Physia

Any comments on these? It is not hurting us. It is already growing day by day. This bumps us back to the point of "reform." That's how it's for the better.

Since the Quran says that 'Mecca' can't be bombed, it will create contradictions, which will lead to reform. I believe I have said it in other posts, so I am repeating it here. It would be more interesting to have Muslims discuss this topic with us, but I believe that we must look at the bigger picture of it. Reform in Islam equals a new way of thinking and interpreting Quran. There is a downfall in the proposition of bombing Mecca I believe, and that is the freedom the radicals have to interpret the Quran however they want. They can easily continue on with their radical Islamic teachings of anti-Democracy, anti-West, etc., and by bombing Mecca that will attract others, moderates could be included. What I would like to question is: Are moderates going to be attracted to the idea of contradictions in the Quran and hint for reform, or are they going to be attracted to the idea that 'an imperialist state,' as they regard us, attacked the center and holiest place in Islam? I will go ahead and actually question some of my Muslim friends about this, and get their input. I do not have a Quran with me, but I've asked a friend to look up. Once they get the correct Aya's, I'll post them on here. They assured me, however, that there's something close to this in the Quran. 9/11 and taking over Jerusalem are not the same issue as Mecca. Mecca is mentioned in the Quran that it can't be bombed, so based on that I make a conclusion that there will be 'reform' or 'some type of change' within Islam. Also, to clarify myself, I did not deny that it will create hatred, but I believe it is for the better.

I'll try to get some information about the Quran and Mecca relations and all that. Now, what I am certain about, Mecca is considered the center of Islam, the place where their Prophet was born.

I believe I've said how before, in my previous posts. Make no mistake here; I did not deny that there is a population that does not hate America, I've stated that there are moderates that hate America, even if they are moderates. Islamic teachings, and I have also been told by a Muslim friend that it has been said in the Quran; thus why I said it's said in the Quran in previous posts. I will get more information on this as soon as I can, but Islamic teachings do teach that. On Iraqi tv, there was a Sheikh that usually explained why they think that's the case, but I am not sure what happened to this Sheikh. I do like to stick to the point that reform is one of the two cases that will stop radical Islam from growing. Once reform happens, Muslims will get a different view about certain subjects in Islam, thus there are no excuses for radical Sheikhs to produce more radicals. Not to forget that it will grow more hatred if Mecca was bombed, but it will create a big mess that can't be controlled except by reform. As Phi for All said, they will find a way to create explanations for why it happened, and that's what results in reform.

These are the guidelines to show that they do not approve of radical Islam, not the guidelines to disapprove of it. That they can do amongst themselves, but this they must show in public. What is the point of having moderates that disapprove of radical Islam, but don't do anything about it? Are they making any difference? Of course not, hence it is like they are not present there. It will create contradictions inside the Quran, which will lead to reform. Hatred.. That's already present, it should not be a worry at all. Even if they are moderates, that doesn't mean they like you. The Vatican issue is totally different., review my reply to ecoli about the Mecca comment if you please. Mecca is said to be 'unbreakable,' a place that can't be bombed. The Vatican, on the other hand, is just like any other place, hence the consequences of bombing the Vatican differ from the consequences of bombing Mecca.

Don't be so sure. They are two faces of the same coin. If you think outside of the box for a moment, they are both fighting those who they call 'infidels' or 'koffar' or 'people of the book.' Shiites don't necessary need to support Al Qaeda with money or weapons to be supporting them. They are supporting them by sparking an increase in radicalism, and by being a home for exported terrorism. Iran supports Hamas, for example, who are Sunnis. You're entitled to your opinion. I don't have any problems with Islam, if I need to clear myself. Now back to my original comment and why I said it; being a scientist does not mean you can't be a believer, and being a priest does not mean you don't believe in evolution. Nobody's perfect.

