Originally posted by DrewM
I think you are clutching at straws. I fail to see how cops creates any kind of false perception. It has an equal mix of black & white & is simply cameras following cops.

As for the other stuff - I fail to see that too.

None of that changes the reality that if Islam has a bad rep - then it's up to muslims to change that. This is just common sense.

up until the mid 1950's, blacks were given a bad rap in the movies but then the blacks also made their own movies for black audiences.

I haven't seen any hollywood movies that vilify Islam but Islam has a movie that vilifies Americans. Maybe they have more.

MSNBC
Updated: 12:40 p.m. ET Feb. 21, 2006


A new movie that opened on February 9, in Europe creating quite an uproar. It‘s called “Valley of the Wolves: Iraq.”

During the plot of the movie, U.S. soldiers attack a wedding party in Iraq. They drag prisoners off to Abu Ghraib. The soldiers then conspire with a Jewish doctor to harvest and sell the internal organs of the Arab prisoners.

Critics are calling it one of the worst anti-American propaganda films ever yet it stars two big Hollywood actors. One of the soldiers is played by Billy Zane of “Titanic” fame, and Gary Busey of “Point Break,” “Lethal Weapon” and “The Buddy Holly Story.”

Originally posted by Napsterbater
"Cops" is a good one, and should be able to stand alone. But, if you want more, there is the constant stereotyping of black men as criminals, gang thugs, drug dealers as well as the fact that few black characters survive to see the end of a movie. Black men are constantly cast as womanizers and deadbeat dads.
Jesus, you're almost as bad as Dop. Where do you people get this shit?

I haven't seen any hollywood movies that vilify Islam but Islam has a movie that vilifies Americans. You musta missed that whole slew of movies in the 80's and 90's with a bunch of MEastern terrorists then....

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You musta missed that whole slew of movies in the 80's and 90's with a bunch of MEastern terrorists then....
Yeah, and how terribly off the mark they all were...

I wonder where they got the horribly misinformed idea that 90% of all terrorists throughout time were Middle Eastern???

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You musta missed that whole slew of movies in the 80's and 90's with a bunch of MEastern terrorists then....

Would you be so kind as to list the films, the characters and their roles within the plot?

first darma and greg now movies from the 80's? you need to get with the times guerilla

Jesus, you're almost as bad as Dop. Where do you people get this shit?

Yeah, it is a pretty indefensible line of argument. Hmm, let me try a different tack.

None of that changes the reality that if Islam has a bad rep - then it's up to muslims to change that. This is just common sense.

I have already demonstrated that Islam is a religion of peace, and that a very small minority of offenders are the ones causing the problem. The problem is not with Islam, but with the West's response to a few organised criminals.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Yeah, it is a pretty indefensible line of argument. Hmm, let me try a different tack.



I have already demonstrated that Islam is a religion of peace, and that a very small minority of offenders are the ones causing the problem. The problem is not with Islam, but with the West's response to a few organised criminals.

Exploiting cognitive dissonance: Islamic spokesman tend to be baffle television interviewers and puzzle viewers as they resort to double talk ‘clichés and platitudes’ concerning Islam. A state of cognitive dissonance-holding two contradictory beliefs and attempting to resolve them- is induced in viewers as they attempt to process the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion with the dissonant facts of Islamic terrorist acts and operations.


The Islamic ’defence’ script: Islamic spokesmen repeat the same predictable platitudes concerning Islam in London as do Islamic spokesmen in Seattle and often appear to follow a prepared script from “Islam is tolerant and peace loving’ to the claim by Islamic spokeswomen invariably claiming that wearing the veil offers them more freedom (women in Muslim countries are therefore ‘freer’ than women in western countries), thereby precluding further examination into the real status of women under Islamic rule.

Islamic platitudes are also echoed uncritically by Western politicians, for example ”A small group of fundamentalists have hijacked a great religion’. The timely, skilful, misleading and diversionary theme of the ‘hijacking’ of Islam was introduced into public, political and media discourse by an Islamic ‘spokesmen’ in the United States shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The “Islam has been hijacked’ diversionary theme is now a conventional media and political reference deflecting attention from empirical and historical examination of the doctrinal, political and religious continuity of Islamic terrorism. A related theme that a small minority of Muslims are engaged in terrorism is utterly irrelevant as Islamic terrorism is always perpetrated by ‘small minorities’ or more accurately’ small groups’.

I am not a spokesman for Islam, and I am not speaking in cliches and platitudes.

Please argue with your own words. Copy and paste debate is wearying.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I am not a spokesman for Islam, and I am not speaking in cliches and platitudes.

Please argue with your own words. Copy and paste debate is wearying.
I agree, but the point about their selective cognitive dissonance is excellent, nonetheless.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I am not a spokesman for Islam, and I am not speaking in cliches and platitudes.

Please argue with your own words. Copy and paste debate is wearying.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I have already demonstrated that Islam is a religion of peace, and that a very small minority of offenders are the ones causing the problem.

Looks like a cliche to me.
cli·ché also cliche Pronunciation (kl-sh)
n.
1. A trite or overused expression or idea:


Also looks like like a platitude to me.

plat·i·tude Pronunciation (plt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant.

You have said it so many times it has become cliche and a platitude.
It makes me want to answer with the same.

Am I your favorite poster yet?

I don't think it is. Should every attempt by every government to improve its own image be considered an abuse of cognitive dissonance? Because then every government, every political campaign would be guilty.

Negative, old-reb, when I say that I have already demonstrated it, that means nobody has cared to argue the point that Islam is not a peaceful religion, and that nobody has challenged the evidence I put forth. All you are doing here is copy and pasting some generic talking-points from some other website.

The reason why I keep saying it is because I want somebody to argue the point with me. If someone can successfully argue that Islam is not a peaceful religion, then I will be unable to harp on that.

And this post is a little better, but you have a long way to go before you have Prae's personality.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I don't think it is. Should every attempt by every government to improve its own image be considered an abuse of cognitive dissonance? Because then every government, every political campaign would be guilty.
True, but there's a pretty big difference between the severity of the cognitive dissonance when the choices are between a political campaign and the Islamic clerics, who seemingly justify the actions of certain radicals while simultaneously speaking of how Islam is a religion of peace and love.

Here's an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune:

(From the article: )

Many Islamic scholars believe that Muslims who convert from Islam should be killed, but liberal and moderate scholars disagree. One Afghan liberal scholar, Ali Mohaqeq Nasab, spent almost three months in jail last fall after publishing a magazine challenging many traditional views on Islamic law, including the belief that Muslims who convert to other religions deserve to die.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603210143mar21,1,938137.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Originally posted by The Praetorian
True, but there's a pretty big difference between the severity of the cognitive dissonance when the choices are between a political campaign and the Islamic clerics, who seemingly justify the actions of certain radicals while simultaneously speaking of how Islam is a religion of peace and love.

Here's an interesting article from the Chicago Tribune:

(From the article: )

Many Islamic scholars believe that Muslims who convert from Islam should be killed, but liberal and moderate scholars disagree. One Afghan liberal scholar, Ali Mohaqeq Nasab, spent almost three months in jail last fall after publishing a magazine challenging many traditional views on Islamic law, including the belief that Muslims who convert to other religions deserve to die.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603210143mar21,1,938137.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

To that napster will say that you are talking about a few individuals that don't really represent Islam.

Islam is the religion of "love and Peace", he will say.

And then he will want you to prove that he is right/wrong.

I'm not trying to prove him wrong (for his statement was factually correct) - all I'm trying to do is point out the varying degree of cognitive dissonance involved here.

True, but there's a pretty big difference between the severity of the cognitive dissonance when the choices are between a political campaign and the Islamic clerics, who seemingly justify the actions of certain radicals while simultaneously speaking of how Islam is a religion of peace and love.

You are right, but I am not an Islamic cleric, and I am not justifying the actions of radicals. I am simply saying that Islam is a religion of peace, and I have made several arguments to support that. One, Jews lived in peace in the Middle East for centuries. Two, the Islamic empires were bastions of peace and prosperity at a time when Europe was a sad, barbarous place. Three, there are over a billion practictioners of Islam, and the number of terrorists are in the thousands, giving us six orders of magnitude of difference. Odds are, literally, a million to a few that any Muslim you find is going to be a terrorist. Four, Islam didn't even begin to retaliate against the West until after barbarians from the north swooped down and destroyed the great empires of peace, turning the Middle East once more into a land of dust and that it is really the West which is a place of war.

