₦airaland Forum

@presido1,

When did Diplomatic war turn to street protest? Don't let Anti-Iran becloud your sense of reasoning dude.

You are not making sense here. You said Iran is engaged in a diplomatic war. So are the street protesters in Iran the diplomats waging war aginst Iran? I can see your sense of reasoning is now beclouded by your love for the Ayatollahs!

adconline:
Congress did not approve of it. Bush later sought for retroactive approval. A little bit of honesty cannot make you like Obama or you should at least acknowledge that are there some other guys on this forum whose political inclinations do not obscure them from reading the fact.

Are you for real? So funny how you guys try to rewrite history.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20126385/
CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Sunday signed into law an expansion of the government’s power to eavesdrop on foreign terror suspects without the need for warrants.

The law, approved by the Senate and the House just before Congress adjourned for its summer break, was deemed a priority by Bush and his chief intelligence officials.

Bush signed the bill into law on Sunday afternoon at his retreat at Camp David, Md.

“When our intelligence professionals have the legal tools to gather information about the intentions of our enemies, America is safer,” Bush said. “And when these same legal tools also protect the civil liberties of Americans, then we can have the confidence to know that we can preserve our freedoms while making America safer.”

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency’s ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals “reasonably believed to be outside the United States.”

The law is designed to capture communications that pass through the United States.

Civil liberties groups and many Democrats say it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

The new law updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. Bush wants deeper, permanent changes.

“We must remember that our work is not done,” Bush prodded. “This bill is a temporary, narrowly focused statute to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law.”

Afam:
US was at war with about 19 suicide bombers or what?

have you ever herad of the war on terror? Again, only a rhetorical questions is good enough for you here.

Ikomi:
No dey answer that boy.

When you ask him a question or answer him you give grace to nonsence.

I can se you have taken my advise. You do better when you attack personalities than when you try to contribute to a debate. The former shows your creative side, while the latter reveals the paucity of your knowledge. Keep it up bro.

@Afam,

Mr Man, I asked a question.

In case you missed it the first time Like Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

The folly of a question can be revealed in two ways.  The first is to ask a rhetorical question that will make the questioner to think through his question as he obviously did not do so the first time.  The second way is to answer the question in such a ridiculous way that the questioner will be embarassed by his question.  I have chosen the former.

So once again, my response will be the same rhetorical question: "So is Iraq and Afghanistan less democratic than they were under Saddam and the Taliban?"

@biina,

I don tire to argue. Your logic e no work, but you can force-fit it if it makes you happy.

However, I will not stand by and watch you or anyone try to make christianity into what it is not. It is enought that we've had to deal with the terrible inquisitions and other blood-letting in christianity's history.

@biina,

I have an issue with Tudor's post and Mikeansy's defence of it. Do not dish out what you would not accept.

I have an issue with Elrzur claims of violence being the bedrock of Islam. I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

You are free to agree with Tudor and/or Elrzur, or take a different position entirely. Each to his own.

Whatever your opinion or theirs is don't really matter to me. I just take an exception to your trying to compare Christianity to Islam. Christianity as practiced by the founder/founders does not believe that the end justifies the means. Islam on the other hand, as practiced by the founder/Disciples believe that killing others to propagate the faith can be justified.

So please as far as violence is concerned, you can never and should never attempt to paint both faiths with a single brush!

@biina,

but muhammed's actions were said to have been instructed by God, same as the actions of peter were said to have been guided by an angel. Either account can be disputed, but then that is a different issue. Muhammed fought wars, peter escaped from prison, the analogy is simple and valid.

I am beginning to suspect you don't even understand what you are arguing about.

Both parties are motivated by faith. Faith in a creator, okay. In the case of Mohammed, allah is a passive participant in his actions. It was not allah that came down with swords killing people, it was Mohammed. That makes allah a passive participant and Mo the active participant.