He is Muslim by origin. Keep in mind the place where he was raised; Indonesia. Their teachings make us inferior to them, hence why I do not support a Muslim running the United States. About the videos, what difference do they make? You think that a person who pledge allegiance to the flag can't do anything against it? And about the e-mails, I never got anything about Obama or anything related to the U.S. elections. I don't believe in such e-mails anyways. I am entitled to my own opinion. History for the first part. Racism is still present in the United States. End of the civil war did not end racism, a very big difference. About the 'harsh sex' comment; women think with their heart, not their brain. I do not mean to generalize, but it is well-known. Very few women think with their brain; Clinton certainly is not one of those. I am not really that much 'into' American elections; whoever comes won't make a lot of difference anyways, but McCain is preferable. For the links you gave, what difference does it make? If he denied evolution for example, does it mean it is not present? And does it mean that the United States will quit all of its scientific and technological advances? I don't think so. The person is free to say whatever he wants. Not everything that is said, is true. A person, especially in such position, can say whatever they can in order to get a certain group of supporters. Now, I am not saying that this is surely the case, but it could be. Bottom line, it does not affect the line of the United States. It is a minor issue, not a major one. Religion and science complete each other, IMO.

I don't think so. Enough priests and sisters in Palestine and Iraq were killed that prove that. They claim that they are fighting the Jews, because in the Torah 'supposedly' (something they claim), it says that the Jews believe they are the 'chosen' people on earth, while all other religions do not and should not exist. Their actions, actually, contradicts with the reason they are giving for fighting the Jews. They're putting that claim on them. Don't worry bud, I know many, many moderate Muslims as friends, in fact my girlfriend is a Muslim, from a well-known family in Muslim history. But, that's not what I am suggesting here. I do not care about individuals who oppose radical Islam. I am talking about the bigger image. A few moderate Muslims here and there won't do anything. Moderate Muslims need to protest, protest, and protest. They need to have their voice heard by the radicals. They need to prove to the world, and to other Muslims, that radical Islam is wrong, that it does not portray the message of Islam. Bombing Mecca will trigger reform inside Islam. In their Quran, it says that Mecca is surrounded by a cover and it can't be bombed. Make conclusions about what will happen if it was bombed. If there are moderate ordinary Muslims, then there must be moderate sheikhs. These sheikhs should issue Fatwas condemning redical Islam. These sheikhs must teach that radical Islam is wrong. They should preach moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims must protest and make their voices heard. As I told ecoli, I am not talking about individuals, for they can't do anything really. They must be in large groups, in large protests, in order to get attention, lots of it. Moderate Muslims, especially sheikhs, must go on Al Jazeera tv to preach moderate Islam. Muslims do have religious references (Khamani'i for Shiites and the Saudi king for Sunnis, in addition to many religious leaders), sadly most of those are radicals. If there are some moderates from those, these are the ones that perform a great danger on those radicals. The choice of not supporting radical Islam does not really do anything. It is like saying there is nothing such as 'moderate Islam.' Now, to the issue of bombing Mecca, and I explained it to ecoli. It will trigger reform inside Islam, and that is what I want. At the peak of Christian extremism, reform was the only way that changed that. Again, I am speaking about the bigger image.

That's your opinion. The reason is one, but the ways change. Removing Saddam was a mistake I tell you. He was killing thousands of Shiites, but it had to be balanced by removing him .

That's propaganda. 'If' is the problem. But, those so-called 'moderate' Muslims who do not stand against radical Islam, approve of it.. Don't they? Otherwise, why wouldn't they stand against it? The only way to defeat them is to bomb Mecca. Those who know about Islam will understand the reason behind this .

Do some research bud. CNN's or FOX's opinions don't matter to me. Muslims can't run the United States; that's the matter. We need a white president, not a dark one , from the harsh sex also. McCain for president. It's an analysis that you must think about. It goes further than your nose, so try to think based on that. Question yourself of why I said that, then you might disagree with your statement.

America can't afford to elect a dark person (who is Muslim by origin and all of a sudden radical-relations appear) or a woman (whose husband's term was one of the worst and whose tears run down her cheeks on television) as presidents.

They do have a very simple plan. They either kill you or you convert to Islam.

God bless George W. Bush, one of the best presidents to come to the U.S. We just need a nuclear hit on Iran before you leave office... Then go ahead and continue with your life. Don't be so cheerful, McCain is stronger and is on the same steps.. Well, most of them. One who laughs at last, laughs a lot .