Quite different, don't you think? Notice how old-reb is content to allow you to carry his debate, instead of making his own argument. It is clear to me that he doesn't really know what he is talking about, and is simply standing on a pulpit and crying out against the "Muslim devil," and blaming me for his lack of skill.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I am simply saying that Islam is a religion of peace, and I have made several arguments to support that.
One, Jews lived in peace in the Middle East for centuries.

Yes, but what kind of peace? The life of a dimitude?

In the legal domain, specific laws ordained permanent inferiority and humilia_tion for the dhimmis. Their lives were valued at considerably less than that of a Muslim. The penalty for murder was much lighter if the dhimmi was the victim. Likewise, penalities for offenses were unequal between Muslims and non-Muslims. A dhimmi had no right to defend himself if he was physically assaulted by a Muslim; he could only beg for mercy. He was deprived of two fundamental rights: the right of self‑defense against physical aggression, and the right to defend himself in an Islamic law court as his testimony was refused. Dhimmis could be judged under the provisions of their own legislation. However dhimmi legislation was not recognized in Muslim courts, whose judgements superseded dhimmi legal decisions.

Dhimmis were forbidden to have authority over Muslims, to possess or buy land, to marry Muslim women, to have Muslim slaves or servants, or to use the Arabic alphabet (confirmed by Colonel Charles Churchill in Syria and Lebanon during 1840-

In the social domain dhimmis had to be recognized by their discriminatory clothes whose shape, color and texture were prescribed from head to foot, likewise, their houses (color and size) and their separate living quarters. Dhimmis were forbidden to ride a horse or a camel, since these animals were considered too noble. A donkey could be ridden in towns but only on a pack‑saddle, the dhimmi sitting with both legs on one side and dismounting on sight of a Muslim. A dhimmi had to hurry through the streets, always passing to the left (impure) side of a Muslim, who was expected to force him to the narrow side or into the gutter. He had to walk humbly with lowered eyes, to accept insults without replying, to remain standing in a meek and respectful attitude in the presence of a Muslim and to leave him the best place. If he was admitted to a public bath, he had to wear bells to signal his presence. Stoning Jews and Christians ‑ especially in Arab‑populated regions ‑ was not unusual‑ likewise disdain, insults and disrespectful attitudes toward them were customary. Some regional rules represent an aggravation of this pattern. In Morocco and Yemen, Jews were forbidden any footwear outside their segregated quarter.





Originally posted by Napsterbater
Two, the Islamic empires were bastions of peace and prosperity at a time when Europe was a sad, barbarous place.

Europe went into the dark ages, they were even further behind than the Muslims. Europe lost its collective memory and I think it was because of fanatical Christianity.


Originally posted by Napsterbater
Three, there are over a billion practictioners of Islam, and the number of terrorists are in the thousands, giving us six orders of magnitude of difference. Odds are, literally, a million to a few that any Muslim you find is going to be a terrorist.

In Palestine there are very few suicide bombers but all the Palestines hold them in high regard and Palestine voted for a government that doesn't want peace, it wants to destroy Israel.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Four, Islam didn't even begin to retaliate against the West until after barbarians from the north swooped down and destroyed the great empires of peace, turning the Middle East once more into a land of dust and that it is really the West which is a place of war.
What are you talking about here? Crusades? WW1?

Yes, but what kind of peace? The life of a dimitude?

Were you expecting twentieth century enlightened civil rights? It was a damn sight better than Christians treated pagans.

In Palestine there are very few suicide bombers but all the Palestines hold them in high regard and Palestine voted for a government that doesn't want peace, it wants to destroy Israel.

HAMAS as an organisation is a lot more than a terror organization. It is one of those groups that build schools as well as bombs. Not that I am condoning HAMAS, just trying to shine a different light on why Palestinians would elect such a bunch into office. They have been known to increase literacy in areas in which they are active.

What are you talking about here? Crusades? WW1?

The colonial period in which Spain, Britain, Portugal among others built large navies and sent conquistadors out to conquer land for the crown. Their tactics were often heartless and cruel.

Any race or nationality that holds power, eventually subjugates, discriminates and murders. Throughout history this has been done and has been justified as religous privileges. The Jews are no different.

Palestinians are the victims in this instance. Only with time and in retrospect would some so-call 'people' recognise this.

At this time, too many are eagerly looking forward to the fulfilment of prophesy so that they can be raptured into 'heaven'. They think all signs are converging.

But (whisper) it aint gonna happen. You believers are more evil than evil itself. You're not eligible for rapturing - unless it's a spleen or something.

Unfortunately the Palestinian will have to suffer for a while longer before the world curtails Israel (Similar to the events that led up to th haulocust).

Pity!!!!

Originally posted by nemesis
Any race or nationality that holds power, eventually subjugates, discriminates and murders. Throughout history this has been done and has been justified as religous privileges. The Jews are no different.
That is a pretty cyincal opinion of governments.
In Afghanistan they just gave the death penalty to a man who converted from Islam to Christianity. In Israel people can practice any religion they want. A couple of Israelis made a wrong turn and drove into West Bank Palestine territory and they were ripped apart and their body parts drug through the streets.

Originally posted by nemesis
Palestinians are the victims in this instance. Only with time and in retrospect would some so-call 'people' recognise this.
.
They are victims only because they want to be. All they have to do is to stop killing jews and they will have complete freedom of movement.



Originally posted by nemesis
At this time, too many are eagerly looking forward to the fulfilment of prophesy so that they can be raptured into 'heaven'. They think all signs are converging.
But (whisper) it aint gonna happen. You believers are more evil than evil itself. You're not eligible for rapturing - unless it's a spleen or something..
What the hell is that all about?

Originally posted by nemesis

Unfortunately the Palestinian will have to suffer for a while longer before the world curtails Israel (Similar to the events that led up to th haulocust). Pity!!!!

How is that similiar to the events that led up to the Holocaust?

The Palestines suffer as their own choice so that they can appear to be victims and have the world drive the Jews out of the middle east once and for all. Fanatical homocide terrorist are not victims.

You say pity like you are happily awaiting the end of Israel.

They are victims only because they want to be. All they have to do is to stop killing jews and they will have complete freedom of movement.

I think you actually believe that!

In Israel people can practice any religion they want.

Just don't be around when Isreal decides to shell your part of the village.

A couple of Israelis made a wrong turn and drove into West Bank Palestine territory and they were ripped apart and their body parts drug through the streets.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians die every year to Israeli artillery. How many Israelis have died in this way?

You say pity like you are happily awaiting the end of Israel.

It would please me greatly should Israel pack up and move back to wherever they came from. The ones that came from other parts of the Middle East can move to the US. Jews are industrious people. I'm sure they'll do fine here.

Originally posted by Napsterbater





Tens of thousands of Palestinians die every year to Israeli artillery. How many Israelis have died in this way?





Napster, you have decended to a new low with this blatant LIE.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/09/gaza_attacks041009.html

From the article:

Saturday's deaths bring the number of Palestinians killed in the last 10 days to 100.

One hundred in ten days. It seems my tens of thousands number was a bit off.

Okay. Hundreds to thousands of Palestinians die every year. You know, they don't keep track of the lion's share of Palestinian deaths for a reason, so I have to make up the numbers. Again, how many Israelis die every year from Palestinian attacks?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/09/gaza_attacks041009.html

From the article:



One hundred in ten days. It seems my tens of thousands number was a bit off.

Okay. Hundreds to thousands of Palestinians die every year. You know, they don't keep track of the lion's share of Palestinian deaths for a reason, so I have to make up the numbers. Again, how many Israelis die every year from Palestinian attacks?

Ok I must say that 100 is a somewhat smaller number than tens of thousands every year.

from your post, it sounds like the Palestines are getting the worst of attacking the Jews.



The militant, Abed Nabhan was killed when Israeli troops fired at a group of militants they say were preparing to launch an anti-tank missile from the Jebaliya refugee camp.

Israel claims that Nabhan, a Hamas field commander, was responsible for the Sept. 29 rocket attack that killed two Israeli preschoolers and for an attack on an army post the following day that killed two Israeli soldiers.

In another incident Saturday, two people were killed in the refugee camp when an errant missile hit a 5-storey house.

And in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, two Palestinians were killed in a gunfire exchange between Palestinian militants and Israeli troops.

One hundred in ten days.

