yomom1919

I tried to make clear that it does all come down to an individual interpretation, and I hope you know that I know this, or else I would be a very ignorant person :P. Anyone can twist any set of any text/group/religion to their benefits. A 'misinterpretation' is merely a interpretation that is not your's that you consider incorrect or wrong. However, when it comes to religious texts, there is no set misinterpretation, it is all in the mind of the beholder. Agreed with most, just a few clarifications, 2. I was actually referring to Muslims in the Middle East, not those in America. 4. This is the only point I truly disagree with you on. The perfect example is Vietnam. Iraq is Vietnam in concrete. As you may know, in Vietnam, the Vietcong had an extreme home-field advantage. They could be hiding anywhere, they knew the terrain, and anyone, anywhere could be an enemy. We could have robocop down there and America still wouldn't be winning, because robocop doesn't know who to shoot. Thats how the Iraq war is, our highly trained soldiers, gear, etc. do not know who the enemy is. Any car could have a bomb in it. Any house could have a gun in it. American troops frequently do house sweeps to try to increase their chances of knowing who the enemy is, but it still is impossible. My point being, it is the insurgents and terrorists who are essentially winning this guerrilla war against America.

[hide=long quotes] Who is many? Surely not everyone in the middle east! J Exactly! they're fighting against oppression and persecution. However, this differs from place to place but NOT because they are Muslim. It differs because of the way the culture is in that part of the area. While they may justify this by using religion, they are doing it fundamentally because they think they are persecuted and oppressed! The Qu'ran isn't telling them they are oppressed. The Qu'ran is telling them to fight oppression. It is their personal view on what oppression is. I view Jihad as a mental struggle against temptation, evil, etc. Every PERSON has their own interpretation. What reason do they have to say "leave me alone"? It's because they dont like American foreign policy. I agree they are going about it the wrong way but it's not because the Qu'ran telling them to. There is no passage in my religion that says "Go kill and be violent to things you dont like". Let me put it to you this way. the Bible and the Qu'ran have basically the same context in terms of violence. They are both violent, they both are fairly close-minded in modern day terms, and they both advocate the same thing. However, you see less extreme Christians than Muslims...but they have fundamentally the same holy book. Therefore, we can conclude it is the wicked people that I am ashamed to say follow Islam that are the root of the problem and NOT Islam itself. It is a small movement. We just have a crappy plan of going about it. No, I am not going to list my battle plans if I was president. All I'm saying is so far we have failed with our "highly trained army". Yes, we cant get out. Our plan fails. Yes, it is extremism but we should just let problems solve themselves. For example, split Iraq according to how the people want it. Like I said, you can NEVER impose democracy. Jihad is important but the context, I feel, is out of place. It's a huge problem. We made it that way and now we need to fix it. The problem is we cant. I would be mad but by no means would I use religion to justify it. It seems like you realize that religion is just a cover, but I am not sure. I am in the defense of my religion and how people perceive it. Yes, it is important that the general public be educated about my religion. I am not in the defense of terrorism, the general public of the Middle East, America, or any person. [/hide] First off, before responding to what you are saying, I would like to clear a few things up, because we are currently in a miscommunication :P. 1. Going back 2 statements ago, your point about extremists was irrelevant because I was arguing with [whoever it was], about demonstrating a violent passage in the Koran. It does not matter who follows it, even if nobody follows it. His argument was that there are no violent passages in the Koran, which I disproved, leading your point about extremists to be irrelevant. It doesn't matter if anyone follows them or not; they're still there. Thats why your point was irrelevant. Hope that's cleared up and understood. 2. You need to make which argument you are responding to clear. I am not linking the Koran to violence in Iraq and the middle east, I am linking the basis of Jihad in the religion and the basis of human rights. I am responding to your argument about there being a little number of extremists. You cannot link the argument in which I stated some violent passages in the Koran to my argument on the middle east. They were under two completely different basis's, I was simply showing a fact, not linking motives. That being said, I will proceed. I'll respond to quotes by number. 