Afghani Eject Computer Experts

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry, he said "much" of secular law.

 

[CFLarsen]

I never said they were. With the number of devout muslims over 1 million enough of them either support jihad against Britiain or actively engage in it to constitute a grave threat.

You are most confused. You are not a terrorist if you support jihad or actively engage in it?

I NEVER said Sudan per se was an enemy of AlQueda. Your question makes no sense.

It makes a lot of sense, because it proves you wrong: That the longitudes of the area described by Zawahiri describes the countries that are his enemies.

You simply don't pause and think your arguments through. That's why you again and again end up having to defend the most ridiculous claims and make the most pathetic excuses.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It makes no sense because there are two Sudans -- Islamic sudan and non-islamic Sudan. The non-moslems do not want to become
moslems. This causes the Islamic Sudanese to go into jihad mode which as you should know by now means either you convert to Islam or
die.

 

[CFLarsen]

It makes no sense because there are two Sudans -- Islamic sudan and non-islamic Sudan. The non-moslems do not want to become
moslems. This causes the Islamic Sudanese to go into jihad mode which as you should know by now means either you convert to Islam or
die.

You know that jihad can also mean e.g. studying the Koran.

You do yourself a great disservice by perpetuating this lie of yours.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you not a terrorist if you support jihad or actively engage in it?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Are you not a terrorist if you support jihad or actively engage in it?

The war between the jihadist moslems in sudan and the non-muslims is not terrorism. It is an outright war. Get your definitions straight.
There is nothing inherent in the definition of holy war or jihad that has to mean terrorism. It could involve terroristic acts but doesn't have to.
Of course all war could be considered terroristic depending on how far you are willing to expand the definition.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You know that jihad can also mean e.g. studying the Koran.

Not in this case. Two million dead sudanese and counting makes your assertion a bit of a laugh.

You do yourself a great disservice by perpetuating this lie of yours.

Thanks for the ad hominem again. There is no lie involved in the definition of the jihad in the sudan.

 

[Mycroft]

You know that jihad can also mean e.g. studying the Koran.

You do yourself a great disservice by perpetuating this lie of yours.

Could you cite a source that says Jihad can also mean studying the Koran? That's an interpretation I've never heard before.

 

[SteveGrenard]

According to some interpreters of the word jihad it means struggle. In context of this discussion re the Horn of Africa, it means to wage holy war.

The strugglers then extend this to mean struggle to study the koran. While I have no personal experience studying the koran, I suppose studying this document could be construed as a struggle. Especially if you can't read.

I suppose also given the struggle definition you can have jihad for just about anything. It's a very convenient term for Islamic apologists.
It enables them to place the goal posts on wheels and move them at will.

 

[CFLarsen]

The war between the jihadist moslems in sudan and the non-muslims is not terrorism. It is an outright war. Get your definitions straight.

What is the difference? Don't the Islamist terrorists wage war against the West? Isn't that what you claim jihad means?

You get your definitions straight.

There is nothing inherent in the definition of holy war or jihad that has to mean terrorism. It could involve terroristic acts but doesn't have to. Of course all war could be considered terroristic depending on how far you are willing to expand the definition.

But that's what you have been very busy doing, Steve. Focusing on the war-against-non-Muslims definition.

Not in this case. Two million dead sudanese and counting makes your assertion a bit of a laugh.

What are you talking about? Nowhere have I claimed that the Sudan jihad was about studying the Koran.

Thanks for the ad hominem again. There is no lie involved in the definition of the jihad in the sudan.

It isn't an ad hominem, Steve. You do lie. Again and again.

Could you cite a source that says Jihad can also mean studying the Koran? That's an interpretation I've never heard before.

Naturally.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Get your definitions straight:

Jihad, sometimes spelled Jahad, Jehad, Jihaad or Djehad, (Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād) is an Islamic term, from the Arabic root ǧhd ("to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"), which connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic cause. Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism "jihadist".
The term "jihad" is often simplisticly reduced in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as generally "holy war", but this "physical" struggle, which encompasses religion, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad.