2,990 attacks during 2005 'truce'

As Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees and Fatah's Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades announced an end to their self-declared truce of January 2005, under which they pledged to refrain from attacking Israeli targets, an annual summary of terror activities for 2005 released by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) on Sunday revealed that a total of 2,990 attacks were launched against Israeli targets. The attacks occurred after the truce was announced the report stated.

According to the report, motivation among all the terror groups to attack Israel remains high with the number of monthly terror alerts averaging 57.

There was a significant decrease in the number of Israeli fatalities stemming from terror attacks in 2005 with 54 Israelis killed, a 60 percent reduction from the 117 Israelis killed in such attacks in 2004. Twenty-three of the fatalities in 2005 were killed in seven suicide bomb attacks. There was also a 30% decrease in the number of Israeli casualties in attacks during 2005 with 406 Israelis wounded compared with 589 the previous year.

Yet, in 2005 there was a significant increase in Kassam rocket attacks on Israel with 377 recorded, compared with 309 in the previous year. At the same time there was a decrease in mortar shellings with 848 launched in 2005 compared with 1,231 in 2004. There was also a drop in bombing attacks with 199 recorded in 2005 compared with 592 in 2004. A total of 1,133 shooting attacks were carried out by terror groups in 2005 compared with 1,621 in 2004.

In 2005 security forces arrested 160 potential suicide bombers in raids in West Bank villages and towns, 59 affiliated with the Islamic Jihad, 29 with Hamas, 47 with Fatah Tanzim, 14 with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and 11 with other terror groups.

There was a drastic drop in terror attacks launched from the Gaza Strip last year, with 1,205 attacks carried out in 2005 compared with 2,637 in 2004.

Okay, you win. Luckily for me, I have three arguments left. Pick one and let's go.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
You know, they don't keep track of the lion's share of Palestinian deaths for a reason, so I have to make up the numbers.

Don't.

PS- You're sounding like Dop.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Okay, you win. Luckily for me, I have three arguments left. Pick one and let's go.

List the three and I will go from there.

1) Jews have lived in peace in the Middle East for centuries.

2) Islamic Empires were the pinnacle of human achievement, bastions of peace and prosperity, for centuries.

3) It was the West that brought down the great Islamic Empires during the colonal expansion period, and still only small, focused groups see fit to attack the West. Really it is the West that is warlike.

Don't.

PS- You're sounding like Dop.

As Mark Twain put it, there are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics. I am merely substituting one type of lie for another.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
1) Jews have lived in peace in the Middle East for centuries.

A fate worse than death.
When the Muslims conquered a country the Arabs were given a choice between converting to Islam or death. The Christians and Jews were give protected status and didn't have to convert. But they were not allowed ot carry or own arms, they had to dress according to Muslim regulation for dhimmitudes so everyone would know their low status. They could not ride a horse or camel but only a donkey and then only in side saddle. If they saw a Muslim they were required to bow their head and look humble. If a Muslim attacked them, they could not fight back but only beg for mercy. If they could not pay their special protected tax then the Muslim could wage war on them again. There are many many more rules for the dhimmtude.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

2) Islamic Empires were the pinnacle of human achievement, bastions of peace and prosperity, for centuries.


Everything is relative. Europe was in the dark ages and had lost their history. The Muslim preserved this history and allowed Europe to jump start itself when it woke from the dark ages. So this was a good time for Islam.

Originally posted by Napsterbater

3) It was the West that brought down the great Islamic Empires during the colonal expansion period, and still only small, focused groups see fit to attack the West. Really it is the West that is warlike.

The Ottoman Empire was in WW1 as an ally to Germany and when Germany lost, the Ottoman Empire lost. Since all the middle east was owned by the Ottoman Empire then it all was won over by the Western allies. They took it as war booty. So what point does that prove?

Yes, the West is warlike but we fight country to country till a treaty is signed while for Muslims, Jihad is against anybody who isn't Muslim and there is no treaty to end the Jihad until all the world is conquered but as you can see from Iraq that Mohammad is not just one god but many and they must Jihad against one another until one prevails over all and then we can live in the true Islamic peace just like the Taliban did.

Old-Reb, you must not be Christian or you will be aware of the 'rapture'. The current hysteria in many churches speaks about the second coming being imminent because of world events. They are anxious for Jesus' return and they encourage Israel to attack the Palestians and not only keep the land they've already stolen, but to grap even more.

'Pity' does not mean that the Palestians should wipe out Jews. I do not dislike Jews or Palestinians. But I can see what's happening very clearly. 'Pity' means that the Jews are accomplishing what Hitler tried to do to them. And they are doing it with impunity.

Europe and American gave Hitler's regime tacit approval back then, just as they are doing now. It is as wrong now as it was then.

It matters not to me what nationality or religious persuasion a people may be, genocide is genocide and that is EXACTLY what Israel is practising today. They used to be secretive about it, but now they do it openly BECAUSE there is no accountability.

Major world leaders do not care about the Palestinians, just as they did not care about Jews before and during WWII. PITY!!!

Originally posted by nemesis
Old-Reb, you must not be Christian or you will be aware of the 'rapture'. The current hysteria in many churches speaks about the second coming being imminent because of world events. They are anxious for Jesus' return and they encourage Israel to attack the Palestians and not only keep the land they've already stolen, but to grap even more.

'Pity' does not mean that the Palestians should wipe out Jews. I do not dislike Jews or Palestinians. But I can see what's happening very clearly. 'Pity' means that the Jews are accomplishing what Hitler tried to do to them. And they are doing it with impunity.

Europe and American gave Hitler's regime tacit approval back then, just as they are doing now. It is as wrong now as it was then.

It matters not to me what nationality or religious persuasion a people may be, genocide is genocide and that is EXACTLY what Israel is practising today. They used to be secretive about it, but now they do it openly BECAUSE there is no accountability.

Major world leaders do not care about the Palestinians, just as they did not care about Jews before and during WWII. PITY!!!


I don't see how you can say that the Jews are like the Nazis and the Palestiens are like the Jews going through the holocaust. The Jews were not armed were not attacking Nazis. The only difference between now and ww2 is that this time the Jews aren't marching to the gas chambers like sheep.

The Palestines are not appologetic about their desire to drive the Jews into the sea. It is a religious duty to kill the Jews and they have the blessings of the worlds Muslims.

Here is what the palestines (victims) have been spending their time doing instead of working to build a palestine country.

There was a significant decrease in the number of Israeli fatalities stemming from terror attacks in 2005 with 54 Israelis killed, a 60 percent reduction from the 117 Israelis killed in such attacks in 2004. Twenty-three of the fatalities in 2005 were killed in seven suicide bomb attacks. There was also a 30% decrease in the number of Israeli casualties in attacks during 2005 with 406 Israelis wounded compared with 589 the previous year.

Yet, in 2005 there was a significant increase in Kassam rocket attacks on Israel with 377 recorded, compared with 309 in the previous year. At the same time there was a decrease in mortar shellings with 848 launched in 2005 compared with 1,231 in 2004. There was also a drop in bombing attacks with 199 recorded in 2005 compared with 592 in 2004. A total of 1,133 shooting attacks were carried out by terror groups in 2005 compared with 1,621 in 2004.




I found rapture online but I have practiced protestant religion for decades and the word never came up. I will check with my Catholic friends to see if they ever heard of it.

Ok I found this, Fundamentalist and evangelicst believe in the rapture. I have no experience with these people.

Are you Pre, Mid, or Post? If you don’t know how to answer that question, you’re probably a Catholic. Most Fundamentalists and Evangelicals know that these words are shorthand for pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, and post-tribulation. The terms all refer to when the rapture is supposed to occur.

Old-reb,
Unfortunately, there is no winner in this type of argument. Our views are cast in stone. You and I can read and quote 'facts' and more 'facts' all leaning toward our side of the debate. But we will never convince each other.

The media we may quote from is just as bias as we are - or maybe more so.

I have Jewish associates - not American or repatriated European Jews, but Sabras who are treated with almost equal disdain (as Palestinians) in their own country. They have admitted to me that the Jews will eventually anniliate all Palestinians.

And these are the same people who hid new Jewish arrivals after Briton implemented blockades when the WWI ended to prevent them from going into what is now called Israel.
This is the land that the Old Testament documents. The Jews have been trying to claim this land even though Palestinians were already there.
Please refer to your bible - I don't think that book, a history of the Jews, has been corrupted.

A fate worse than death.

I suppose you got that idea from the extremist Bat Ye'or?

