Bin Laden Dead!

[kafka]

I can take it Nihil.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1304470050' post='2236628']
* In the future the great Catholic monarch of prophecy will kill the great Arab king (and many extremists) in the first part of the Tribulation, and in the second part of the Tribulation Jesus will Return and kill Antichrist, the false Prophetess, and countless of their followers. Both these events will be an occassion of unfathomable joy for the Church.
[/quote]

Huh?

[AudreyGrace]

It's very sad to see Satan working through division, even on Catholic forums like these.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304461520' post='2236555']
That false religion was founded by the man Mohammed, so it is quite proper for us to refer to it as Mohammedan. It was founded on the lies and delusions of Mohammed, not by God.
True submission to God ("Islam") is submission to His One True Church, not the apostate religion founded by Mohammed the false prophet.[/quote]

No it's not proper, because the religion has a name and it's called Islam. There are many religions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that were founded by individuals, who did not belong to the Catholic Church. We do you refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Mormonism as "Josephan", no you don't because it has an official name. By refering to it other then it's official name it only causes more confusion and makes you appear less intellectual for which people are not going to take you serious.


[quote]I never denied that we should pray for our enemies (which also entails praying for their conversion and repentence).

However, there is nothing wrong in rejoicing that an evil murderous and dangerous individual has been put out of action.
And if Osama bin Laden did not repent and accept Christ, then his punishment in Hell is just and should not be begrudged. If he is indeed in Hell (as is most probably the case), it is no more troubling than the fact that Satan is in Hell.
God's will be done.
[/quote]

Well what you said appears to not have fit in line with the recommendations and/or instructions that the Vatican has issued, so yes there is something wrong with what you have said. Rejoicing at the death of a human being is not correct. There are many dangerous individuals, including many in our country but rejoicing at their death should not be the attitude that Christians take and surely wasn't during the Age of the Martyrs and other times of persecution.

[quote]There have been more evil religions (that of the pagan Aztecs comes to mind), but I'm not going to pretend that Islam is in itself good, and not a false religion. And the religion of bin Laden differs no more from that of Mohammed than that of liberal "moderate Islam." As all the various contradictory forms of Islam are false and man-made, there is no such thing as "true Islam."
[/quote]

Saying that you believe it to be false is completely different [and I'd never prevent you from saying such] then saying that it is downright evil, more evil then Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, ect. when there is no reason to suggest such. It's clear that you're quite uneducated about Islam, if you think that the actions of Bin Laden, are no different then those of Muhammad, they are very different, infact worlds apart. I would cite the Qur'an with various credible Tasfirs, the most trusted Hadiths, and even history but it appears that would be pointless if someone is not willing to listen. However I will only point you to the writings of John Esposito [a Catholic] and Dalia Mogahed [A Muslim].

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304461950' post='2236561']
I don't have a problem with Mr. Obama's involvement in the killing of bin Laden.

What I do have a problem with is using the death of bin Laden as an opportunity for cheap partisan political gloating and taunting, as was the post I was responding to.
I think we need to give credit where credit is due, which belongs mostly to our military forces and intelligence, and we shouldn't be acting as if bin Laden's death was all because of Obama's brilliance.
[/quote]

The problem is that bothsides are using it for political gain, just as Bush did when Saddam Hussein was captured. Fox News reported, "Bush was right about waterboarding because that led to the capture of Bin Laden" [which is false]. Sarah Palin said that we all need to thank Bush for "making the right calls", when again - it had nothing to do with him. Surely we need to thank our armed forces, but Mr. Obama does deserve credit for acting promptly on this rather then being slow and taking 3-4 weeks like the two previous presidents did, allowing him to get away. As a libertarian, I disagree with both wars and completely agree with him being brought to justice.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1304462037' post='2236565']
Obama doesn't know how to shoot guns; he's a liberal. Guns are evil and kill people, remember?
[/quote]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1304462604' post='2236570']
Obama would have no problem having a gun. He's a liberal, which means that as a political figure, he is better than everyone else and should have privileges. Liberal politicians only curb the rights of commoners.
[/quote]

Unfortunately both of these comments are ignorant of the facts. Fact #1, Obama said during his campaign that he had no problem with guns, that would never take away handguns, shotguns, etc [he mentioned them specifically] and would uphold the 2nd amendment. Fact #2, he legalized guns more then Bush did during the first year of his presidency and 8 years of Bush's presidency. It is now legal to carry handguns on trains, under Bush it was not.