Among the jihads listed by wikipedia are:

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).

This is the context to which the reference herein applies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

 

[thaiboxerken]

Muad'dib also started a Jihad that had nothing to do with Islam.

 

[SteveGrenard]

What is the difference? Don't the Islamist terrorists wage war against the West? Isn't that what you claim jihad means?

Please show me where I allegedly say this. I claim only that jihad in this context means holy war. See extract from wikipedia above.

...get your definitions straight.

...get your contexts straight.

But that's what you have been very busy doing, Steve. Focusing on the war-against-non-Muslims definition.

That's what the jihadist definition of holy war comes down to. I am busy proving that you have become an apologist for the pan Islamic movement, for violent jihad or holy war and for the anachronistic, barbaric religion that calls itself Islam.

What are you talking about? Nowhere have I claimed that the Sudan jihad was about studying the Koran.

The last geopolitcal area of conflict posted concerned the Sudan and Somalia. You responded to my remarks on the jihad occuring in this region by calling into play the other definition of jihad. This was out of context.

It isn't an ad hominem, Steve. You do lie. Again and again.

Since you can't prove this by your twisted logic and fallacies coupled with posting remarks completely out of context, your assertion of lying is rejected. I would appreciate it if you would take more care in applying this ad hominem before doing so.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Muad'dib also started a Jihad that had nothing to do with Islam.

If you want to count a mouse (jerboa) as a jihadist. He was rather destructive.

Possibly the near eastern jumping mouse is not as famous as the American indegenous animal. But F. Herbert has a liking of misleading people in his universe. This jerboa is at home in the Arabian desert. It has a strong meaning in Arab mythology. One of the most important is that in Pre-Islamic times the jerboa, the small little animal, destroyed the centuries old monumental stone built dam of Marib in Yemen. The stream (sail al-Arim) tamed by the dam watered the two desert gardens (oases) of Marib and was its vital life stream. The mouse dug a hole underneath until it collapsed. After the historical destruction of the dam about 580 AD, life was not anymore possible in Marib. It became deserted. The destruction of this famous dam is even noticed in the Qur'an in the Surat Marib. In the context of F. Herberts Arabic-Islamic symbolism this connection - 'the small destroys the monumental', water, desert, changing of ecology by Muad'dib - makes much sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muad'dib

 

[CFLarsen]

Please show me where I allegedly say this. I claim only that jihad in this context means holy war. See extract from wikipedia above.

Liar:

You think I am making up al Zawahiri's videotaped broadcasted speech calling for jihad from Spain to Iraq? If anyone is making up stuff as they "go along" its you.

I have alrfeady said al Zawahiri was not clear on what countries between
Spain and Iraq which is a geographic expanse based on longitudes and not latitudes.

Here is a relatively recent political map of Europe where you can decide what countries would bein al Zawahiri's Spain to Iraq jihad call.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_MAP/1_map_europe_2001_enlarged.htm

Thanks for mentioning Britain which is not located east of Spain so is not included in those remarks. Granted Britain is rapidly becoming The Islamic Republic of West Pakistan.

Why do you lie? The list of countries is based on the geography outlined by al Zawahiri as calling for jihad from Spain to Iraq. These are some of the major countries in the area occupied from Spain to Iraq.



Do you actally believe the UK is located between Spain and Iraq? Ooookay.

It is inane comments about inane comments like these that proves you selectively read what suits your agenda and that you employ deception in debate. Why do you lie about the UK's geographic location?




In the absence of secular law some colonists enforced God's law which, hey, wait a minute, it's the good ole ten commandments again. Only 1, 720 years after they were first published. Did Indians kill each other in tribal war, feuds and other rituals. Yes. Were they legally punished .No. If you disagree or claim otherwise, kindly provide the Native American Indian legal code extant between 100 BCE and 1620 or 1776. I'll accept either latter year.