The dhimma's status was an early form of freedom of religion, and may possibly be the first form. Before Islam, people who didn't convert to the conquering faith were all killed. At the time, Christianity wasn't in any kind of position to grant freedom of religion to anyone. It[the dhimmas' status] was highly dependant on the current rulers. (Edited) There are no less than four schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, and all of them perscribe different status' for dhimmis.

I contend that you are applying twentieth century standards to twelfth century times.

Everything is relative.

Of course it is. The point still stands.

he Ottoman Empire was in WW1 as an ally to Germany and when Germany lost, the Ottoman Empire lost. Since all the middle east was owned by the Ottoman Empire then it all was won over by the Western allies. They took it as war booty. So what point does that prove?

Long before the Empire was officially dissolved, pieces of it came under attack by colonial powers. The Empire had stagnated for some time, it's military weakened. Britain, Germany, France and Italy all claimed pieces of it for their own, accelerating the decline and fragmenting the empire.

Originally posted by nemesis
Old-reb,
Unfortunately, there is no winner in this type of argument. Our views are cast in stone. You and I can read and quote 'facts' and more 'facts' all leaning toward our side of the debate. But we will never convince each other.

The media we may quote from is just as bias as we are - or maybe more so.

I have Jewish associates - not American or repatriated European Jews, but Sabras who are treated with almost equal disdain (as Palestinians) in their own country. They have admitted to me that the Jews will eventually anniliate all Palestinians.

I offer you factual statistics and you offer me hearsay from some mysterious Jew.
The fact that Israel left Gazs strip would indicate that the Jews have no interest in those Palestines except to keep them pinned out so they can't get into Israel to kill.


Originally posted by nemesis


And these are the same people who hid new Jewish arrivals after Briton implemented blockades when the WWI ended to prevent them from going into what is now called Israel.


More fiction! The truth is the opposite. The Palestines didn't want the Jews in.

By 1936 the increase in Jewish immigration and land acquisition, the growing power of Hajj Amin al Husayni, and general Arab frustration at the continuation of European rule, radicalized increasing numbers of Palestinian Arabs. Thus, in April 1936 an Arab attack on a Jewish bus led to a series of incidents that escalated into a major Palestinian rebellion. An Arab Higher Committee (AHC), a loose coalition of recently formed Arab political parties, was created. It declared a national strike in support of three basic demands: cessation of Jewish immigration, an end to all further land sales to the Jews, and the establishment of an Arab national government.

Originally posted by nemesis

This is the land that the Old Testament documents. The Jews have been trying to claim this land even though Palestinians were already there.
Please refer to your bible - I don't think that book, a history of the Jews, has been corrupted.


I don't care squat about religious claims to land. The fact is that the Jews are there and they should be left to live in peace. But, after spending thousands of years cleansing the middle east of jews, I can see that because of religious fanaticism that you want to get rid of the Jews again and be done with ever seeing a Jew again.


Also the Iranians claim to want to fight for the Palestines by nuking Israel. Everybody knows that you can't nuke Israel without nuking palestine. Now that shows that the Iranians care squat about the Palestines, they just want to go down in history as the ones who finally ridded the world of Jews. The Palestines will be happy too because they will all be martyrs. The Jews will be happy because they won't be persecuted anymore. The EU will be scared, very scared.

The fact that Israel left Gazs strip would indicate that the Jews have no interest in those Palestines except to keep them pinned out so they can't get into Israel to kill.

No, just that there are differing factions in Israel that disagree on just how to use their dominance to destroy the Palestinians.

But, after spending thousands of years cleansing the middle east of jews,

Now it is you making outrageous lies.

Originally posted by Napsterbater


Now it is you making outrageous lies.


Since the days of Allah, the Muslims have fought the Jews. The Jews were in the middle east when the Muslims were few but over centurys of war the Jews are few and the Muslims are many.


PA Religious Leaders Call for Genocide of Jews
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch | September 28, 2004

Twice in three days, PA religious leaders have openly called for the genocide of Jews. Broadcast on official PA TV, both called for the murder of Jews until the Jewish people are annihilated. Both presented the killing of Jews not merely as the will of Allah, but also as a necessary stage in history that should be carried out now. To support these mandatory killings, both cited the same Hadith - Islamic tradition attributed to Mohammed - expressing Allah’s will that Muslims will kill Jews, before the “Hour” of Resurrection.

The words of the Hadith:

"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!"

Numerous times in recent years Palestinian religious leaders and academics have taught publicly that this particular Hadith applies today. This teaching may well be a dominant motivating factor that drives terror against Israeli civilians, because it presents the killing of Jews as a religious obligation, not related to the conflict over borders, but as something inherent to Allah’s world.

Note also the defining of Jews as "the brothers of the monkeys and pigs" in Maadi's religious lesson. PA religious leaders teach, based on a story in the Quran, that Jews were cursed by Allah and turned into monkeys and pigs. This is consistent with the PA teaching that the Jew's have inherent and unchanging character defects.

So tell me again why Jews were allowed to live in the Middle East for centuries?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
So tell me again why Jews were allowed to live in the Middle East for centuries?


IT IS LONG PAST time to bring the world's attention to a global scandal.

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.

If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience. Some even actively identified with the dominant class, and became strenuous advocates for it.

Spearheaded by dhimmi academics and self-serving advocacy groups, that same attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, school textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash.

But in this era of global terrorism it must be said: this silence, this distortion, has become deadly. Before 9/11 it was easy to ignore and whitewash dhimmitude, but the atrocities changed the situation forever. In jihads throughout history, untold millions have died. Tens of millions have been uprooted from their homes. Tens of millions have been stripped of their cultural identity. To continue to gloss over the destruction wrought by jihad ideology and its attendant evil of dhimmitude is today to play into the hands of jihadists, who have repeatedly vowed to dhimmify the West and destroy any recalcitrant elements. While jihadist groups, even with their global diffusion, are not strong enough to realize this goal by themselves, they have a potent and destructive ally, a genuine fifth column, in the dhimmi academics and dhimmi journalists they have recruited in the West. They have succeeded in confusing millions in the West into mistaking honesty and truthfulness for bigotry, and self-defense for oppression.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/#

That's just about enough extremist quotes and heavily biased websites from you. Please don't drop to slim's level. We are having a rational argument, and it would behoove you to use rational arguments, not copy-paste tactics.

Napster,

You have no problem with making up numbers and lying to make your point but you cry like a baby when you see a post the is based on facts without rose colored lense to filter out the truth.

I keep reading how Islam is a religion of peace, how the Moslems were peaceful while people in Europe were barbarians.

This is a false image of Islam fostered by people with an agenda and believed by other people who do not know history.

Islam is not a religion of peace and does not even pretend to be a religion of peace. On of the prime directives of Islam was to convert people, by the sword if necessary. Where Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek, Mohammad told his followers to put unbelievers to the sword.

The Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, the Byzantian Empire and much of the Indian Sub-continent was anything but peaceful.

Even the Crusades, wars that have been made to seem like Christian aggression agains peaceful Moslems were in actuallity a reaction to the Moslem treatment of Christians living in their territories and of pilgrims attempting to visit Christian shrines and holy places.

Let's stop the b.s. that Islam is a religion of peace and recognize the fact that Islam is a religion that desires to conquer the world and bring everyone under their control.

a post the is based on facts without rose colored lense to filter out the truth.

If that were true, you would be able to argue it yourself, instead of allowing some other idiot with a webpage to do it for you.

I complain because I am going to a lot of effort to keep up my end of the debate. Extensive reading of Wikipedia, supporting websites, and news articles. All of this to synthesize a viewpoint on the subject. The real reason I abandoned my earlier line of argument was because of this. I don't like to respond in that way to some idiot who only knows how to Control-C, Control-V whenever the argument gets to a point where it requires critical thought to continue. You are a smart man, you should be able to keep up without allowing Robert Spencer to argue for you.

Originally posted by Frogger
I keep reading how Islam is a religion of peace, how the Moslems were peaceful while people in Europe were barbarians.

This is a false image of Islam fostered by people with an agenda and believed by other people who do not know history.

Islam is not a religion of peace and does not even pretend to be a religion of peace. On of the prime directives of Islam was to convert people, by the sword if necessary. Where Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek, Mohammad told his followers to put unbelievers to the sword.

The Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, the Byzantian Empire and much of the Indian Sub-continent was anything but peaceful.

Even the Crusades, wars that have been made to seem like Christian aggression agains peaceful Moslems were in actuallity a reaction to the Moslem treatment of Christians living in their territories and of pilgrims attempting to visit Christian shrines and holy places.