For Peter, the Angel (God's Agent), made the guards to fall asleep, burst open the prison gate and led Peter away even though Peter was not in full control of his senses at the time. Now the Angel (God) is the active participant while Peter is the passive one. Do you see the difference now.

This is the principal difference between Islam and Christianity. Christianity like Islam believes God will judge people in the natural. However, Christianity believes people must be passive in the judgment and let God mete it out. Islam believes allah should be passive and they are the onew to wield the sword. Please stop trying to make the two look the same. Itdoes not pass the intellectual/logic test.

@Presido1,

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1,
Maybe Adrienne Kinne is Osama's daughter or terrorist. Always defending anything bad from US but quick to condemn Iran/others when they copy they do same.

Some people are bound to abuse the system, no doubt. Just like many were acused for using the system to eavesdrop on the spouses they suspect may be cheating on them. These represent the aberration and not the State policy. I thought you are smart enough to know the difference.

Diplomatic war with the west.

Which West. You guys are always looking for a boogyman. How many people from the West were on the street of Tehran protesting? Is Facebook or Twitter the West? Just like somone first claimed it was the Western Media. When his folly was revealed, he put the blame on the West. I'm not sure who is learning from the other, you or Khomeni.

@biina,

Since you agree with Elrzur conclusions based on the acts of muhammed, can I then following similar logic say that since peter committed a criminal act (specifically escaping out of jail), I can say that crime (more specifically escaping from prison) is a bedrock of christianity?

No you can't and I'll explain. Mohammed of his own will and accord waged wars and killed people. Peter on the other hand, was not even aware of what was happening. He was not in full control of his senses when the Angel took him out of jail. 

In Mohammed's case, allah was the passive participant while Mohammed was the active participant. In Peter's case, the Angel (God) was the active participant while Peter was passive. Your logic don't hold water.

Its about the logic not the conclusion

The logic is faulty. No wonder the conclusion is.

@biina,

There is no desperate analogy. I repeat that the issue was not if Islam was same as Christianity, nor did I say Muhammed was same as Jesus. Simply that the logic applied to Islam would be deemed unacceptable applied to christianity.
But then to be naughty, Jesus did exhibit violence once (though it didnt cost life) when he beat the traders out of the temple.

You were the one that brought Christianity into this issue. And you did so to say both religion have a violent root.  I don't care what logic you try to adopt, the bottom line in knowing what a religion stands for is to look at the precept of the founder. Jesus epitomises Christianity while Mohammed epitomises Islam. Mohammed was violent and propagated his faith through the sword. Jesus never did such. So stop comparing them and misguiding people who can't think for themselves.

at what point did I say muhammed was not violent or did not fight wars?

If Jesus was not violent nor fought wars, why the comparison between Christianity and Islam then. One was established by the founder through the sword, and the other was not.

Elrzur made an unqualified declarative statement. I challenged his authority to make such and he is yet to substantiate it.

Neither have you substatiated why Christianity can be compared to Islam.  The founders preached differently and lived differently.

presido1:
Did they tell you Iranian congress or whateer did not approve that kind of network. Maybe you want the Bush Govt to approve/disprove before they can carry it out. The same congress also approved waterboarding which is a very "Good Human Right Record". They way you guys talk of this human right record as if theere is 100% human right record anywhere in this world.

Iran is also at war,"Diplomatic War" which might lead to proper war i care is not taken.

I can see to what extent you are ready to defend the indefensible. How does an attempt to intercept AlQuaeda's communication compare to this? Please educate me, abeg!

presido1:
Did they tell you Iranian congress or whateer did not approve that kind of network. Maybe you want the Bush Govt to approve/disprove before they can carry it out. The same congress also approved waterboarding which is a very "Good Human Right Record". They way you guys talk of this human right record as if theere is 100% human right record anywhere in this world.

Iran is also at war,"Diplomatic War" which might lead to proper war i care is not taken.

Diplomatic war with its citizens? Are you serious?!