Wrong. I provide cites, URLs, references. Your sole purpose here is not to do anything but ask silly or inane questions. You lie by misattribution and asking questions which have no answers because of the way they are worded. These are cheap, deceptive tricks. Your ticket has been punched.





Good. Then why did you bring up the UK then since they were not in the specified jihadi area. I was talking about longitudes, Spain to Iraq. I stipulated, now for the fourth time, that al Zawahiri did not specify the latitudes of the area of his called for jihad. It could be anarrow strip of the globe between Spain and Iraq or it could cover from South Africa to the Arctic Circle. Somehow I surmise it is the broader area given islam's overall globalization aim.

The UK is NOT only in a higher latiude than Spain, it is also NOT longtiudinally between
Spain and Iraq which is why I did not include it but you demanded to know why it wasn't included. I was following al Zawahiri's words in my report of them. It's called accuracy, not deception.


There is a map on the net of the islamization of Europe by the year 2015.

Yes in feuds, challenges, as well as tribal warfare. Instead of answering by asking a silly question prove your claim that native American Indians had laws against perjury, larceny and murder extending back before 100 BCE.

Wrong I did not list the countries.

al Zawahiri did that when he called for jihad from Spain to Iraq. You asked what countries would be involved, you are the one feigning ignorance of the map between Spain and Iraq.

If Zawahiri and AlQueda were responsible for the London train and bus bombs, and I have
no doubt that their centralized authority does have such responsibility, it is clearly
Zawahiri who left Britain out of the formula from Spain to Iraq in his call for jihad. Maybe he figures Britain is already a done deal and will be islamicized without jihad. How many devout moslems live in the UK now?

Larsen: What map? Based on what? Reality or fantasies?

This map:

http://vikingphoenix.com/blog/antidote/2005/07/map-of-europe-2015.html


Sorry. UK is just renamed North Pakistan. France is called Islamic Republic of New Algeria.

It is a pessimistic rendition based on the stated objectives of the jihad called for by moslems against Europe. With folks like you apologizing for the muslim jihadists and defending them, this projected map becomes more and more of a reality with each passing moment.

Wrong.

Dr. al Zwahiri defined the countries when he called for jihad from Spain to Iraq. Any sane rational person knows what this means. I see that you don't.

Larsen: How I know he drew a line? You told me!
How can it not be imaginary?

Reply: al Zwahiri called for jihad from Spain to Iraq. I said I don't know where the latitudes are, only the longitudes based on his statement. They are from Spain to Iraq.

Why do you think al Zawahiri would call for jihad from Spain to Iraq and then decide everything in between was "imaginary."

The longitudes of the area described by Zawahiri is West 4 degrees and east 45 degrees.

I never said they were. With the number of devout muslims over 1 million enough of them either support jihad against Britiain or actively engage in it to constitute a grave threat.





I NEVER said Sudan per se was an enemy of AlQueda. Your question makes no sense. If you are talking about the situation in Somalia and the Sudan it is either Moslems in control or who want control who are waging jihad against the non-Muslim peoples of these two nations. The jihadist governments or rebel groups or militias are not enemies of Al Queda...if anything they are allies. As of this morning the muslim president of Sudan stated he takes inspiration from Hezbollah and doesn't want international intereference in his efforts to wage jihad (= killing or converting non-muslims).

Recently Time Magazine did a review of the situation in Africa which can explain it better than I can:



and this regarding Somalia:



get the rest of the situation here:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1218273,00.html



The situation in the jihad lodged against the Sudan has been brewing for years with 2 million Sudanese dead already. Here is a review from 2002:



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26672


Here is the situation as of today:



http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=42104&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2

And so it begins. It looks like AlQueda is formenting strife which analysts say could spread an islamic jihad shooting war across east Africa.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11391971.htm

It makes no sense because there are two Sudans -- Islamic sudan and non-islamic Sudan. The non-moslems do not want to become
moslems. This causes the Islamic Sudanese to go into jihad mode which as you should know by now means either you convert to Islam or
die.