Let's stop the b.s. that Islam is a religion of peace and recognize the fact that Islam is a religion that desires to conquer the world and bring everyone under their control.

Wow! I wish I could write like that.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
If that were true, you would be able to argue it yourself, instead of allowing some other idiot with a webpage to do it for you.

I complain because I am going to a lot of effort to keep up my end of the debate. Extensive reading of Wikipedia, supporting websites, and news articles. All of this to synthesize a viewpoint on the subject. The real reason I abandoned my earlier line of argument was because of this. I don't like to respond in that way to some idiot who only knows how to Control-C, Control-V whenever the argument gets to a point where it requires critical thought to continue. You are a smart man, you should be able to keep up without allowing Robert Spencer to argue for you.

I don't know Napster, this post raises my opinion of you, I would like to think that it is because you are somewhat open minded and not a fanatical Islamic which is what I usually debate with.

I hope my opinion of you wasn't skewed by a compliment but I guess we are all human with human feelings and weaknesses.

As a reward I will admit that I have read that the Jews were somewhat fairly treated by the Ottoman empire.

I keep reading how Islam is a religion of peace, how the Moslems were peaceful while people in Europe were barbarians.

It should be said that I do not think that the Middle East is a peaceful place, or that Middle Easterners are necessarily enlightened people. I think that Islam was an important dampening force and uniting force on what would otherwise be an extremely warlike and savage race. Without Islam, the Middle East would never have amounted to much of anything at all.

I think all of the savage elements in the Qu'ran, and of what we see in Islam in general, are frustrated efforts of savages who know nothing better than desert life, and not a reflection of Islam in general.

I don't know Napster, this post raises my opinion of you, I would like to think that it is because you are somewhat open minded and not a fanatical Islamic which is what I usually debate with.

I am most certainly not a Muslim defending my own faith. I am simply a man with my own logic and philosophy, applying that philosophy to all of my debates, following the rules of my own logic. To me, Islam is neither peaceful nor barbaric, it just is. But others have this utterly black and hateful view of Islam. I am not trying to get you to admit that Islam is good, I am trying to get you to abandon the idea that Islam can be a bad thing.

I think all of the savage elements in the Qu'ran, and of what we see in Islam in general, are frustrated efforts of savages who know nothing better than desert life, and not a reflection of Islam in general.

Napsterbater

In the same paragraph you say the violence inherent in Islam in general is a result of their frustration and savages and that this is not a reflection of Islam in general.

Since it is inherent in Islam it IS a reflection of the religion in general. We are not discussing the reasons Islam is an intolerant, violent religion but the fact that it is.

If a man becomes a violent adult because he was brought up in a violent atmoshere it might explain why he is violent but it doesn't make him any less violent.

In the same paragraph you say the violence inherent in Islam in general is a result of their frustration and savages and that this is not a reflection of Islam in general.

I never said violence was inherent in Islam.

We are not discussing the reasons Islam is an intolerant, violent religion but the fact that it is.

Please advance relevant argument to this point.

If a man becomes a violent adult because he was brought up in a violent atmoshere it might explain why he is violent but it doesn't make him any less violent.

The man of course being Islam. It doesn't do to simplify Islam to that extent. It is a religion with over a billion followers, you would have me believe it was just one.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Without Islam, the Middle East would never have amounted to much of anything at all.
And I contend that it's the exact opposite. Their diehard fundamental religious dedication to this particular superstition is EXACTLY what stopped them from advancing. In short, these people fight HOLY WARS, and it's kept them in a perpetual state of consternation for roughly 2000 years. READ; no advancement allowed. These people are still ruled by fatwas, and their only earthly requirement is to follow Islamic law without deviation. In other words, as much as their religion united them as a people, it RUINED them as a society. JMO.
Originally posted by Napsterbater
I think all of the savage elements in the Qu'ran, and of what we see in Islam in general, are frustrated efforts of savages who know nothing better than desert life, and not a reflection of Islam in general.
Fully agreed.

Their diehard fundamental religious dedication to this particular superstition is EXACTLY what stopped them from advancing.

Not so. Islam was the glue that held the Middle East together during the medieval times. With the amount of land the Muslims conquerored, it would have been impossible for them to have continued advancing. Islam followed the same pattern the Romans did, a period of rapid expansion by conquest, followed by a golden age of peace and prosperity, followed by stagnation and decline.

These people are still ruled by fatwas, and their only earthly requirement is to follow Islamic law without deviation. In other words, as much as their religion united them as a people, it RUINED them as a society. JMO.

Islam as a religion is still for the most part in the Middle Ages. But there is a tremendous effort within the Islamic community to modernize their belief systems and bring Islam to a point where it can coexist with the rest of the world. Islam at one point in time really was the pinnacle of human achievement, and this is an effort to recapture that spirit. I am particularly interested in how they intend to reinterpret subjects like economics to conform to Islamic ideals such as brotherhood and generosity.

The reasons for the dramatic progress made by the West since medieval times are complex and varied. However, it can be reasonably argued that scientific advances accellerated as great thinkers were gradually freed from the restrictive bounds of theocratic philosophy. It is no coincidence, for example, that after Galileo scientists and philosophers in northern Europe took the lead in advancing the Enlightenment. This, of course, was made possible by the Reformation and the concomitant lessening of the power of the Catholic Church. In other words, without the Reformation, the Enlightenment would have been significantly dimmed.

This, I think, explains the lack of progress made by Islam during the same period of time. While Western thinkers gained more and more freedom to pursue their ideas, those in the East remained constrained by their religion. Islam has yet to undergo a Reformation of it's own.

Exactly my point, Sedan. Thank you.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I am particularly interested in how they intend to reinterpret subjects like economics to conform to Islamic ideals such as brotherhood and generosity.

I clicked on an online Muslim bank and they didn't charge interest but the would buy a $100,000 house for you and then sell it to you for $130,000 interest free. I think that is how it went.

That would put an instant stop to flipping houses.

The Reformation was, in a nutshell, when the West decided it didn't need the preachers in order to speak with God. The Enlightenment was when some in the West decided it didn't need God, period.

I am not so certain anymore that it is a requirement for science to destroy religion before it advances. I think maybe it is possible for Islam to modernise and thrive again without making an undue amount of concessions. It will just take longer. The West was able to advance remarkably fast and one of the consequences of rapid change is social upheaval. But I think it is possible, and very probable, that Islam will slowly work itself into modernity, and that it may even prove that Islam is more capable of coexisting with modernity than even Christianity is, though perhaps not as much as Judaism.

It's just a hunch, but it is born out of everything I have learned about religion over the many years I have studied it.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
The Reformation was, in a nutshell, when the West decided it didn't need the preachers in order to speak with God. The Enlightenment was when some in the West decided it didn't need God, period.

I am not so certain anymore that it is a requirement for science to destroy religion before it advances. I think maybe it is possible for Islam to modernise and thrive again without making an undue amount of concessions. It will just take longer. The West was able to advance remarkably fast and one of the consequences of rapid change is social upheaval. But I think it is possible, and very probable, that Islam will slowly work itself into modernity, and that it may even prove that Islam is more capable of coexisting with modernity than even Christianity is, though perhaps not as much as Judaism.

It's just a hunch, but it is born out of everything I have learned about religion over the many years I have studied it.

Islam CANNOT advance until they seperate Mosque and state. AND they give up racial hatred.

I simply do not believe that. I think that it is perfectly possible for a civilization to integrate church and state into a cohesive whole preserving religious tolerance. As has been argued before, the Muslims were one of the first, if not the first, to practice a form of religious tolerance. I think Islam is very capable of advancing the idea once more.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I simply do not believe that. I think that it is perfectly possible for a civilization to integrate church and state into a cohesive whole preserving religious tolerance. As has been argued before, the Muslims were one of the first, if not the first, to practice a form of religious tolerance. I think Islam is very capable of advancing the idea once more.

Then you must agree that the pope should be ruler of the Christian nations. And the Orthodox preist should rule Russia.

I think all of the savage elements in the Qu'ran , and of what we see in Islam in general , are frustrated efforts of savages who know nothing better than desert life, and not a reflection of Islam in general.

Napsterbater

You may not have meant to say Islam is generally a violent religion but that is how I interpreted the above paragraph.

As for Islam being one of the first religions to practice a form of religious tolerance that really isn't true. The Mongols practiced full religious tolerance with rulers belonging to Nestorian Christian, Jewish, Lamaist, Animist and other religions. The only bit of religious tolerance practiced by Moslems was directed toward Christians and Jews who were considered, People of The Book and even this tolerance was very incomplete.