@biina,

what is wrong with the logic? People of a particluar faith made a comment and it was generalized to the religion. Same was also applied in the second case. where is the disparity. Some muslims speak on behalf of Islam, while some christians cant be said to speak on behalf of christianity?

Again, you continue your attempt to force-fit two irreconcilable differences. I have said to understand Islam, look at the founder and to understand Christianity, look at the founder. Your failed attempt to divert attention from the obvious differences is showing in your desperate analogies.  Mohammad, along with his closest Disciples were violent people. Jesus, along with His Disciples were not.  

So was peter released by the legal system? He walked out of jail of his own will and was not released. I never said he broke out by force, but he did break out of prison. If you prefer the phrase that he escaped from prison, then suit yourself.

In other words, Peter was not violent. He was never involved in an armed resistance or struglle, just as his peers and his Master Jesus.  Same cannot be said of Mohammed and his Disciples.  Looks like the truth is beginning to sink in.

Where is the extrapolation. Muhammed fought wars and could be termed as acts of violence.

Gbam! So why take up issues with ElRzur when you have virtually confirmed what he said. Mohammed was a violent person and every violent muslim, including AlQuaeda network could claim they are only emulating Muhammed's violence.  Finally, you've seen the light.  

Peter broke out of jail, and could be termed a criminal act.

Just for the sake of aargument, I'll agree with you that it was criminal. 419 is a criminal offence, but is it violent? No. Peter was not violent, neither was Paul, Barnabbas, Timothy and their Master - Jesus. End of story!

RichyBlacK:
But George W. Bush monitored ALL telephone calls, email and internet traffic for years under his illegal spy program. Bush may have taught them how to do this.

How can it be illegal when Congress approved of it. By the way, that was for a country at war seeking ways to monitor attacks by illegal combatants. Is Iran at war with its citizens? I just wonder for you sometimes Richy!

@biina,

I didnt say Christianity and Islam had the same values. Please read the thread.
Someone concluded from the statements of Khameni, that Islam was a blood thirsty and savage religion.
I made an analogy that since some christians pray for the death of their enemies that it makes christianity a blood thirsty and savage religion.
It was about applying the same logic to the two religions but some in trying to justify the earlier assertion were trying to find evidence of support of violence by Islam, and I only retorted in kind with evidence of God approved violence in the bible.

Even the logic you applied isn't anyway comparable. Personally, I do not pray for God to kill anybody, but I do believe that God can do just that as He wills. And while I am not excusing the ignorant prayers of those Christians, never have I sen any church go ona mad rampage after their services destroying properties and killing people like we see in Islam. Maybe they believe that God will do it at His will while the Moslems believe they are God's agents to kill people. these are two diferent schools of thought.

Your walking out of incaceration against the will of the judiciary of the nation, advocates breaking out of prison if the opportunity arises.

Don't give yourself the liberty to add to what I have said. I never advocated for violence or breaking out of jail. Let's be honest in this discussion.

If you feel you can use the violent actions of muhammed to conclude that Islam supports violence, I can, by same logic, conclude that since Peter broke out of jail, Christianity supports jail breaks.

Peter never brke out of jail And if you care to read and understand, he actually felt he was dreaming throught the whole episode. Whwere was the violence.

It is all relevant to the issue at hand, which is simply to use equal measure. Don't criticize Islam based on the logic that you would not want applied to christianity. People shouldnt dish out what they cannot accept.

You have not applied same logic here at all. I did not extrapolate violence into Mohammed's life. He practiced it. You are the one extrapolating here which is an evidence that you have lost the battle of logic.

Afam:
Like Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

So was Iraq and Afghanistan less democratic than they were under Saddam and the Taliban?

biina:
Jesus did not found christianity. It was used to describe early believers after his death. Your equivalence would be the apostles.
So those actions referenced were not the actions of people of God or the words of moses were not the word of God?
If it makes you happy, the apostles broke out of jail, so Christianity supports prison break?