Clearly both comments are paritisan and intended to paint Mr. Obama [who I do not support] in a particular light. I'd expect more integrity from Catholics but I guess there are people with an agenda in every religion and amongst every group.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304528102' post='2236892']





Unfortunately both of these comments are ignorant of the facts. Fact #1, Obama said during his campaign that he had no problem with guns, that would never take away handguns, shotguns, etc [he mentioned them specifically] and would uphold the 2nd amendment. Fact #2, he legalized guns more then Bush did during the first year of his presidency and 8 years of Bush's presidency. It is now legal to carry handguns on trains, under Bush it was not.

Clearly both comments are paritisan and intended to paint Mr. Obama [who I do not support] in a particular light. I'd expect more integrity from Catholics but I guess there are people with an agenda in every religion and amongst every group.
[/quote]
I didn't realize that obviously hyperbolic satire was frowned upon. Lighten up.
Second, don't call me partisan. You would find such an accusation ridiculous if you knew where I stand.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1304528580' post='2236896']
I didn't realize that obviously hyperbolic satire was frowned upon. Lighten up.
Second, don't call me partisan. You would find such an accusation ridiculous if you knew where I stand.
[/quote]

Is it truly satire when it frames or paints Mr. Obama in a particular negative light, and is null and void of the facts?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304529813' post='2236904']
Is it truly satire when it frames or paints Mr. Obama in a particular negative light, and is null and void of the facts?
[/quote]
Is there any other kind of satire?

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1304474638' post='2236679']
It's very sad to see Satan working through division, even on Catholic forums like these.

[/quote]

Take it in stride. It happens, when you've been on here long enough you just let it blow over.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304528102' post='2236892']
No it's not proper, because the religion has a name and it's called Islam. There are many religions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that were founded by individuals, who did not belong to the Catholic Church. We do you refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Mormonism as "Josephan", no you don't because it has an official name. By refering to it other then it's official name it only causes more confusion and makes you appear less intellectual for which people are not going to take you serious.[/quote]
"Mohammedan" has been the preferred term used by the Church for many centuries to refer to the errors of Mohammed. Its not some term coined of ignorance by Winchester or myself.
I really could care less about trying to look "intellectual" on here. If the term was intellectual enough for St. Thomas Aquinas, it's intellectual enough for a lug like me. And if you want people to appear intellectual, it's "take you seriously," not "take you serious."
If you don't like the term don't use it, but the rest of us are free to use it if we choose. Personally, I only use "Islam" because it's easier to type.



[quote]Well what you said appears to not have fit in line with the recommendations and/or instructions that the Vatican has issued, so yes there is something wrong with what you have said. Rejoicing at the death of a human being is not correct. There are many dangerous individuals, including many in our country but rejoicing at their death should not be the attitude that Christians take and surely wasn't during the Age of the Martyrs and other times of persecution.[/quote]
Rejoicing at a victory for our country and removal of a threat to the free world is not sinful. And it's not like you can police people's emotions.
But really, this is beating a dead horse.


[quote]Saying that you believe it to be false is completely different [and I'd never prevent you from saying such] then saying that it is downright evil, more evil then Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, ect. when there is no reason to suggest such. It's clear that you're quite uneducated about Islam, if you think that the actions of Bin Laden, are no different then those of Muhammad, they are very different, infact worlds apart. I would cite the Qur'an with various credible Tasfirs, the most trusted Hadiths, and even history but it appears that would be pointless if someone is not willing to listen. However I will only point you to the writings of John Esposito [a Catholic] and Dalia Mogahed [A Muslim].[/quote]
I never made any claim that Mohammedism is the most evil religion to appear on the face of the earth, nor did I compare it to other false religions. Those are your claims, not mine.
(I would argue that Mohammedism is indeed worse than the heresies of Protestantism, as Protestants profess the Christ as Lord God and Savior, which Islam explicitly denies. And Buddhism and Hinduism are pre-Christian religions whose faults come from ignorance of divine revelation, while Mohammedism is a post-Christian apostate religion, which denies the dogmas of the Gospel already preached. But I think quibbling over which false religion is worst is rather pointless here.)