Then you must agree that the pope should be ruler of the Christian nations.

He's already the ruler of the only Christian theocracy that exists, the Vatican. Should any others pop up, the pope or a delegate can rule them if they are Catholic.

And the Orthodox preist should rule Russia.

Russia is not a theocracy.

The Mongols practiced full religious tolerance with rulers belonging to Nestorian Christian, Jewish, Lamaist, Animist and other religions.

The Mongols didn't really have the manpower or the desire to rule their subjects. The Mongols were nomads, and cared not to subject the natives to their way of life.

From the Mongol Wikipedia article:

The Khan's initial plan of conquest if there was resistance was to sack all that was valuable, and then raze the city killing the resisters and leaving only artists and human shields (for future campaigns) to survive.

Xenocide isn't exactly religious tolerance. Later on, they built a vassal empire. It could be said that they were tolerant of religion, but in all honesty, they didn't really care as long as the money flowed in.

The Mongols didn't really have the manpower or the desire to rule their subjects. The Mongols were nomads, and cared not to subject the natives to their way of life.

From the Mongol Wikipedia article:

Xenocide isn't exactly religious tolerance. Later on, they built a vassal empire. It could be said that they were tolerant of religion, but in all honesty, they didn't really care as long as the money flowed in.

Fuck all that.

Eve of Mongol invasion: 1200 CE

Start of the Golden Age of Islam: 750 CE

Owned.

From Wikipedia:

The Christian Visigoths of Spain persecuted the Jews severely, so naturally the Jews welcomed the Muslim conquerors in the 8th century. The conquered cities of Córdoba, Málaga, Granada, Seville, and Toledo were briefly placed in charge of the Jewish inhabitants, who had been armed by the Arab invaders. The victors removed the restrictions which had oppressed the Jews so heavily, and granted them full religious liberty, requiring them only to pay the tribute of one golden dinar per capita.

Who would have thought that the Jews would rather have the Muslims rule over them than the Christians?

Originally posted by Napsterbater
From Wikipedia:



Who would have thought that the Jews would rather have the Muslims rule over them than the Christians?

Who would have thought that the Christians would seperate church and state and the Muslims would fall back to Islmaic governments with Sharia law that executes Muslims who change religions?

Christians had to seperate church and state, because they weren't capable of being tolerant, even of their own brethren. Inquisition, anyone?

Legions of Christians fled Europe so that the could find a little religious freedom. Freedom from other Christians! That is how America began, remember? And they were still at each other's throats even here! The only reason America isn't a theocracy right now is because one group of Christians didn't gain an overwhelming advantage over the others! The only reason Europe became secular is because the kings got fed up with rule under the Pope, and made up their own religion in protest!

Christians never could unite like the Muslims did. Even by the sword! There was never a golden age of Christianity, because the various popes were too busy trying to get Jerusalem back from the Muslims, and raping the various European kingdoms for all they were worth! Historians are now debating on whether the Renaissance was not actually a step back from the High Middle Ages, seeing as how science stagnated, the Latin language was reverted from it's evolved state back to its original form, and most of the knowledge was absorbed from the Arabs. The poor remained in the same state they always were, it was only the artists, writers, and their patrons that believed in the Renaissance as a distinct period in history. Many historians won't even use the word Renaissance anymore, because they consider it an unneccessarily loaded term.

I would like to thank you, old-reb, for giving me the opportunity to examine history once more and to exercise my critical thinking skills. This exercise of pitting Christianity against Islam for the title of most peaceful religion is making me stretch my brain in ways I never thought I would be able to. You are all the debate partner I could hope for.

Christians had to seperate church and state, because they weren't capable of being tolerant, even of their own brethren.well thats the whole reason why the puritans came to America.

I love how they say it was religious intolerence that motivated them...

"Hey these british bastards won't let us burn people at the stake!!!"

I disagree. You dont let outside influence define your faith. Either you are tolerant, or you're not. Someone strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up a busload of women and children is not tolerant.

Someone abducting a civil worker, newspaperman, or any other innocent and beheading them is not tolerant. People who sit on their asses while others of their faith perform atrocities in the name of their faith are just as bad as the ones who did it. Silence is just another form of acceptance.

We are talking about Islam the religion here, not it's followers the Arabs.

Allow me to summarise my points again. I maintain that Islam is a peaceful religion because:

1) Jews and Christians have lived in peace in Arab land for centuries. Most of the Christians converted by the time the Ottoman Empire collapsed, but Jews lived there right until Zionism emerged and the Muslims expelled them.

2) Islamic Empires were the pinnacle of human achievement, bastions of peace and prosperity, for centuries.

3) It was the West that brought down the great Islamic Empires during the colonal expansion period, and still only small, focused groups see fit to attack the West. Really it is the West that is warlike.

I dont think u can blame the parents of suicide bombers 4 their childrens actions.Isreal has been armed and financed to the teeth by the US.The conditions that Palestinians have to live in,u wouldnt keep a dog in,never mind a human being.The blind US support of Isreal,is one of the main factors y the Muslim world has turned anti American.

3) It was the West that brought down the great Islamic Empires during the colonal expansion period, and still only small, focused groups see fit to attack the West. Really it is the West that is warlike.

True, but that was many years ago. The West has amended itself, and has mainly chosen diplomacy and trade instead of guns. Warmongering now comes primarily from the US, while the European Union is determined to solve issues peacefully.

We are talking about Islam the religion here, not it's followers the Arabs.

Allow me to summarise my points again. I maintain that Islam is a peaceful religion because:

1) Jews and Christians have lived in peace in Arab land for centuries. Most of the Christians converted by the time the Ottoman Empire collapsed, but Jews lived there right until Zionism emerged and the Muslims expelled them.

2) Islamic Empires were the pinnacle of human achievement, bastions of peace and prosperity, for centuries.

3) It was the West that brought down the great Islamic Empires during the colonal expansion period, and still only small, focused groups see fit to attack the West. Really it is the West that is warlike.

1)Christians and Jews lived as low class citizens called dhimmitudes, the Muslims were the super race.

2) True, the West went into the dark ages and lost their culture.

3) The ottoman empire was lost because they sided with Germany durning ww1 and lost.

On point 3.Are you agreeing with me that the Palestinian situation was caused by the British Empire,as it has great similarities to the mess they made in Ireland

I dont think u can blame the parents of suicide bombers 4 their childrens actions.Isreal has been armed and financed to the teeth by the US.The conditions that Palestinians have to live in,u wouldnt keep a dog in,never mind a human being.The blind US support of Isreal,is one of the main factors y the Muslim world has turned anti American.

Muslims like anybody that helps them destroy the Jews and hate anyone who protects the Jews. They are obsessed with killing Jews.

Old-Reb, we have debated extensively on those issues you are raising, and I have already exhausted you of arguments. Now all you can do is rehash them like an idiot?

Palestine is a Palestinian thing,not a muslim thing,as many if not most Arab Governments couldnt care tuppence about Palestine,possably 4 fear of losing trade and goodwill with America.The jewish lobby in DC,is were the root of most of Americas Foreign Policy disasters stem from.Like I have already stated,and I dont think its too late,the US should lead from the front,especially in Justice and investment in the mid East. Most dissatified Muslims would be poor and disadvantaged,these are the people whom religious extremists take advantage of,thus suicide bombs,rocket attacks,9/11,Iran and so on,whats next.

Report: Hamas Willing To Recognize Israeli Government
In a story that could mark a major development in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Al Jazeera is reporting the Hamas-led Palestinian government is willing to recognize Israel if Israel agrees to fully withdraw from the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem. The stance would mark a significant shift for Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip last summer but maintains full control over its borders and airspace. It has rejected calls for a full withdrawal from the West Bank, where it continues to expand settlements deep into Palestinian territory.

US Blocks UN Vote Condemning Gaza Attacks
Meanwhile at the United Nations, the US has blocked a proposed Security Council statement that expressed concern over Israel's ongoing shelling of the Gaza Strip. At least 16 Palestinians have been killed in the attacks. In the most widely-publicized incident, an eight-year girl was killed and seven of her siblings injured when an Israel shell hit their home. Israel says it will continue the shelling until militants halt launching rockets at bordering Israeli towns. Israel has been accused of carrying out a harsh response because the rockets have not caused any injuries. US Ambassador John Bolton said the UN's draft statement was unfairly critical of Israel. But supporters of the resolution said it had also called on Palestinians to prevent rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Referring to the US, Palestinian UN observer Riyad Mansour said: "It was obvious they did not want the Security Council to have a position."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/14/147225

BTW - Old Reb I hope your not too racist to realize that there are also many Christian arabs in Palistine as well.

