Us leaving the ME would do nothing but abandon our allies to the islamoterrorists. The islamoterrorists would still be committing terrorism against us, as they are against other countries that are not involved in the ME. And, the idea that we abandon the ME to the terrorists until they attack Israel is kind of silly since they are already attacking Israel and the entire free world and state quite clearly that they will never stop. So, in reality, you are proposing nothing, not even leaving the ME to the islamoterrorists.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Islam is a violent religion at times. But so is Christianity. The crusades killed what 9 Million? Wasn't the virgin marry 11-13 years old? I'm not condemning Christianity I am a Christan, but you cannot lump Muslims into one group of extremist because if you do I'm blaming you for the OK city bombings. And please don't post your proof from a religious organization with something to prove.

__________________

The crusades were a reaction to muslim invasions. They started it, of course. All you have to do is look at muhammed, the creator of this evil ideology called islam. he began it with war, murder, rape, theivery, slavery, and child abuse and told all who follow him to do the same, and we see the results- an endless global war to enforce their idiocy on everyone.

Tim McVeigh didn't commit the OC bombing in the name of any religion. Quit making stuff up to defend evil you know nothing about.

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

People can believe whatever they want so long as they don't go around harming innocent people, especially because they disagee with them. So how about we crusade the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of any Islamic (or any other nation, for that matter) country that dares try to harm us? And maybe take some of those yummy oil fields while we're at it.

I see - so you are saying that Jihad is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Do you have anything to support that opinion? Or did you just make that up?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pa...slam.htm#jihad

The Myth:

Islam’s Western apologists sometimes claim that since the Arabic word, Jihad, literally means “fight” or “struggle,” it refers to an “inner struggle” rather than holy war.

The Truth:

This is extremely difficult to reconcile with the Qur’an, which, for example, exempted the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95). This would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle. It is also unclear why Muhammad would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking merely of character development.

With this in mind, Muslims themselves usually admit that there are two meanings to the word, but insist that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,” whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.” In fact, this misconception is based only on an a single hadith that is extremely weak and unreliable.

By contrast, the most reliable of all Hadith is that of Bukhari. The word, Jihad, is mentioned over 200 times in reference to the words of Muhammad and each one is a clear connotation to holy war. By contrast, Bukhari does not contain a single reference to Jihad within the context of “personal struggle.”

Further Reading:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Ar...sser-Jihad.htm

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

I love your awesome reference, dude. That totally opened up my eyes! I can see now that you've simply been reading (*)(*)(*)(*) websites that preach the worst type of (*)(*)(*)(*). Does this even list an author? and is the author a creditable reference? or could it be your website? Interesting how you consider that proof.

Fine... Blame away... but unlike the position you're advocating, this members religion is known far and wide to have vehemently condemned the Clinton Islamic bombing of OKC, using white proxies... There is no such Muslim outcry against that Muslim attack or any preceding or after it...

[quote=GovernmentCheese;476889]
One thing dhimmitude requires is that all non-Muslims under Sharia pay an extra tax to Allah among other things.



QUOTE]

ooh great more friggin taxes!!!!

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.politicalforum.com/group.php?groupid=43

You didn't note which fact of those listed in his position you were contesting... was it your intention to set your argument on a spurious appeal to authority?

It seems to me that if you're in possession of facts which contradict those of your oppossing member, that you'd post them in contest; yet you didn't...

Now what do you suppose we can make of that?

While you haven't asked, I will nonetheless tell you what it looks like to me... you read a position and given what you feel is true, but lack sufficient evidence to assess a certain judgment... you're left with considerable doubt, but nonetheless strong feelings on the issue...

The argument presented you with an opportunity to assess the benefit of that doubt and to assign it to either your nation, which is at the moment at war with that religion... this despite whether the US government realizes it or not; or that of a religion which preaches hate and death against anything that moves, which rejects or ignores it's tenets... you chose to assign the benfit of that doubt to that hate filled vessel of evil.

At least that's what I make of it... So tell me, why would you do that?