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, the Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and..... Prof: So you believe in God? Student: Absolutely, sir. Prof: Is God good? Student: Sure. Prof: Is God all-powerful? Student: Yes. Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm? (Student is silent.) Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good? Student: Yes. Prof: Is Satan good? Student: No. Prof: Where does Satan come from? Student: From...God... Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world? Student: Yes. Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct? Student: Yes. Prof: So who created evil? Student does not answer. Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they? Student: Yes, sir. Prof: So, who created them? Student has no answer. Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God? Student: No, sir. Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God? Student: No, sir. Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter? Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't. Prof: Yet you still believe in Him? Student: Yes. Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Student: Nothing. I only have my faith. Prof: Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has. Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat? Prof: Yes. Student: And is there such a thing as cold? Prof: Yes. Student: No sir. There isn't. (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.) Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it. (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.) Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness? Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness? Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you? Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man? Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed. Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how? Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do. Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.) Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.) Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain? (The class breaks out into laughter.) Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir? (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.) Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son. Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive. WANT TO KNOW WHO THAT STUDENT WAS? This is a true story, and the student was none other than: Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the current president of India.

I was hoping to strike up the thought of Moderate Islam vs Radical Islam. There are more moderates in the world than there are radicals, yet we do not see demonstrations, or any diplomatic fights made by them against radicals. Here, in the United States (a state that practices freedom of speech to the fullest), Hizballah supporters were allowed to demonstrate in Michigan, against the United States, and step on U.S. flags in the U.S. with slogans such as "Death to America." Where are the moderate Muslims to counter that? Are they afraid? If so, of what? Do they agree with it? If so, why is it when we make a comment such as "Islam is inspired by violence," a Muslim pops up and says: "That is not the real Islam, it is the radical Islam." But, what is the real Islam? How can we see it if they don't show it to us? Here is an example of a ex-Muslim that left Islam and turned into a secular human being, moreover, she is fighting the ills of Islamic fanaticism and introducing the problems of it into the Arab world. The only thing I disagree with her about is that she is not differentiating between moderates and radicals, but as I said before; where are the moderates? She is speaking in Arabic in those clips, but there are English subtitles. She is saying important things and I hope you watch them, we need more people like her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY Violence is not a tool to solve anything, but if you are facing such a threat that denies your presence as a 'human being' and wants to kill you or you live like them, violence is the first tool that pops up to your mind. This problem must be solved from within. If the moderate Muslims don't revolt against the old fundamental Sheikhs, we can get no where. Muslims must ask for reformation inside their beliefs and teaching doctrines; otherwise, radical Islam will take over moderate Islam in no time.

Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an "insider's view" of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. The film also traces parallels between the Nazi movement of World War II, the Radicals of today, and the Western world's response to both threats. Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DBwCWaBhmDQ Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suGOnwCUhBs Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joqoMfh7cr0 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1LETOk20X4 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duiJZHKpF1w Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbkwQYBnyM Comments regarding this movie?

Sorry to offend you if I did bud, but if in southern California Mexicans felt like they need a separate country from the States, they shall revolt and take over? That just doesn't seem logical.

KOSOVO was always a province and WILL REMAIN a province. These independence declarations are trash. Sooner or later they will be gone. Whenever a province seems like they want an independent state, they shall have it? That is illogical.

Trust me; I have no problem with the Muslim religion. My problem is with Islamists - who are extremist Muslims that interpret the Quran falsely. In fact, my problem is with any extremist from any religion - even my own. But, to answer your worries; I am not saying wipe out all the Palestinians. I am saying that they can't wipe up Israel. Also, for the record, you can't continue on with a peace plan without working out a fight... Just so you know. P.S. -- how is the Road Map working out again? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DrDNA, the Torah and the Bible also indicate that this piece of land was inhabited by Jews, at the times of Christ, before, and after. Also, just so nobody confuses what I am saying with what they're relating; Jews are people who follow a certain religion (Judaism) and not a race; so, by relating them to a race (whether what DrDNA proclaimed in his post about Canaanites, or whether they were like the Brits or Italian Americans, and whatnot). The question is not whether the inhabitants of the land are x race/civilization, but what religion they followed. Also, iNow, Don't forget to do a study to show how land shifted and changed over the centuries. What you are saying does not make a difference, anyhow. Anyways, we're drifting away from the topic.

If time is fast; what is the speed of time and how do you measure it?

כן, באופן מוחלט ------------------------------------------------- I understand that most of you do not like to involve religion in the political crisis that is happening in the middle east, but to get your facts straight for you; it is all about religion. Any Islamist movement that has risen up had one main goal, no matter which sect it was; and that goal is to liberate Jerusalem, as they liked to refer to it, from Zionists (which I repeat, is a movement to put Jews in their righteous home). DrDNA, I do not need to look at it from the other perspective, from the same perspective that had tried to persecute me for what I believe in multiple of times. They refused to co-exist, and all the chances that has been given to them; well, it is their problem. The land belongs to Israel, whose capital is Jerusalem, and whose inhabitants are Jews (by origin, which is how the land righteously belongs to them).