1. Many times throughout my argument I attempted to make clear that I was not talking about the Muslim population in whole. I never said everyone, and I never implied it. But I have read a few times that it is not uncommon to pray for the 'holy warriors'. Like I said, I am not referring to everyone in the middle east. 2. I agree with you, but due to their view of Jihad [there are many differentiations, as you stated yours, and Wikipedia said this also], it is not merely a basis of human rights. To us, that is the obvious case, however, Jihad makes it even a more profound cause. It's a cause on top of a duty in their mind. And I agree it is their personal view what oppression is, but that's only part of my point; religion has a different interpretation among people in the religion. 'Extremism' is just another interpretation of Islam. Anyone can take any set of ideals and interpret them and change them. It's application of what their interpretation to religion is, on top of a general issue of freedom and manipulation. For more information on motives for 9/11, read Imperial Hubris, a book written by 22 year CIA veteran Michael Scheuer. [http] 3. You can read about some of those motives in the wikipedia link stated above, and learn that the attack really wasn't out of the blue. Also, it's important to note that America has engaged in what some historians consider terrorism before. The most blatant example, that some historians regard, being the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [note]. As you probably know, Japan committed terrorism in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many can say that America was simply 'terrorizing' back. But if we engage in such terrorism tactics ourselves, can we rightfully condemn terrorist attacks of any kind? A bit of hypocrisy there, don't you think? [Just a side note and my view, it's really a debate without an answer, and I don't want to go too off topic]. But essentially, the extremists view that we disrupted and changed Saudi Arabia to keep oil prices cheap, which is essentially true to some extent [Google it for more information]. The terrorists simply believe that they hit us back with 9/11. That is their basis for saying 'leave me alone'. Now, you may be wondering, "what does this have to do with Islam?" I am not linking them to their religion, they linked it themselves. Many of them did not fear the attacks because they believe they were doing it for Allah. As for your second point, I agree with you again. It is a group twisting a text to their benefit. It can be done with any set of ideals, anywhere. 4. I agree, but it's not that small. And I'm not expecting you to list your battle plans :P, if the smartest minds in the universe all worked together, even they would not be able to formulate a good plan for Iraq. It's just a waste of time. It is a small movement, but it's not as small as we would like to think. 5. Never impose anything on a people, is a diplomatic rule of thumb. The English imposed their government on America back in the 1700's, and America disliked it so America rebelled. Is America not being hypocritical? It does not matter what they imposed, good or bad, it should not be done in the first place, America has no right to do such. And problems should be solved themselves, for there really isn't any other way to solve them. Like I said, it is a group twisting something to their benefits. They feel this is their obligation due to their religious text. 6. Yes, I do realize it is a cover. It is also a motivation, however. I understand what your motives in defending and upkeeping the name of Islam, for it is tainted by those who stereotype. They do truly believe, however, that it is their obligation as both humans with natural rights and humans whose duty is to defend themselves and their religion whenever threatened, using whatever force. Ofcourse, those are motivations that a non-religious person could have, but they feel it is even more of a duty. Note: I do not support the terrorist attacks of 9/11, or other terrorist attacks committed by any nations at any time. It is not a civilized nation's obligation to engage in revenge as a motive. I was simply stating some hypocrisies committed by us. This is similar to the comments on the current thread "The Other Side of Russia", in which people commented statements essentially saying 'America isn't the only country allowed to have bombs, so they shouldn't complain when other countries test them."

Thanks for your comments everybody, I'll try to work on not using powerful filters and such :).

Her friend accidentally cut off his finger doing something, and gave it to her for this little ploy.

Uh, your friend is either very, VERY strong or doesn't do pushups correctly. I think I'll go with the latter :P.

I am being very biased and exaggerating, I suppose. But it was only to make a point. He was dumbing it down, I tried to bring it back up. But 655,000 dead doesn't need any exaggeration, thats a figure and a fact [well, estimation]. Edit: Sorry, I thought that was a response to my long statement.

