# Muslims who defend us



## JTM (Nov 17, 2009)

Here's something to think about.  

When they polarize us, black people think Katrina is whites' fault, and whites think it's the blacks' fault.  Who does this help?  Nobody?  Wrong, it's the people that would cherish this polarization of the United States.  With this polarization, they can do whatever they want.  We recently had a moment of silence for "The violence at Fort Hood" in lodge, after which a brother stood up and very loudly/proudly exclaimed that the WM was wrong and that it was definitely a terrorist attack.

Who does that help?  Words like Islamo-fascist and Muslim terrorist.  Total crap.

This article brings up Cpt. Humayun Khan, U.S. Army, Muslim, American, killed when he approached a suicide bomber in Iraq and other Muslims.  Do we really need the word "Islamo" or "Muslim" in front of fascist and terrorist to give it more umph?  An educated person would tell you that it detracts from the word "terrorist" and "fascist."

Keep in mind two people when reading this article: our Muslim brothers and the Muslims that still have to go to work every day in Ft. Hood that are working hard to protect our country.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09321/1013975-109.stm

Quoted here:



> A sampling from the web:
> 
> "Why are these Muslim invaders allowed to carry on freely in this country -- protected by outreach, Obama and PC mental illness?"
> 
> ...



​


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

JTM said:


> Who does that help?  Words like Islamo-fascist and Muslim terrorist.  Total crap.
> 
> Do we really need the word "Islamo" or "Muslim" in front of fascist and terrorist to give it more umph?  An educated person would tell you that it detracts from the word "terrorist" and "fascist."



While I always appreciate a good rant, sometimes it just is what it is.

The words "Islamo" or "muslim" before fascist or terrorist is just like any other adjective.  The first word lends more description to the second.  Without them, we can assume that all terrorists from any different religion or region are all the same?  McVeigh, Unabomber, and the 9-11 crew are all the same?  Of course not.  With McVeigh and the Unabomber, we'll use words like "homegrown" to describe what kind of terrorist they are.  Are they any less evil?  No, but they aren't Muslim.


----------



## JTM (Nov 18, 2009)

point being that when they talk about a terrorist attack, bringing up the fact that they're muslim doesn't add it to anything.  why pick that adjective when you could pick another one?

Black-haired terrorist?  White t-shirt wearing terrorist?  

Why don't they use those words?  Because they don't play on your emotions nearly as much as "Muslim terrorist," as if that *really* had anything to do with it.

if it did, we'd be screwed as we have 1.2 billion muslims in the world.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

Well, if his muslim extremist views motivated the attack, then yes, it does have to do with it.

I do agree with what you are saying in regards to the sensationalist aspect to it though.  The word "terrorist" doesn't really evoke much of anything in me anymore, regardless of what word comes before it.


----------



## Sirius (Nov 18, 2009)

You don't usually here the KKK referred to as Chrristo-Terrorists. But they are. The use the Bible to justify everything they do. They believe the bible is the literal word of god and that they have they only true interpretation of it. Just like Al-Qaeda. Both are fundamentalist and neither representative of the faith to which they belong. 

I agree w/ JTM, words count. 

I have agreed w JTM twice in one day, the end must be near. :biggrin:


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

Sirius said:


> I agree w/ JTM, words count.



Ok, to the best of my knowledge, we are both saying that the words count, just in different ways, and variences in importance.  What exactly are you meaning here?




JTM said:


> Black-haired terrorist?  White t-shirt wearing terrorist?
> 
> Why don't they use those words?  Because they don't play on your emotions nearly as much as "Muslim terrorist," as if that *really* had anything to do with it.



That is pretty self-explanatory if you look at it with common sense.  Does the color of his hair or shirt have anything to do with why he blew something up?  No, but his muslim affiliation does.  Particularly when words like "jihad," which is a VERY muslim word, comes into play.  An _educated person_ would tell you that the more adjectives you use, the clearer picture you paint.

JTM, I hope that with your hatred for details, you never pursue a career in law enforcement... lol


----------



## RedTemplar (Nov 18, 2009)

Brethren, after reading the above statements, I have one question: Is there still a need for Freemasonry in today's World?