The Qran itself teaches that Christians must convert to Islam, and if those that refuse submission to Islam must be forced into submission and forced to pay a tribute tax (Jizya).
"9:29 [b]Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[/b]"
I copy-pasted that translation from a Muslim website. "People of the book" refers to Christians and Jews.

While modern Muslim apologists will tell Christians it really means something different, that verse was taken quite literally in Islam's first century. Islam was spread by the sword and military conquests, largely of Christians. Most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian prior to the Muslim conquests. The Muslims invaded Europe and got as far as France before being beaten back by Charles the Hammer, and it took centuries for Spain to be reconquered from the Muslims.

Sorry, but no religion which contradicts the Gospel of Christ, and demands that Christians convert from Christianity to their religion or live in submission, can be considered good.

But literally hundreds of pages have been spent hear debating this. Start a new thread on Islam, or open one of the countless old ones, if you wish to debate this further.


[quote]The problem is that bothsides are using it for political gain, just as Bush did when Saddam Hussein was captured. Fox News reported, "Bush was right about waterboarding because that led to the capture of Bin Laden" [which is false]. Sarah Palin said that we all need to thank Bush for "making the right calls", when again - it had nothing to do with him. Surely we need to thank our armed forces, but Mr. Obama does deserve credit for acting promptly on this rather then being slow and taking 3-4 weeks like the two previous presidents did, allowing him to get away. As a libertarian, I disagree with both wars and completely agree with him being brought to justice.[/quote]
We had better intelligence as to bin Laden's whereabouts than we had in the past.
And the CIA chief himself has stated that information gained from waterboarding led to bin Laden's death. (CIA chief: [url="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/"]Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid[/url]. That's from MSNBC, hardly known as a right-wing Republican mouthpiece.) If you want to accuse the CIA chief of lying, that's your prerogative, but at least get your facts straight, rather than acting as if this claim was a fabrication of FOX News.
And all the procedures for hunting bin Laden and gathering intelligence were installed during Bush's presidency. If you want to give Obama credit, Bush deserves some too.
It seems that you're the one being blindly partisan here.


[quote]Unfortunately both of these comments are ignorant of the facts. Fact #1, Obama said during his campaign that he had no problem with guns, that would never take away handguns, shotguns, etc [he mentioned them specifically] and would uphold the 2nd amendment. Fact #2, he legalized guns more then Bush did during the first year of his presidency and 8 years of Bush's presidency. It is now legal to carry handguns on trains, under Bush it was not.

Clearly both comments are paritisan and intended to paint Mr. Obama [who I do not support] in a particular light. I'd expect more integrity from Catholics but I guess there are people with an agenda in every religion and amongst every group.[/quote]
Unfortunately, your own comments are ignorant of the facts.

Obama's record as a Senator was hardly pro-gun, as he had sponsored a number of anti-gun bills. [url="http://www.issues2000.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm"]Barack Obama on Gun Control[/url], from the non-partisan OnTheIssues.
Obama sought to reinstate the ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons which had been lifted under Bush. [url="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1"]Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban[/url] (from 2009).

The bill allowing the carrying of firearms (as cargo) on trains was sponsored by Republicans, and while, Obama signed the bill into law, he had nothing to do with initially promoting the bill. Bush would have likely also signed the bill, had it been passed while he was in office. [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/16/national/main5316093.shtml"]Senate Votes to Allow Guns on Amtrak[/url]
The arms had to be unloaded and stored in separate cargo compartments, so this isn't exactly a mind-blowing gun-rights victory.

Claiming that Obama "legalized guns more then Bush did during the first year of his presidency and 8 years of Bush's presidency" is simply outright false.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1304529887' post='2236905']
Is there any other kind of satire?
[/quote]
It is only acceptable to use satire that paints Republican presidents in a negative light.

Didn't you get the memo?

Edited May 5, 2011 by Socrates

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304632271' post='2237667']
"Mohammedan" has been the preferred term used by the Church for many centuries to refer to the errors of Mohammed. Its not some term coined of ignorance by Winchester or myself.
I really could care less about trying to look "intellectual" on here. If the term was intellectual enough for St. Thomas Aquinas, it's intellectual enough for a lug like me. And if you want people to appear intellectual, it's "take you seriously," not "take you serious."
If you don't like the term don't use it, but the rest of us are free to use it if we choose. Personally, I only use "Islam" because it's easier to type.[/quote]

Well, I don't care what some individuals in your church have referred to it as, that is not what the current Pope refers to it as and it's factually incorrect. In most of those cases, they did not have that much of a knowledge of Islam to know otherwise. Thomas Aquinas probably didn't know better. You have the benefit of knowing better but refuse that knowledge by persisting in calling it something other then that it's official name is.