You are very funny. Jesus instructed the Disciples to go out and make Disciples of all nations.  Would there be Christianity if that instruction wasn't given? I don't think so. But if it makes you happy, we'll stick to the early Apostles.  How many of these were prone to violence like Mohammed? Again, the answer is none.

So those actions referenced were not the actions of people of God or the words of moses were not the word of God?

I never said that. Someone was here talking about Islam, and you took the liberty to draw comparisons btwn Christianity and Islam. I have only limited myself to the issue of Islam and Christianity which sems to be the center of your argument.

If it makes you happy, the apostles broke out of jail, so Christianity supports prison break?

If God breaks open the jail, I'll walk out.  Does my walking out of an open jail advocate violence? At this point, it is better to admit you were wrong rather than trying to look for issues that have no bearing to the discussion.

@biina,

Disingenious is you making unfair comparisms.

There is nothing unfair about the comparisons. To know the intent of the religion, look at its founder. Jesus and Mohammed therefore become the subject.

Jesus was God on earth. Mohammed never claimed to be God, only a prophet, and thus cannot be subjected to the same standard. For a fair comparism, pick another prophet of God like Elijah or Elisha, or does christianity not recognizer those as prophets of God?

Jesus may have been God on the inside, but He never lived like God on earth but like a human being. And besides, He assumed the office of a Prophet. The Bible calls Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.  He is our role model not the other people you mentioned. Mohammed on the other hand is the role model for moslems. Infact, in the confession fo their faith, Allah and Mohammed are used in the same sentence. So what is your point?

Elisha killed children and Elijah killed the prophets of baal. Joshua and other judges led the Isrealites on several offensive military campaigns. Deborah drove a peg into a man's head. Are these people not recognized to have acted out the wishes of God by christians. Did Abraham not fight wars or is he not called the father of faith?

If you can claim that one of these people is a Christian, then you win the argument. Over to you!

and before you give the OT vs NT excuse, I guess when peter took off the ear of the soldier trying to arrest jesus, no blood was spilled?   (Have you ever wondered what he might have swung at that resulted in the loss of ear. I would wager he swung at the soldiers head and the guy ducked but not quickly enough).

What you failed to realise is that Jesus rebuked him for the action which he never repeated when he became a Christian. This same Peter was crucified upside down and burnt at the stake. Who amongst Mohammed's followers did he rebuke for attacking another person? Didn't he promise that whoever kills an unbliever will never share hell with the unbeliever he kills?

Propensity to violence is a character trait not a religious ideal.

Everyone is prone to violence. The question is does the religion promote violence or not. The answer can be found by looking at the founders' examples. That's very fair, innit?

bawomolo:
is your argument that both religions became militarized at different times so one had a better approach?

what exactly separates the teutonic knights from the taliban.

Religion can be used for good and bad.

My point is that to praise or condemn the actions of the adherent of a religion, you will have to compare their actions with the founder of their faiths. Compare the actions of the teutonic knights to Jesus' and compare the actions of the Taliban to Mohammed's. While the former cannot claim they've followed the precepts of Jesus, the latter can claim the actions of Mohammed to justify theirs.

biina:
Was Islam ever spread by war? Yes, but then so was Christianity.
Were all muslims converted by force? No, but then same applies to christians.

So the point of your question was?

Frankly, I think it is very disingenous of people to make this kind of comparison between Christianity and Islam. As you rightly pointed out previously, perhaps it is some of the followers that are not practicing each of the faith the way it was meant to be practiced. So in order to know what each faith stands for and how it handles opposition, we need to look at the founder and the early disciples of each.

I'm sure no one can accuse Jesus or any of His early disciples of promoting or practicing violence in any way, shape or form.  They were infact on the receiving end of violence but never struck back.  That is the model of Christianity.  Every thing else is an aberration.