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Ok, to the best of my knowledge, we are both saying that the words count, just in different ways, and variences in importance.  What exactly are you meaning here?
> 
> That is pretty self-explanatory if you look at it with common sense.  Does the color of his hair or shirt have anything to do with why he blew something up?  No, but his muslim affiliation does.  Particularly when words like "jihad," which is a VERY muslim word, comes into play.  An _educated person_ would tell you that the more adjectives you use, the clearer picture you paint.
> 
> JTM, I hope that with your hatred for details, you never pursue a career in law enforcement... lol



what i'm meaning is that using the word "muslim" detracts from the reason that he's a terrorist.  aka, "wait a minute, if he's a muslim, why is he a terrorist?  that doesn't make any sense."  oxymoronic, in a way.  the only reason it's not treated like that by the general public is that a) they don't know jack shit about the muslim religion and b) news casters keep using it as sensationalism.  the only reason b) works is because of a).

when you go around spreading muslim hate by calling it a muslim terrorist attack, what are you doing to the folks that still have to go to work at ft. hood that are muslim?  "OH SHIT, HE'S A MUSLIM... HE MUST BE A TERRORIST!!"

total crap sensationalism that brought this on.  it's also one reason the brother stood up in lodge and said "WM, you're wrong, this wasn't an act of violence, this was a muslim terrorist attack."  total bullshit.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

So, basically this is a "not all muslims are terrorists" debate?  If so, agreed.  

If we aren't allowed to place a descriptor in front of the word, then you are claiming that all terrorists and their motives are the same?


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

nobody says you can't place a descriptor in front of the word terrorism, but at least get it right.  however, i wouldn't use "muslim" just because it's sensational and this decade's fad.

also, you're saying that in some cases the terrorists are terrorists BECAUSE they are muslim, and that motivates them to be terrorists?

in this i think you're wrong.  there has been enough research into this subject to prove otherwise... jihad is in fact one of the 5 pillars of islam.  however, it also specifically prohibits the killing of innocents.  so are these plane hijackings jihad?  no, they aren't, they are a twisted and redefined version of islam, and in no way representative of jihad or islam in any way.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

JTM said:


> in this i think you're wrong.  there has been enough research into this subject to prove otherwise...



I think you are wrong as well, and I'd like to know what research backs this.

Some terrorists are motivated by their radical Islamic views.  Fact.  They blow themselves up for their religious beliefs.  Fact.  A muslim terrorist has different motives than a homegrown terrorist.  Fact.  Motives are important when dealing with and tracking terrorists.  Fact.  The word muslim before the word terrorist offends mainstream muslims.  Fact.  Many terrorists are muslim.  Fact.

Just because the word "muslim" is sensational and faddish doesn't make it any less true.  You can't change truth just because you don't like the way it sounds or who it offends.

Yes, Islam is touchy when it comes to hurting innocents.  Islam's definitions of what an "innocent" is varies depending on what part of the Koran you are reading.  The Koran is like the Bible, where you can take pretty much any part of it and make it say what you want it to.


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

oh come on, you're a RP fan just like me.  you remember the whole blowback thing we had against "Rudy 9/11ani?" 

they don't attack us because of their religion or because "Muslims hate christians."  Even the 9/11 report acknowledges that.  Al Qeada is only able to motivate it's soldiers to terrorize when we're over there.  It's a response to the U.S. interventionism policy.

Anti-interventionist Terrorist would be a much more accurate way of putting it.  people don't want to hear that though.

They could just as easily be christian or jewish.  you can twist those religions just the same, cherry picking verses that show you how this is the way to go.  you can only really motivate them to come over here and do this crap when we're over there, occupying their country.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

JTM said:


> Anti-interventionist Terrorist would be a much more accurate way of putting it.  people don't want to hear that though.



Oh, but wait, that is another terrorism adjective.  Wouldn't that offend anti-interventionists?

Either way, Islamic principles and teachings are why they are attacking even when we are there.  The Koran is clear that while we are an aggressor, we are not innocent.  Still goes right back to Islam.

Have you ever taken an anti-terrorism class?


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

Zawahiri said:
			
		

> “It is well known that whoever follows such a course,                bombarding infidels, will inevitably hit their women and children,                who are otherwise forbidden from being killed. Likewise, the same                goes if Muslims are among them. It is compulsory that this [the                possibility of hitting women, children, and Muslims] not dissuade                the launching of an incursion against them… even if one dreads                hitting another Muslim” (AQR,165).





			
				Koran/Qu'ran said:
			
		

> [2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and
> do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the
> limits.
> 
> ...



Zawahiri goes against the Koran when he says that it's okay to kill innocents.  You can only retaliate, and only to reciprocate the crime.  Killing one innocent for the crime of another is a sin.

Is Zawahiri teaching Islam?  Not in the least.  That's why 1.1999 billion condemn the 0.001% of muslims that think it's okay.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

Those quotes look great, but since we have invaded their lands, our entire populations here are no longer considered innocent.

Read Surah 9.

Surah 5-33/34

Surah 5-51

The list goes on and on.  This debate has gone on before in another old thread, where I listed a ton of verses that show Islam's tendency towards superiority, propensity to resist any "oppresion" violently, and rejection of world peace and tolerance.  There is plenty in the Koran to base this stuff on.  Does this make all Muslims bad?  No, we should love them just the same.  At the same time, we should still keep our eyes open.


----------