[quote]Rejoicing at a victory for our country and removal of a threat to the free world
is not sinful. And it's not like you can police people's
emotions.
But really, this is beating a dead horse.
[/quote]

I have never policed people's emotions or told them not to feel a sign of relief that they feel, as humans, a bit more safe [even if it's a false sense of security]. What I have said and I will repeat in saying is what your own church says, which is that Christians are not to rejoice at a man's death. I also repeat what Jesus said, which is love your enemy. If that is too much for you, I suggest you find another religion.

[quote]I never made any claim that Mohammedism is the most evil religion to appear on the face of the earth, nor did I compare it to other false religions. Those are your claims, not mine.
(I would argue that Mohammedism is indeed worse than the heresies of Protestantism, as Protestants profess the Christ as Lord God and Savior, which Islam explicitly denies. And Buddhism and Hinduism are pre-Christian religions whose faults come from ignorance of divine revelation, while Mohammedism is a post-Christian apostate religion, which denies the dogmas of the Gospel already preached. But I think quibbling over which false religion is worst is rather pointless here.)[/quote]

Just because someone professes that Jesus is their G-d, does not make them better then people that do not profess that, for many of the greatest heretics to have ever come out of the Church believed that Jesus was G-d, Arius, Nestorious, to just name a few. Mormonism is a post-Christian apostate religion, which believes in the divinity of Christ, but is much worse then Islam, if you'd like to "rate them" [which I don't feel comfortable doing].

[quote]The Qran itself teaches that Christians must convert to Islam, and if those that refuse submission to Islam must be forced into submission and forced to pay a tribute tax (Jizya).
"9:29 [b]Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[/b]"
I copy-pasted that translation from a Muslim website. "People of the book" refers to Christians and Jews.[/quote]

First, you don't know what you're talking about, as you are taking the verse completely out of context. It represents a specific piece of history, [as the book of numbers does in the bible] for which Muslims were fighting the Byzintines. If you read the entire 9th chapter, you'll see that it says do not fight those who do not fight you, but those who fight you - fight them until they cease and if they cease forgive them. The verse that you cited itself says "fight back", as in if they fight you, return with self defense. This is the proper context for which Al Azhar has clarified many times, unfortunately you don't read their tasfirs. As a matter of fact Muhammad said in the Hadiths, "if a christians church burns down, help him rebuild it".

[quote]While modern Muslim apologists will tell Christians it really means something different, that verse was taken quite literally in Islam's first century. Islam was spread by the sword and military conquests, largely of Christians. Most of the Middle East and North Africa was Christian prior to the Muslim conquests. The Muslims invaded Europe and got as far as France before being beaten back by Charles the Hammer, and it took centuries for Spain to be reconquered from the Muslims.[/quote]

It was taken literally, in it's proper context, for which you missed. As for the crusades, I'd rather not go there because we're definately not going to agree, given the fact that you see it posetively.

[quote]Sorry, but no religion which contradicts the Gospel of Christ, and demands that Christians convert from Christianity to their religion or live in submission, can be considered good.[/quote] Ironically that same standard could be used against roman catholicism, which came into Egypt and murdered Copts, stealing St. Mark's relics, demanding that they submit to the Roman Catholic Pope. That is not what Islam demands, that is one interpretation for which you chose to focus in on, but is not the orthodox interpretation and never has been. I suggest that you read John Eposito's [a roman catholic] book before you go around pretending to know what the Qur'an says and means.

[quote]But literally hundreds of pages have been spent hear debating this. Start a new thread on Islam, or open one of the countless old ones, if you wish to debate this further.[/quote] With all due respect it was you that started in on this Islam stuff.