The war between the jihadist moslems in sudan and the non-muslims is not terrorism. It is an outright war. Get your definitions straight.
There is nothing inherent in the definition of holy war or jihad that has to mean terrorism. It could involve terroristic acts but doesn't have to.
Of course all war could be considered terroristic depending on how far you are willing to expand the definition.

Not in this case. Two million dead sudanese and counting makes your assertion a bit of a laugh.

According to some interpreters of the word jihad it means struggle. In context of this discussion re the Horn of Africa, it means to wage holy war.

The strugglers then extend this to mean struggle to study the koran. While I have no personal experience studying the koran, I suppose studying this document could be construed as a struggle. Especially if you can't read.

I suppose also given the struggle definition you can have jihad for just about anything. It's a very convenient term for Islamic apologists.
It enables them to place the goal posts on wheels and move them at will.

Among the jihads listed by wikipedia are:

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war).

This is the context to which the reference herein applies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

When you refer to "jihad" in your argumentation, you constantly and exclusively use the meaning of violent, terrorist war against the West.

That's what the jihadist definition of holy war comes down to. I am busy proving that you have become an apologist for the pan Islamic movement, for violent jihad or holy war and for the anachronistic, barbaric religion that calls itself Islam.

And you are failing spectacularly.

The last geopolitcal area of conflict posted concerned the Sudan and Somalia. You responded to my remarks on the jihad occuring in this region by calling into play the other definition of jihad. This was out of context.

Bull.

Since you can't prove this by your twisted logic and fallacies coupled with posting remarks completely out of context, your assertion of lying is rejected. I would appreciate it if you would take more care in applying this ad hominem before doing so.

I don't care if you reject it, Steve. I provide the evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

Liar:

When you refer to "jihad" in your argumentation, you constantly and exclusively use the meaning of violent, terrorist war against the West.

And you are failing spectacularly.

Bull.

I don't care if you reject it, Steve. I provide the evidence.

But you don't. I looked over the quotes you provided and I didn't see any evidence of SG lying.

I see you making personal attacks and being abusive, but I don't see that you've substantiated your claim.

Why do you pursue this vendetta?

 

[CFLarsen]

The evidence is there. How you handle it is your business.

 

[Kerberos]

3. I think you need to provide me with dated copies/references of secular laws against perjury, killing and theft/larceny in order to back up your question. I cannot answer a question for which the evidence is null which is my point.

I really think that this is a remarkably silly demand, given the immidiatly and blatantly obvious truth of non Christian commandments against at least murder and theft. Still if you require evidence that water is wet the Code of Hammurabi predates your date by not much less than 2000 years. Perjury is somewhat harder, but a very short search revealed this article which indicates that a commandment/law against perjury in the Illiad, the Illiad dating from around 6th or 7th century BC, according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiad

The code of Hammurabi might have something on perjury as well. It states several times that witnesses take an oath for exampel : "23. If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and ... on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen.", but I can't find any specification of what exactly happens if this oath is violated. http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

 

[Darth Rotor]

Where is your evidence that three of the commandments clearly predate secular laws against killing, stealing and perjury?

You ever take a Western Civ course in your life?

How many years of "western" civilization were influenced by the intricate fusion of secular and religious law before the founding of the Western Civ's new outpost in North America? About 1500 years. (Consider Constantine's officialization of Christianity as a beginning point to Constitution and statues in the US.) A few hundred to about a thousand or so less for most of Europe.

When a habit or agreed assumption passes into common law, the codification of it into common law is a natural progreession. There is no need to find a footnote that says "Oh, professor, my source for this law is the bible, Ten Commandments, Commandment X" when the habit for 1500 years (or more) has been that murder is unlawful. At that point, the matter is one of a common cultural assumption, and a common law. Human endeavour is not all digital.

Can you show me where it says it is the god behind the 10 Commandments or not? You might just prove me right.