Why is it that people like Napsterbater can differentiate between Islam the religion and Arabs who profess to follow Islam but cannot do the same with Christianity the religion and people who profess to follow Christianity?

I am using his logic against him. If Islam cannot be seperated from its followers, than Christianity cannot either, and so I can show that Christianity is even more violent and intolerant than Islam is. If it can, then his argument falls down from the bottom up.

“Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?” wonders a US study called, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”.

The 83-page study is co-authored by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

“The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel," says the study.

Relying on efforts by Israeli scholars, journalists and international human rights organizations, the academic paper reveals the role played by the Israel Lobby inside the United States in directing Washington's foreign policy to promote Israel's interests, regardless of negative effects on US own interests.

The study highlights Syria and Iran as Israel's main opponents in the Middle East, shedding light on persistent attempts to get Washington to put pressure on or attack both.

"Israeli leaders did not push the Bush administration to put its crosshairs on Syria before March 2003, because they were two busy pushing for war against Iraq."

The study included quotes by Israeli leaders during that period, making it clear the Jewish state wanted pressures of all kinds, short of military attack, to be exercised by Washington on the Syrian regime.

"Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely adversary to acquire nuclear weapons."

According to the study, the explanation (behind all matchless support to Israel, no matter what) lies in the massive power of the Israel Lobby.

This reminds me of Fast Food Nation. Lobbys are controlling American Policy and not the government.

“Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?” wonders a US study called, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”.

The 83-page study is co-authored by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

“The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel," says the study.

Relying on efforts by Israeli scholars, journalists and international human rights organizations, the academic paper reveals the role played by the Israel Lobby inside the United States in directing Washington's foreign policy to promote Israel's interests, regardless of negative effects on US own interests.

The study highlights Syria and Iran as Israel's main opponents in the Middle East, shedding light on persistent attempts to get Washington to put pressure on or attack both.

"Israeli leaders did not push the Bush administration to put its crosshairs on Syria before March 2003, because they were two busy pushing for war against Iraq."

The study included quotes by Israeli leaders during that period, making it clear the Jewish state wanted pressures of all kinds, short of military attack, to be exercised by Washington on the Syrian regime.

"Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely adversary to acquire nuclear weapons."

According to the study, the explanation (behind all matchless support to Israel, no matter what) lies in the massive power of the Israel Lobby.

This reminds me of Fast Food Nation. Lobbys are controlling American Policy and not the government.

We are for protecting the Israelis from being finished off. The Muslims and Nazis tried very hard to exterminate the Jews and the Muslims are trying to finish the job in Israel.

Peace could come to the reagion if the Muslims would stop trying to kill the Jews.

I am using his logic against him. If Islam cannot be seperated from its followers, than Christianity cannot either, and so I can show that Christianity is even more violent and intolerant than Islam is. If it can, then his argument falls down from the bottom up.

Christainity doesn't control every aspect of their followers lives. Christianity seperates Church and state. Even in Afghastan the top law is the Muslim Sharia law that is so intolerant that they condemned a man to death for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Show me how violent Christianity is. Has Christianity issued a fatwa to kill anybody that wrote a book or play that was distasteful to Christianity? Has Christianity sent suicide bombers to kill people because of where they live or their religion.

Christainity doesn't control every aspect of their followers lives.

Neither does Islam. Islam does penetrate very deeply to it's followers, more deeply than Christianity does, but violent people remain violent, and ignorant people remain ignorant. A religion can force no one's hand.

Has Christianity issued a fatwa to kill anybody that wrote a book or play that was distasteful to Christianity? Has Christianity sent suicide bombers to kill people because of where they live or their religion.

You should read a few independant accounts of the Inquisition and the Crusades sometimes, as well as a general history of the Middle Ages.

The Crusades by themselves were worse than suicide bombers could ever be at this level of aggression. The Inquisition sparked more fear in people's hearts than the whole of every fatwa ever issued.

We are for protecting the Israelis from being finished off. The Muslims and Nazis tried very hard to exterminate the Jews and the Muslims are trying to finish the job in Israel.

Peace could come to the reagion if the Muslims would stop trying to kill the Jews.
Typically, the study was widely shunned by US mainstream media outlets and even less influential media that handled it gave wide ground to critical voices of the study and its authors.

A shorter version of the study was first published March 10, by the London Review of Books.

"The Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media in good part because most American commentators are pro-Israel… This pro-Israel bias is reflected in the editorials of major newspapers," the authors note.

The study names newspapers like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Washington Times and magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and Weekly Standard as biased to Israel or even "zealously defending Israel at every turn."

"Never before have the mainstream US media performed so atrociously, if not discouragingly, as they did this month when the editors ignored a damning report by two prominent university professors who are on the faculties of some of the country's most respectable institutions, Harvard University and the University of Chicago," wrote George S. Hishmeh in the Jordan Times on April 1.

In the study, the two professors, who both had to resign late March from their academic positions in both universities, also took aim at prominent think tanks in the United States, dubbing them, "Think tanks that think one way!"

Naming but a few, the paper says, "Over the 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)."

Another real reason why America supports Israel, its military occupation, and its form of discrimination because America has done the same to Native Americans. We took away their land and gave them little Indian Reservations and an untaxable casinos. Israel, on the other hand, is taking away Palestinian land, building a massive wall; which would bar Palestinians from work, school, and health care, and unlike the Native Americas, Palestinians are not going to get anything except was is already a down struck economy.

Neither does Islam. Islam does penetrate very deeply to it's followers, more deeply than Christianity does, but violent people remain violent, and ignorant people remain ignorant. A religion can force no one's hand.



You should read a few independant accounts of the Inquisition and the Crusades sometimes, as well as a general history of the Middle Ages.

The Crusades by themselves were worse than suicide bombers could ever be at this level of aggression. The Inquisition sparked more fear in people's hearts than the whole of every fatwa ever issued.

Islam does control the lives of muslims, starting with the requirment to face the east and lay prostrate while praying to Allah and they must do this 5 times a day. It is one of the pilars of Islam.



The historical pattern of Islam shows us that when a nation gains a sufficiently large Muslim population, they will begin to agitate for Shariah to be implemented. Shariah is the system of civil law that is based upon the Qur’an and the Ahadith and the work of Muslim scholars in the first two centuries of Islam. Shariah extends beyond just civil law. Applied fully, the Shariah is a code for living that all Muslims should adhere to, including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor. Shariah is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life. Shariah is primarily meant for all Muslims, but applies to a certain extent also for people living inside a Muslim society.

Under the Shariah laws in Afghanistan, the Taliban's religious police, formally known as the Department for Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue, enforce the Shariah laws.

For example, a man’s beard must be long enough to protrude from a fist clenched at the base of the chin. If it is not, he is subject to punishment.

Under Shariah in Afghanistan, women are not allowed to work in any field except the medical sector. The Islamic law of Afghanistan does not allow the employment of women in government departments or international agencies. Women should not go outside their residences with the exception of those working in the medical sector.

Shariah also places restrictions on what women can wear and whom they can see. It forbids women from wearing jewelry and make-up and from making noise with their shoes when they walk. If a woman does work outside the home, she is forbidden to sit beside the driver when traveling to and from work. Stylish dress and decoration of women is forbidden.

There have been reported cases of the beating female doctors and female medical staff at the hospitals where they worked.

Muslims believe that Shariah is not something the intelligence of man can prove wrong, it is only to be accepted by humans, since it is based on the will of Allah. Muslims see their religion and government being ordained by Allah. It is their conviction that Islam is intended to be the religion of all mankind. It is to be the universal religion to replace Judaism, Christianity, and all others. While Muslims may deny it, they are willing to replace other religions first by conversion, then suppression and even armed conflict. In the Philippines, there is a growing Muslim population that is agitating for the institution of Islamic law. They have not hesitated to use violence to try to implement their beliefs.

Muslims claim that there is freedom of religion under Shariah. When Islam gains a strong representation in the population, they want to impose Shariah on everyone, since they believe that it is the only law that comes directly from Allah.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-islamic-law-shariah.htm


The crusades was a survival response to Islamic conquest of Europe. The Muslims always cry when the victim gets up and fights back.