[quote]We had better intelligence as to bin Laden's whereabouts than we had in the past.
And the CIA chief himself has stated that information gained from waterboarding led to bin Laden's death. (CIA chief: [url="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/"]Waterboarding aided bin Laden raid[/url]. That's from MSNBC, hardly known as a right-wing Republican mouthpiece.) If you want to accuse the CIA chief of lying, that's your prerogative, but at least get your facts straight, rather than acting as if this claim was a fabrication of FOX News.
And all the procedures for hunting bin Laden and gathering intelligence were installed during Bush's presidency. If you want to give Obama credit, Bush deserves some too.
It seems that you're the one being blindly partisan here.[/quote] That's not the full perspective. That is a snippet for which MSNBC cited. The CIA has since released more on this and showed that the man that gave up the most evidence was not waterboarded. The other two that were waterboarded only confirmed [through not talking] that the guy who was not, was telling the truth. Therefore to say that waterboarding led to the capture is completely false. There are many articles about this, I'm at work but I'll give you more when I get home. Here is one for now: [url="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0505/Did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-help-US-find-Osama-bin-Laden"]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0505/Did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-help-US-find-Osama-bin-Laden[/url]

[quote]Unfortunately, your own comments are ignorant of the facts.

Obama's record as a Senator was hardly pro-gun, as he had sponsored a number of anti-gun bills. [url="http://www.issues2000.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm"]Barack Obama on Gun Control[/url], from the non-partisan OnTheIssues.
Obama sought to reinstate the ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons which had been lifted under Bush. [url="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1"]Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban[/url] (from 2009).

The bill allowing the carrying of firearms (as cargo) on trains was sponsored by Republicans, and while, Obama signed the bill into law, he had nothing to do with initially promoting the bill. Bush would have likely also signed the bill, had it been passed while he was in office. [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/16/national/main5316093.shtml"]Senate Votes to Allow Guns on Amtrak[/url]
The arms had to be unloaded and stored in separate cargo compartments, so this isn't exactly a mind-blowing gun-rights victory.

Claiming that Obama "legalized guns more then Bush did during the first year of his presidency and 8 years of Bush's presidency" is simply outright false.
[/quote]

I don't care what Obama's record is as a Senator, the fact that he signed the gun bill into law that allowed fire arms to be carried on trains, makes my statement correct. Under Bush the laws for gun ownership were more strict and under Obama they are more loose are they not? Did Obama not say on his campaign trail that he would not restrict gun rights? Thats right he did say that.


Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304632412' post='2237670']
It is only acceptable to use satire that paints Republican presidents in a negative light.

Didn't you get the memo?
[/quote]

And for the record, I'm just as critical of both political parties. I'm Libertarian like Ron Paul [2012], so this has nothing to do with seeing George Bush negatively while Obama posetively. It has to do with seeing the situation for what it is. I'm equally critical of both and didn't vote for either.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304669672' post='2237866']
Well, I don't care what some individuals in your church have referred to it as, that is not what the current Pope refers to it as and it's factually incorrect. In most of those cases, they did not have that much of a knowledge of Islam to know otherwise. Thomas Aquinas probably didn't know better. You have the benefit of knowing better but refuse that knowledge by persisting in calling it something other then that it's official name is.[/quote]
The term "Mohammedan" was essentially universally used by the Church prior to Vatican II. I don't think everyone in the Church prior to the mid-'60s was an ignoramus. The term emphasizes that the religion is the creation of a man, Mohammad, rather than God.

Personally, I don't care what you or the followers of Mohammed's false religion call it. This is a Catholic site, not Muslim.


[quote]I have never policed people's emotions or told them not to feel a sign of relief that they feel, as humans, a bit more safe [even if it's a false sense of security]. What I have said and I will repeat in saying is what your own church says, which is that Christians are not to rejoice at a man's death. I also repeat what Jesus said, which is love your enemy. If that is too much for you, I suggest you find another religion.[/quote]
There's nothing wrong with celebrating the defeat of an evil, and the removal of a threat to the lives of our citizens. I'm not celebrating bin Laden's damnation, which is just, but tragic.
Was it evil and sinful to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis at the end of WWII?

And I'll ignore your suggestion, and stick to my Catholic religion, thank you very much.


[quote]Just because someone professes that Jesus is their G-d, does not make them better then people that do not profess that, for many of the greatest heretics to have ever come out of the Church believed that Jesus was G-d, Arius, Nestorious, to just name a few. Mormonism is a post-Christian apostate religion, which believes in the divinity of Christ, but is much worse then Islam, if you'd like to "rate them" [which I don't feel comfortable doing].
[/quote]
For the record, Mormonism is just as false and apostate a religion as Islam, both these false religions being based on the "revelations" of false prophets.
I really fail to see how Mormonism is "much worse" than Islam, but that's just me. Apparently, I've missed the news of all the violent attacks by Mormons on Christians, and Mormon suicide bombings.