Okay, thanks. I'll check out your gallery and read some tutorials. :). I only used one filters on every one except the ocean, but your right they are very filter-y.

Your making assumptions about my arguments. First of all, from reading about extremists in the middle east, I have learned that many pray to Allah for the holy warriors [aka. terrorists, in this case], to be victorious. I will look for sources, but, at the moment, let's just take a logical look at this: Jihad [http], "is sometimes called the 6th pillar of the religion [islam]." "The term has both violent and non-violent meanings". "The primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state". Although some Islamic scholars have differered on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression. In other words, Jihad is important part of Islam, so logically thinking, keep that in mind. The bolded statement is what extremists believe, that in order to defend Islam, it is your duty that you be called to arms. Many Muslims wish to defend their religion against foreign influences [such as the Americans, and they grow to hate America due to its lack of honor, respect, and its infidelity]. Therefore, many pray to Allah for these 'holy warriors', to defeat the Americans, and to sustain Islamic culture. Because, in the principle of Jihad, defense by force is justified. I'm not sure if you realize this, and many people don't, but terrorism is a form of defense. It is the act of implementing fear into your enemies so they 'leave you alone'. No, I do not think the majority of Muslims in the middle east are terrorists. If that was the case we would have a serious problem on their hands. But many are extremist Muslims, who believe in the protection of their Muslim state through force and implementing fear in their enemies through terrorism, although they may not act upon it, and I don't see how this could be any more obvious. America has one of the most highly trained armies in the world, if there were only a few extremists, as you claim, do you think Afghanistan, Iraq, or terrorist attacks would be an issue? You can find terrorist weapon holdings all over the middle east. Did you ever see videos of extremists shooting their AK's all over the place, or extremist training videos? Extremism is a problem and a threat to America, and I don't see how you can logically think that it's such a small movement if the threat is so high. "America is in Iraq because we can't get out"? Now what kind of thinking is that? Obviously, we can't get out. But why do you think we can't get out? Because the number of extremists! Do you have any knowledge of the Iraq civil conflicts between extremists going on today? The Sunni and the Shi'a blow up each other's temples, and attack each other during prayer. Would you not call that 'extremist'? It's a rampant problem. They both believe they are practicing Jihad also, and If they believe in their religion, why would you think that so little people support such an important part of their religion? Just take a look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict also. Not only that, extremism is a growing movement, many people become angry at America [and other countries, for that matter], for disrupting their state. People who's relatives are killed want to enact revenge, and take up a gun and go to battle. And the major reason America can't get out is it's because it's a concrete jungle, you will never know where the enemy is. America tried to liberate Iraq, and in the process it became destroyed [both America and Extremist forces to blame]. But how can you sit here and think that it is a 'small' problem or issue when an estimated 655,000 thousand Iraqi's died. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html] Would you not be mad at a government if they invaded your country, and in the process 655,000 locals, including some of your family died? No, I am not supporting terrorism, I completely and utterly despise it. But if you can sit here and say 'its not that big', thats just completely false, and it even goes beyond the religion. Revenge can be a very harsh thing.

Thanks Yeah, I accidentally back twice to the off topic and then posted. #-o Edit: Thank you mods :).

Whoops, gallery please :wall:

Well, I've never used Photoshop before, and I got a bit bored. So I decided to mess around with those default pictures that come with Windows XP [like the ship, pyramids, ocean, and zebra.] It didn't take too long for each one, around 10 minutes or so. I'm really not too sure what I'm doing at all, so If you guys could give me some help and point me in the right direction that would be appreciated :). They're all kind of big, so I posted links to them instead. [hide=Ship] Original: http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7679/img0iw5.jpg Manipulated: http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2892/img2vo5.jpg [/hide] [hide=Pyramid] Original: http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7999/img6nb6.jpg Manipulated: http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/4598/img131ap9.jpg [/hide] [hide=Zebra] Original: http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/9044/img9tx9.jpg Manipulated: http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3185/img3no7.jpg [/hide] [hide=Ocean] Accidentally saved over original #-o. Manipulated: http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/8792/img1lq1.jpg [/hide]