You know good a damned well that God is a matter of Faith. You either buy into God, or you don't. The scriptures were written, and are a reference to this conversation whether or not you (or anyone in this conversation) believe them to be God inspired, or simply a codification of purely human-derived norms, laws, and customs of XXXX BC. As a set of standards, those 10 (or 11 or whatever) and a whole lot of other guidance in Exodus have been embraced as a common cultural assumption for centuries. But they didn't survive the centuries unchanged, did they? Manslaughter? Murder? Degrees of murder? Witchcraft? As a foundational base, it is sort of hard not to see the evolution of such norms. That Roman law already had similar norms surely can't have hurt, and Roman law is ALSO an influence. It is not an either or proposition.

It is worth note that these common cultural assumptions seem to meet a common human need for structure and order, and when confronted with new ideas, compile additively.

I am having a hard time understanding why there is some kind of argument about the roots of modern laws in Western Societies. The body of what is now law in America is the result of a massive accumulation of norms and rules. Besides the usual Western Civ courses, I had a few law courses in my day (no, not a lawyer) each of which discussed the rather complex path that the various societal agreements derive from. If Hammurabi et al pre date the Ten Commandments, they either were developed in series, or in parallel. Was the culture of Hammurabi exported to the West, or the Culture of the two oldest Abrahamic religions? The latter, so it makes more sense to point to the OT reference, as that is what has sustained and remained consistent into the present as a cultural baseline.

FWIW: The Blue Laws are not all that old, in terms of application. When I was a boy, blue laws in Virginia kept all stores closed. Blue laws in Connecticut, when I lived there a few years ago, prohibited sales of alcohol before noon on a Sunday. They still do here in Texas.

In America, prohibitions against commercial activity (on a Sabbath) are directly traceable to Biblical norms and rules that the Puritans in both Virginia and Massachussets imported from Puritans in England. For another example, Sandy Koufax (A Jew / great left handed pitcher for the Dodgers) refused to pitch in a baseball game on the Sabbath as recently as the 1960's. He cited a religious prohibition based on his Faith as the reason.

DR

Edited for a missing sentence or two concerning Hammurabi.

 

[Kerberos]

Also, my count of which of the ten commandments can be found in US law:

1) you shall have no other gods before me.

US law: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (miss, US law directly contradicts the commandment)

2You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
US law: Says no such thing. is Freedom of expression a part of the stadard interpretation of the Constittutien? (miss, no US law, possibly directly contradicted by American law.

3)You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
US law: Prohibitations agaisnt swearing, such as exist, apply regardless of whether the lords name is involved. (miss, no US law, arguably a violation of the free speech clause)

4)Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
US law: Some laws concerning sundays. US Constitution forbids slavery (partial hit, but exposses norms directly in conflict with the US constitution)

5)Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
US law: Under normal circumstances you must obey you parents till you're 18, but no longer. (partial hit, but childrens parents being responsible for them is a norm so obvious that it can be probably be found in almost any culture. correlation; yes, causation; no evidence)

6)You shall not murder.
US law: You shall not murder (hit, but obvious norm, correlation,b ut no evidence for causation)

7)You shall not commit adultery.
US law: some states have laws against adultery, but those are not always inforced. (partial hit)

8)You shall not steal.
US law: You shall not steal. (hit, but obvious. Correlation; check, Causation; no evidence.

9)You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
US law: Perjury is illega. (hit, but norm is only slightly less obvious than not stealing and murdering, correlation, but no bassis for assuming causation).

10)You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
US law: No law against coverting, slavery is unconstitutional (blatant miss, exposses norms directly violating the US Constitution)

Count:

4 misses, 1-3 unconstitutional, remaining not directly unconstitutional, but exposses norms that are.

3 Partial hits, one exposssing norms that violate the US constitution, and one being obvious.

3 hits, all blatantly obvious, and fundamental to any civilized socierty, no evidence of causation.

In sum 2 partial hits, where som causation can reasonably be presumed, none concerning fundamentally important legislation. Not an impressive track record, considering that there are 4 clear misses which are arguably directly against fundamental aspects of US law.