[quote]First, you don't know what you're talking about, as you are taking the verse completely out of context. It represents a specific piece of history, [as the book of numbers does in the bible] for which Muslims were fighting the Byzintines. If you read the entire 9th chapter, you'll see that it says do not fight those who do not fight you, but those who fight you - fight them until they cease and if they cease forgive them. The verse that you cited itself says "fight back", as in if they fight you, return with self defense. This is the proper context for which Al Azhar has clarified many times, unfortunately you don't read their tasfirs. As a matter of fact Muhammad said in the Hadiths, "if a christians church burns down, help him rebuild it".



It was taken literally, in it's proper context, for which you missed. As for the crusades, I'd rather not go there because we're definately not going to agree, given the fact that you see it posetively.

Ironically that same standard could be used against roman catholicism, which came into Egypt and murdered Copts, stealing St. Mark's relics, demanding that they submit to the Roman Catholic Pope. That is not what Islam demands, that is one interpretation for which you chose to focus in on, but is not the orthodox interpretation and never has been. I suggest that you read John Eposito's [a roman catholic] book before you go around pretending to know what the Qur'an says and means.

With all due respect it was you that started in on this Islam stuff.[/quote]
. . . Sigh . . .
Nothing in this exchange that hasn't been gone over hundreds of times on this site.

Apparently the Caliphs and Muslim leaders consistently took that verse (and many others) out of context for the first several centuries of Islam's existence. The systematic military conquest of Christians by Muslims and imposition of the Jizya is well-established fact, not anti-Muslim propaganda.

Yes, when you search through history you can always find examples of individual atrocities committed by people professing all religions (or no religion at all), but Islam's spread by military conquest was not a case of a few isolated incidences, but its chief modus operandi throughout its early history. "Peaceful" Islam came later.

[quote] That's not the full perspective. That is a snippet for which MSNBC cited. The CIA has since released more on this and showed that the man that gave up the most evidence was not waterboarded. The other two that were waterboarded only confirmed [through not talking] that the guy who was not, was telling the truth. Therefore to say that waterboarding led to the capture is completely false. There are many articles about this, I'm at work but I'll give you more when I get home. Here is one for now: [url="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0505/Did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-help-US-find-Osama-bin-Laden"]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0505/Did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-help-US-find-Osama-bin-Laden[/url][/quote]
That CSM article you linked to certainly doesn't confirm your claim that "to say that waterboarding led to the capture is completely false."
It gives conflicting statements by different people, and doesn't come to a definitive conclusion.
Even most of Obama's people gave ambiguous statements claiming that information came from a variety of different sources, and did not outright deny that waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" reports did not play a role.
“[quote]There was a mosaic of sources that led to the identification of the people who led to [bin Laden],” the attorney general said.

“I understand that,” replied Rep. Dan Lungren (R) of California. “But were any pieces of that mosaic the result of enhanced interrogation techniques?”

Attorney General Holder: “I do not know.”[/quote]

Also from you article:[quote]In an interview with Time magazine, [b]the former director of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, Jose Rodriguez, said the first important leads about Kuwaiti came from alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Farraj al-Libbi, the third-ranking Al Qaeda leader at the time of his capture. Both men were interrogated at secret CIA “black sites,” where Mr. Mohammed was subject to waterboarding 183 times.[/b]

“Information provided by KSM and [Mr. Libbi] about bin Laden’s courier was the lead information that eventually led to the location of the compound and the operation that led to his death,” Mr. Rodriguez is quoted as saying.[/quote]

Again, if you want to claim that the CIA people are all lying, and that only the Obama spokespeople are telling the unvarnished truth, that's your prerogative, but let's just say I'm not convinced.


[quote]I don't care what Obama's record is as a Senator, the fact that he signed the gun bill into law that allowed fire arms to be carried on trains, makes my statement correct. Under Bush the laws for gun ownership were more strict and under Obama they are more loose are they not? Did Obama not say on his campaign trail that he would not restrict gun rights? Thats right he did say that.[/quote]
Really grasping at straws here, aren't you?