The roots of Christian obsession with the Islamic world can be traced at least to the Crusades, if not earlier. It was at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. that Charles "The Hammer" Martel and the Franks turned the tide of Muslim expansion. Many heroic legends were created in the Crusades, launched at the end of the eleventh century. All of them had to do with heroic Christian knights battling perfidious Islamic "saracens." Hence, for the Europeans, the word "Crusade" has always had a positive aura around it. Any man or woman who is fighting for a just or worthy cause can be said to be "crusading" for it.

Europeans are aware of the expansion of Islam into Europe. The conquest of Spain beginning in 711 A.D. is etched into historical memory as surely as the image of the Alhambra Palace dominates Granada. So too are all the maximal lines of the Islamic military invasion into Europe, culminating in the Ottoman Turks' siege of Vienna in 1683. Most Europeans believe that they narrowly avoided a cultural disaster when the Muslims marched into Europe. In their view, if Islam had triumphed in Europe as successfully as it had in other parts of the world (and Islam is still the most rapidly expanding religion of the world), it would have snuffed out the "lights" in Europe. Europeans believed that they came close to being wiped out by forces of darkness. This is the reason why Islam affects Western minds so strongly. There are deep, latent, historical fears buried in there. Five continuous centuries of Western triumph have not wiped them out.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/about/beyond.jsp

Crusading seems a lot like Jihading.

Crusading seems a lot like Jihading.

Jihad is a basic part of Islam while the crusades was to save Europe. Both are/were brutal.

Old-reb from your understanding was does jihad mean?

Old-reb from your understanding was does jihad mean?

I think Danial Pipes can find the words for Jihad better than I can. It is not a simple thing that you can look up in the dictionary and the whole world will agree with the definition. I think that the way Muslims use the word best represents the meaning.

What does the Arabic word jihad mean?

One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad.

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:

* The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;
* Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;
* Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
* Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;
* Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and
* Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.

But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining jihad as:

* An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);
* "Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary), and
* "Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).

It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.

The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent jihad.

Unfortunately, such a process of redemption is not now under way

I think Danial Pipes can find the words for Jihad better than I can. It is not a simple thing that you can look up in the dictionary and the whole world will agree with the definition. I think that the way Muslims use the word best represents the meaning.

Actually it is that simple. Instead of looking it up in the dictionary you can look it up in the Quran.

Allah says very clearly: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)


(When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we only want to correct things.' Indeed they are the mischief doers, but they realize (it) not.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 11-12)

The word Jihad does not mean “Holy War”. It means “struggle” or “striving”. The word for war in the Qur’an is “Harb” or “Qital”. Jihad means serious and sincere struggle on the personal as well as on the social level. It is a struggle to do good and to remove injustice, oppression and evil from the society. This struggle should be spiritual as well as social, economic and political. Jihad is to work hard to do right things. In the Qur’an this word is used in its different forms 33 times. It often comes with other Qur’anic concepts such as faith, repentance, righteous deeds and migration.

Actually, as it has been clarified again and again that while Jihad serves as a means of defense for Muslims against aggression, and acts as a deterrent factor against any anti-Islam scheme launched by enemies, it must never be construed as something synonymous with aggression.

Jihad is never a tool of waging war against the innocents; it's never a means of flexing muscles or bullying the weak and oppressed. Jihad in Islam is something unique, established to defend the divine message from being eliminated or hindered by its enemies.

Jihad is one of the most misunderstood, and abused aspects of Islam. There are some Muslims who exploit and misuse this concept for their own political objectives. There are many non-Muslims who misunderstand it. There are some non-Muslims who misinterpret it to discredit Islam and Muslims.

Islam does control the lives of muslims, starting with the requirment to face the east and lay prostrate while praying to Allah and they must do this 5 times a day. It is one of the pilars of Islam.

It is only required to observe the five pillars of Islam to be a Muslim. One of them is just a suggestion, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Going by the standards of the Middle Ages, this is pretty easy. Christianity had an iron-hold on the population, and missing mass a few times was enough to have your door banged on by the minister and being questioned. Islam doesn't have nearly as many doctrinal splits as Christianity did. Islam in theory was compatible with Christianity and Judaism, and as long as you observed the social rules, and didn't make a fuss, they'd leave you alone. Now, of course, times are different.

Actually it is that simple. Instead of looking it up in the dictionary you can look it up in the Quran.

Allah says very clearly: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190)


(When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we only want to correct things.' Indeed they are the mischief doers, but they realize (it) not.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 11-12)

The word Jihad does not mean “Holy War”. It means “struggle” or “striving”. The word for war in the Qur’an is “Harb” or “Qital”. Jihad means serious and sincere struggle on the personal as well as on the social level. It is a struggle to do good and to remove injustice, oppression and evil from the society. This struggle should be spiritual as well as social, economic and political. Jihad is to work hard to do right things. In the Qur’an this word is used in its different forms 33 times. It often comes with other Qur’anic concepts such as faith, repentance, righteous deeds and migration.

Actually, as it has been clarified again and again that while Jihad serves as a means of defense for Muslims against aggression, and acts as a deterrent factor against any anti-Islam scheme launched by enemies, it must never be construed as something synonymous with aggression.

Jihad is never a tool of waging war against the innocents; it's never a means of flexing muscles or bullying the weak and oppressed. Jihad in Islam is something unique, established to defend the divine message from being eliminated or hindered by its enemies.

Jihad is one of the most misunderstood, and abused aspects of Islam. There are some Muslims who exploit and misuse this concept for their own political objectives. There are many non-Muslims who misunderstand it. There are some non-Muslims who misinterpret it to discredit Islam and Muslims.


It is like a rapist saying, I am not a rapist I just like to make the women happy.

In other words the word is defined by the deeds done in its name not the by the definition given to it by the Jihadist.

the crusades was to save Europe.

The crusades were not to save Europe. Where did you ever get that idea? Probably Sunday school. The Crusades had one goal, and one goal only, to conquer Jerusalem and to kill as many Muslims and take as much land as they could.

Islamic Jihad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about particular organizations known as Islamic Jihad. For the general Islamic idea of jihad as a "holy war," see Jihad.

Islamic Jihad (Arabic: حركة الجهاد الإسلامي, Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami) is a militant Islamist group based in the Syrian capital, Damascus. See: Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Islamic Jihad is also a name used by various other militant groups. Since 1983, when a group calling itself "Islamic Jihad" claimed the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, it has been used by several other organizations. Hezbollah is believed to have used the name in the 1980s to claim responsibility for attacks in Lebanon, parts of the Middle East, and Europe. There is also the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Yemeni Islamic Jihad.

In the Western world, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the organization usually meant by the term "Islamic Jihad", due to the widespread media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Although other groups may claim Islamic Jihad as their name, the particular name Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO) is the one used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Pasdaran, as a cover name for state sanctioned terrorist operations. The order for the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing most likely originated high up in the Iranian authority, and the IJO made the claim that they carried out the embassy bombing.

It is like a rapist saying, I am not a rapist I just like to make the women happy.

In other words the word is defined by the deeds done in its name not the by the definition given to it by the Jihadist.
Its nothing like that.... Because jihad doesn't mean what you think it means. It means struggle or strive contrary to Western beliefs.

Islamic Jihad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about particular organizations known as Islamic Jihad. For the general Islamic idea of jihad as a "holy war," see Jihad.

Islamic Jihad (Arabic: حركة الجهاد الإسلامي, Harakat al-Jihad al-Islami) is a militant Islamist group based in the Syrian capital, Damascus. See: Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Islamic Jihad is also a name used by various other militant groups. Since 1983, when a group calling itself "Islamic Jihad" claimed the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, it has been used by several other organizations. Hezbollah is believed to have used the name in the 1980s to claim responsibility for attacks in Lebanon, parts of the Middle East, and Europe. There is also the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Yemeni Islamic Jihad.

In the Western world, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the organization usually meant by the term "Islamic Jihad", due to the widespread media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Although other groups may claim Islamic Jihad as their name, the particular name Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO) is the one used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Pasdaran, as a cover name for state sanctioned terrorist operations. The order for the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing most likely originated high up in the Iranian authority, and the IJO made the claim that they carried out the embassy bombing.
You can post an article about Islamic Jihad all you want. Just because a terrorist organization proclaims that they are committing jihad doesn't make it true. I have used this example many times, the KKK proclaims they are Protestant Christians however, this does not run true for most if not all other Protestant Christians.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/705995.html

Very well put Ivan