Qustion is can same be said of Mohammed and his early Disciples? Absolutely not. Mohammed killed for the cause of his religion and his early disciples killed each other to succeed him. The Shia and Sunni sects of Islam are products of the armed conflict that arose immediately after Mohammed's death.

We know of Peter and Paul having conflicts and are aware of the conflict betwen Paul and Barnabbas. Did any of this lead to the shedding of blood? No.  But you can't say the same for the early Disciples of Islam. What more proof do you need that both faiths approach violence differently?

@topic,

I agree with all the posts so far to an extent. However, where I think you've all seem a little naive is the fact that the ruling clerics do not need any proof to point accusing fingers at the US.  What did Britain do to deserve the rhetorics coming from Khomeni? The ruling clerics are set  in their ways and lack of reference to Obama may just be the fear that their people will continue to draw a parallel between what Obama seemingly stands for and their own present movement.

Obama does not need to condemn the clerics. What he needs to do is to stand up for the principles that the people aree fighting for - democracy, freedom of association and representation within their govt. America's indifference only shows that we stand for nothing and will take whatever comes our way.  That may be pragmatic but what happens to the moral high ground that Obama has been talking about?

Bush made the case since 911 that the solution to terrorism is for the ME to embrace democracy. He promoted freedom and engaged the people of the ME to demand it from their rulers. This may just be the fruits of that stance and it only makes sense that we do not keep silent at this time.

Obama does not potray himself as a decisive person when he had to wait to make a tough statement only after the House and the Senate adopted a motion condemning the crackdown in Iran.

4 Play:
This man is the quintessential blithering idiot.

Difference between WWII and the Middle-East is that the former describes an event while the latter is a geographical region. What was your point again?

Kai 4Play, take it easy on this guy now!!!!

Considering that this is the same guy who refered to a Shiite as a member of a tribe, I am not totally taken aback by the non-existing parallel he is trying to draw.

@debosky,

No parallel can be drawn that will be absolute in every sense. The issue is that the Palestinian situation is very unique and must be treated as such. Can you point to any nation in history that has gone thru the same evolution as this one? Absolutely not!

The overiding issue is this: "Is a military apparatus an  indispensable part of a nation"? The answer is obviously negative 'cos we have many countries today without a standing military. Isreal has every reason to be sceptical about a Palestinian military when the governing coalition does not believe in the right of Isreal to exist.  Isreal unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and the territor became a rocket launching station against Isreal. Isreal will be stupid to not protect themselves against such in the future.

@RichyBlack,

Those responsible for killing civilians in Iran should be arrested, tried and convicted for their crimes.

Who would that be?

@topic,

What people wear in the privacy of their homes is their business. However, what they put on must not interfere with the society's established norms and traditions.

I don't think the society is obliged to issue you a Driver's Licence if you insist you cannot show your face in the card. A police oficer will require you to show your face to identify yourself if you are stopped on the highway. Same thing for an exam proctor who needs to make sure the right person is writing a particular examination.

I understand there was a situation either in France or the UK where a judge had to dismiss a case simply because the judge could not see the face of the plaintiff in burqa. The judge ruled that there was no way he/she could determine if the plaintiff was lying or not because the face is hidden behind the veil. Such scenarios show the limitation of the use of the burqa in the normal functioning of a society.

why do some people also choose to call white ;  blue

Same reasons why some call the Eagles, Chickens.

davidylan:
i believe so too . . . we just dont have a tactical bench. We just pick 11 players and tell them to go and try their best.

That tactic seems to have worked in the past! Why would they do otherwsie if its a winning formula?

C2H5OH:
Socker fans

Sock on my middle finger!!

Remind me again. which one of these eagles is the SUPER one?

Dem dey press us o.

Ibime:
Wetin Tayo-D dey do for here?  

Watching your every move!!!

@airomon and fyneguy,

Your posts are next to each other and you've both posted 728 times on nairaland.  Is this an indication this match will be a draw?