Pardon my lack of faith in Dear Leader, but I put a lot more stock in his actual voting record than in campaign trail promises.
A politician's actions speak louder than his words (particularly those spoken on the campaign trail!)

Bush did let the Clinton-era ban on the sale of semi-automatics expire during his presidency, and Obama attacked him on that during the campaign, and pressed for a new ban on semi-automatics early in his presidency, but failed to get support from Congress.
That says a lot more about Obama's position on second amendment rights than his signing of a Republican-initiated bill regarding the transport of guns as train cargo. (And it's not as if Bush blocked any similar bills during his presidency).

Congress, not the president, is responsible for making laws regarding guns, so let's give credit where credit is due.
Trying to use the signing of that one bill (passed by an overwhelming majority in the Senate) to paint Obama as a champion of second amendment rights (or even as more so than Bush) is just ridiculous and dishonest.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304670000' post='2237867']
And for the record, I'm just as critical of both political parties. I'm Libertarian like Ron Paul [2012], so this has nothing to do with seeing George Bush negatively while Obama posetively. It has to do with seeing the situation for what it is. I'm equally critical of both and didn't vote for either.
[/quote]
I'd never know that by your postings on here.
So far, you've been a straight-out Obama apologist.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304797312' post='2238468']
The term "Mohammedan" was essentially universally used by the Church prior to Vatican II. I don't think everyone in the Church prior to the mid-'60s was an ignoramus. The term emphasizes that the religion is the creation of a man, Mohammad, rather than God.

Personally, I don't care what you or the followers of Mohammed's false religion call it. This is a Catholic site, not Muslim.[/quote] I do care because if you want to discuss someone else's religion, it's important to show respect. I do not recognize the Roman Catholic Patriarch, yet when I reference [His Holiness] Pope John Paul II, I put His Holiness infront of his name, even if I don't think so, to show respect to those around me. You obviously haven't learned that yet, so I'll refer you to a kindergarden sunday school class, to learn such basics. Bottomline, it doesn't matter what the Roman Catholic Church referred to it as prior to Vatican II.

[quote]There's nothing wrong with celebrating the defeat of an evil, and the removal of a threat to the lives of our citizens. I'm not celebrating bin Laden's damnation, which is just, but tragic.
Was it evil and sinful to celebrate the defeat of the Nazis at the end of WWII?

And I'll ignore your suggestion, and stick to my Catholic religion, thank you very much.
[/quote]

Please don't take this offensively but do you struggle with reading and comprehension? When did I say that you should leave your Catholic religion and embrace another? I specifically said in my response that my opinion was that which the Vatican itself made, after the death of Bin Laden.

[quote]For the record, Mormonism is just as false and apostate a religion as Islam, both these false religions being based on the "revelations" of false prophets.
I really fail to see how Mormonism is "much worse" than Islam, but that's just me. Apparently, I've missed the news of all the violent attacks by Mormons on Christians, and Mormon suicide bombings.
[/quote]

Once again, reading and comprehension are key. I never said that Mormonism was not just as false and apostate of a religion as Islam. As for the "violent attacks" comment, you clearly do not know how to distinguish the difference between a religion and the politics of a people. I'm not sure if I should try to help you, since you already struggle with reading and comprehension but I'll do my best. First, it's not just Muslims committing such suicide bombings for which every Muslim scholar has condemned. The Tamil Tigers did such and they were not Muslims. Second, just because a Muslim does such, doesn't mean that his religion instructs such. The revolution of Tunisia began with a young man burning himself alive, yet Islam is against suicide. Last, Mormons massively slaughtered native americans at the mountain meadow massecre in the name of their religion, do some research.

[quote]. . . Sigh . . .
Nothing in this exchange that hasn't been gone over hundreds of times on this site.
[/quote]

That might be true, but its clear that you still do not understand Islam.

[quote]Apparently the Caliphs and Muslim leaders consistently took that verse (and many others) out of context for the first several centuries of Islam's existence. The systematic military conquest of Christians by Muslims and imposition of the Jizya is well-established fact, not anti-Muslim propaganda.
[/quote]

This is an overgeneralization of a very complex and expansive time in history. I could equally say, I guess that the crusaders must have taken the Roman Catholic Church's teachings out of context too [all of them] when they mass murdered Copts, who did not pose a threat to them, nor attack them but rather were attacked.