Edtharan, You make good points, but--- Choose whichever point you want to start from and explain to me the following: Why is it there? Who brought it there? And for your explanation of beliefs: Well, I should of went further and posted "I am asking you to be a believer of God." But, to put it as the way you are, sure why not? You can be a believer of God and a science fanatic at the same time. At the end, God created a brain for you to be able to analyze materials, interpret ideas, and think about solutions.

Jerusalem is the righteous home of the Jews, which is why Zionism was created as a movement to have all Jews return back to where they belong. As I have said before, Israel was there thousand of years ago, and it was re-established by the end of World War II. Arabism, which is the nationalistic idea to unite all of the middle eastern Arab nations under one Arabic army. This idea blurred the real image of "Zionism" and turned it into a killing movement, where in fact, it is not. By making that image blurry, they proceeded to create something they referred to as the "Palestinian cause" which is an illusion that was fabricated to fight Israel." If they were really fighting 'Zionists,' then why do they commit crimes against innocent Israeli citizens? All of the crap they say on tv is just a cover for their anti-Semitism and inability to co-exist with another religion in the region - which is also why the Christian presence in Lebanon went from 65% of the population by the early '60s to less than 32% today. That is due to immigration of Christians to various parts of the world, which include north America, south America, Caribbean, Europe, and Australia. Very little percentage to Asia and the Arab world.

Let my response persuade to you what I think about this conflict. The Arabs. The Palestinians' date=' who claim their lands were stolen, were a victim of filthy Arab owners, who sold these lands to the Israelis after Israel was re-established under the British mandate over Palestine. Using Arabism propaganda, this truth was totally covered. That's when the actual conflict started, and how I reason it as Arabs are the responsible. Starting with Saudi Arabia, they very well knew that a constant conflict will lead to nowhere. Instead, all Arab countries except Lebanon and Syria, improved all ties with Israel. Syria, on the other hand, is just negotiating with Israel under the table. Nothing is being accomplished, and Syria never presents its land as a place for combat or battleships. Nothing has happened in Golan since it's abduction by the Israelis. Hizballah in Lebanon is a very different story. Their main objective is to liberate Jerusalem, and Islamzie Lebanon. They are under direct Syrian and Iranian sponsorship, which do not recognize the State of Israel. In Lebanon, not everybody supports Hizballah. In fact, less than 50% of the population supports it, composed of mainly Shiites. Having said that, I will move on to say that some Lebanese support a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon, with open borders, and diplomatic ties between the two countries. There is one block however, Hizballah to start with, and Syrian hegemony that is composed of other puppets in Lebanon and the Palestinian refugee camps. Once this block is removed, I am 99% certain a peace-treaty will be on the way. The question is; how do we remove Hizballah? Well' date=' I will start by my story. The night before Christmas eve, I was at a friend's house having a drink and he has invited some of his friends over as well. Amongst them was a Palestinian, so we opened a discussion about middle eastern politics and whatnot. I came upon the Palestinian (sorry I can't say any names) with the following question: If Israel gave you all of its land, keeping 1 km2, and gave you all of your prisoners and whatever you ask for; would you, if you had the chance, go in there and slaughter every single Israeli? His reply was: Yes, Yes. Of course I would. We were speaking in Arabic, just to make it clear. Reviewing the fights happening between the Palestinians (Hamas and Fatah), I would say that Palestine should not be a legitimate state. They are fighting each other and they refuse to accept the State of Israel. By that, they refuse to accept a state. At least, Hamas does, but if you can't control one side; nothing is guaranteed. Taking that and my little story; no, Palestine shall never be a state, and it never was. The Palestinian cause was an illusion proposed by Arab leaders and used as a reason to fight Israel. I believe a Saudi sheikh confessed on Iraqi tv about the Palestinian cause. There is no right or wrong in such issues. There is respect my presence and claim it, and we live in peace. Or there is, do not recognize me and we will fight till death. That's how I see it. Israel was re-established. It has been there for over 3,000 years.