Pink Floyd - House of the Rising Sun Next: Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced

Emo does not equal the psychological state of depression... Where I live 'emo' is a synonym for acting sad or depressed without good reason and for attention [Ex]. Chances are, you'll usually see smiling, happy, and joking 'emos'. Emo's don't get get depressed because the world isn't a perfect place. Their 'depression' comes from the fact that their middle class world, in which they have food, shelter, a school, computer, and have a bunch of scene/emo friends, is somehow 'depressing' [they have yet to prove a good reason for depression]. Most of their 'angst' comes from their 'girl troubles', but, miraculously, most of them happen to have emo and scene girlfriends and are in happy [well, at least non-dramatical] relationships. They usually hang around downtown all day and never do their homework and mess around in school [at least the ones where I live]. That's our local definition of an emo/scenester, and thats a pretty accurate stereotype for the ones in my neighborhood.

I find that comment pretty darn funny. Both Russia and USA got enough nukes to destroy this plane x times where x is a number bigger than 1. Yes, this bomb has the ability for mass destruction, but so does around 10k of your bombs. This is just one new thing in the heating Russia vs USA action. USA already launched their plans of the missile shield to the eastern/middle Europe and like I predicted, Russia didn't just watch it happen. It would have been a miracle if they didn't do anything for their military. I'd like to hear what's the point there? Strategically important place? Oil? Both? As for the first quote, I was arguing his point of weapon usage in Afghanistan, not weapon holdings in general, please read through the whole series of quotes next time... As for the second quote, don't be so literal; I was, obviously, referring to the 'claimed' point of removing Saddam from Iraq, and developing Iraq as a nation. Many political officials in support of the war claimed those goals. Therefore, using WMD's on Iraq would ultimately defeat the said purpose of reconstructing Iraq. My statement in brackets implies that there is little to no purpose of the Iraq conflict. Please, next time, Read between the lines...

Then, in that case, I completely agree with you. Except, of course, if the nation that is developing the WMD's is unstable. [i'm not pro-American or anti, I hope I'm not coming across as such].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire [Thermobaric AGM] Scroll down the page to a list of countries that currently use them, don't single out America... "The US is already deploying such weapons from the BLU-118 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åcave busterÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

America doesn't use nuclear weapons in Iraq... If we did it would've defeated the point [as little of a point there is] for being there.

O Warrior, where art thou?

I also have a question for you all: Can you do crunches and pushups daily? or only every other day just like weights?

Nah, you got owned on the previous page :P . Ouch #-o. Didn't see that 17k. I'm gona go give my comp roids... It'll be past 20k in no time.

Assuming you don't shave your man-parts, stick your crotch between your legs and look down. Congratulations, you've just seen Vanessa Hudgens naked!

I do realize that, I'm arguing with the law; she broke the law, fine, I know that, I accept that. I'm arguing to which degree the ridiculousness of this particular case applies to the law. I believe this application of the law resulting in arrest was unfair and ridiculous. Thanks to the constitution, this lady will get a lawyer and get set free. Anyway, by law, it's her supervisors fault. I do, however, think that the supervisor should be reprimanded, because she did not order the food to be thrown out.

Your point is irrelevant. But, the extremists have a bunch of supporters; just because some Muslims don't take action on this doesn't mean they don't believe in violence to promote Islam. Many Muslims in the Middle East support and pray for the Holy Warriors. If you are Muslim and believe in the beneficial act of prayer, you are praying for killers to keep killing. Also, the violence to promote Islam was seen in the years of the Muslim Empires, etc. Also, there are many, many extremists all over the middle east. You seem misinformed and think that there are only a few thousands; if that was the case, America wouldn't still be in Iraq, and that's Iraq only...