[quote]Yes, when you search through history you can always find examples of individual atrocities committed by people professing all religions (or no religion at all), but Islam's spread by military conquest was not a case of a few isolated incidences, but its chief modus operandi throughout its early history. "Peaceful" Islam came later.
[/quote]

That's not true, when Muslims drove the crusaders out of Jerusalem, they liberated Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims. After it was liberated, someone asked the Muslim Caliphate if he'd like to pray one of the orthodox churches and he said, "no because my followers will want to turn it into a mosque". Muhammad himself said, "If a christians church burns down, help him rebuild it" and we see this repeated throughout history. As a matter of fact, Muhammad issued this decree to St. Catherine's Monastary in Sinai Egypt:

[size="2"][quote][size="2"]"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."
[/size][/quote]

Do you know who slaughtered the inhabitants at St. Catherines? The Roman Catholic Crusaders, that's who...not Muslims. You repeatedly try to paint this picture that whatever those crusaders did was only to fight Muslims and never was to kill Orthodox Christians. I guess they all massively misunderstood the orders of the Roman Catholic Church. The same argument that you make against Muslims can be charged to your own religion.[/size]

[quote]That CSM article you linked to certainly doesn't confirm your claim that "to say that waterboarding led to the capture is completely false."
It gives conflicting statements by different people, and doesn't come to a definitive conclusion.
Even most of Obama's people gave ambiguous statements claiming that information came from a variety of different sources, and did not outright deny that waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" reports did not play a role.
[/quote]

As I said, I was at work and would find other articles later. Here is one article: [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110505/ts_csm/382012"]http://news.yahoo.co...5/ts_csm/382012[/url]. Here is another: [url="http://www.denverpost.com/rawnews/ci_18015890"]http://www.denverpos...ews/ci_18015890[/url]. Notice it was the guy who was NOT waterboarded that gave up the couriers name, not the guys who were waterboarded. Those guys didn't say nothing. However it's most ironic that people like you and fox news insist that it was waterboarding without having information to prove that either.

[quote]Really grasping at straws here, aren't you?
[/quote]

I think that you are, because you try and paint a different picture then what the facts presume.

[quote]Pardon my lack of faith in Dear Leader, but I put a lot more stock in his actual voting record than in campaign trail promises.
A politician's actions speak louder than his words (particularly those spoken on the campaign trail!)
[/quote]

I agree that a politicians actions do speak louder then his words but guess what? Obama SIGNED THE BILL THAT LEGALIZED GUNS ON TRIANS. That is his actions. Your only claim is that "he didn't come up with the idea/bill in the first place", which is seriously doing your best to paint him as an anti-guns politician, when the fact is that guns are more legal today, then they were before he got into office.

[quote]Bush did let the Clinton-era ban on the sale of semi-automatics expire during his presidency, and Obama attacked him on that during the campaign, and pressed for a new ban on semi-automatics early in his presidency, but failed to get support from Congress.
[/quote]

Give him a metal, while you're at it.

[quote]That says a lot more about Obama's position on second amendment rights than his signing of a Republican-initiated bill regarding the transport of guns as train cargo. (And it's not as if Bush blocked any similar bills during his presidency).
[/quote]

No it doesn't.

[quote]Congress, not the president, is responsible for making laws regarding guns, so let's give credit where credit is due.
Trying to use the signing of that one bill (passed by an overwhelming majority in the Senate) to paint Obama as a champion of second amendment rights (or even as more so than Bush) is just ridiculous and dishonest.
[/quote]

I completely agree, that's why your attempt to paint Obama as an anti-gun wacko just because "he didn't come up with the bill in the first place", is ridiculous.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304797425' post='2238469']
I'd never know that by your postings on here.
So far, you've been a straight-out Obama apologist.
[/quote]

That's not true. I'm sorry to tell you but I'm one of the most outspoken critics of Mr. Obama but unlike people like you that like to come up with straw arguments and conspiracy theories, I try and stick to the concrete issues. When people like you, birthers, etc. behave as such, it diverts the conversation away from the real issues. Bottomline is that Bush and Obama have run the economy into the ground with keynesian economics, suspended the constitution, devalued the dollar, declared war on countries that posed no threat to the United States, etc.