okay to fight aggressors(soldiers invading the country), but attacking someone who is not an aggressor(civilians) is basically an act against god.

And no, i cant blame people for their stupidity, but i can say thats its completely retarded to follow some religion and kill in the name of that religion that you dont even know about much at all.

Another interesting thing about this is that(people who studied islam should know this), well first of all ISIS recruits people largely based on saying that the end of days are near and thus you should come join them and fight the infidels. However ISIS itself has many signs of being the work of the antichrist, not to mention that they talk of others as if the whole situation would be about the coming of the antichrist, but then dont say anything about the antichrist. For example prophecies talk of coming of the rome, and ISIS talks about turks as the romans.
Then there are these things like antichrist was said to rise from where ISIS rose. And well if you look at what ISIS is doing is exactly what the antichrist would do. Leaders lying about being in the mission from god, but then committing crimes against god(in islamic sense) etc etc

Im not saying that i believe them to be the coming of the antichrist, but muslims should if they believe their prophets and know what they said, and not just follow some interpretations of the evil people of the quran..

Here you can read about what quran says about wars and aggression: The Quran on Wars And Aggression; Submission (Islam)
[MENTION=26151]Mustafa[/MENTION]

 

[Riva]

Well, my personal view is that US soldiers in iraq(for example) are invading their country and thus are to be considered as the enemy soldiers. I dont see any problem with otherwise good muslims fighting them, since they are the aggressors. I have said it before that the aggressors in any war deserve to get shot in the head. Soldiers in US training camps do not necessarily go to iraq or other missions in the middle east to fight muslims, so basically those not yet soldiers are not aggressors. But US training camps that train people to go to middle east kinda are, so its bit of a gray area. In many countries(like finland) army is not optional as it is in US, so it would be pretty stupid to attack all finnish males(who didnt go to civilian service or jail because they didnt want to go to army), because there might be few finnish mercenaries there..

Quran says its okay to fight aggressors(soldiers invading the country), but attacking someone who is not an aggressor(civilians) is basically an act against god.

And no, i cant blame people for their stupidity, but i can say thats its completely retarded to follow some religion and kill in the name of that religion that you dont even know about much at all.

Another interesting thing about this is that(people who studied islam should know this), well first of all ISIS recruits people largely based on saying that the end of days are near and thus you should come join them and fight the infidels. However ISIS itself has many signs of being the work of the antichrist, not to mention that they talk of others as if the whole situation would be about the coming of the antichrist, but then dont say anything about the antichrist. For example prophecies talk of coming of the rome, and ISIS talks about turks as the romans.
Then there are these things like antichrist was said to rise from where ISIS rose. And well if you look at what ISIS is doing is exactly what the antichrist would do. Leaders lying about being in the mission from god, but then committing crimes against god(in islamic sense) etc etc

Im not saying that i believe them to be the coming of the antichrist, but muslims should if they believe their prophets and know what they said, and not just follow some interpretations of the evil people of the quran..

Here you can read about what quran says about wars and aggression: The Quran on Wars And Aggression; Submission (Islam)
[MENTION=26151]Mustafa[/MENTION]

I agree that the USA is an invading force in Iraq and that there it should be considered as an act of defense when a US soldier is killed by an Iraqi (whatever their affiliation is). In American Media these freedom fighters are called terrorists and I believe that is unfair. Even when ISIS is killing Americans it should be considered as an act of fighting for their freedom. But ISIS isn't killing American soldiers. They are more concerned about killing minority muslims and non muslims. So they aren't much of a freedom fighting force.

Anyway my point about the life of Mohomed and the four Caliphs still stands. They used invasions and warfare to spread Islam. This includes Mohomed and no I am not talking about the invasion of Mecca. Most Muslims claim it was for the good of the people of Mecca, so I am not taking that as an example of Mohomed using brutality to spread Islam and suppress non muslims. In one instance he (the founder of Islam) wanted to kill off members of a certain opposing group but he was prevented by another man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qaynuqa

Do you not think these types of acts would be interpreted by Muslims (not just evil, even educated good hearted educated Muslims) as a permission to suppress non-Muslims and force convert? The life of the founder and the examples the founder set to its followers matter as much as their teachings. Infact these are interconnected.

So perhaps, Muslims are right, Islam does preach peace, but the founder of Islam wasn't peaceful at all.

Oh and he imposed a tax on non-muslims living on Muslim lands. That was basically religious discrimination. Lolz.

Mohomed was NOT a peaceful man, though he might have tried to preach peace.