quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
Looks like your persistence to stick your ass out for a good ass kicking is getting the best of you. Go ahead and knock yourself out. You may need a book to learn logic. I don't have your difficiency.

Steering the 'discussion' into vulgar namecalling is a nice way to cover up the fact that you debated poorly, and made a complete ass of yourself.

I will continue to REMIND you of that . . . ALWAYS!

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Steering the 'discussion' into vulgar namecalling is a nice way to cover up the fact that you debated poorly, and made a complete ass of yourself.

I will continue to REMIND you of that . . . ALWAYS!

You never cease to surprise. You actually though that there was a debate being conducting on this thread? Tell you what, you have it all for yourself from now so you can satisfy your need to fill your day even if it means communicating with yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
You never cease to surprise. You actually though that there was a debate being conducting on this thread? Tell you what, you have it all for yourself from now so you can satisfy your need to fill your day even if it means communicating with yourself.

Not the thread, fool . . . the 'debate" was between me and YOU!

Let me refresh your memory . . . THIS is the Argument you Lost:
_____________________________________________________________________________

[Originally posted by redux]
We're not interested in your 'interpretations' Mr quick foot!

I made THIS statement:
"[the Ummah] it's religious form is conceptualized in the Qur'an as the community of believers" . . . and your idiot retort was "It it not"!!

Now, confronted with the FACTS, you're dancing away from your stupidity with [irrelevant] Koranic exegesis . . . what a loser!
_____________________________________________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
I made THIS statement:
"[the Ummah] it's religious form is conceptualized in the Qur'an as the community of believers"

Sometime after you made this one; "the concept of the "ummah" originated in Islam."

So keep dancing around until you learn the meaning of words.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
It may come as a surprise to you but I am far less interested in explaining anything Islamic to you than you could ever be in asking. You are still wrong in your assumptions. The Qur'an does not deal with only matters of religious import but how could you possibly know that?Funny that you would label me a loser when you are the one who keeps changing your comments as you go along. Go back and see how many times you change your original comment. Then stick to what you know something about whatever that may be.

. . . and this is your confused, lame response . . . begging for a do-over.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
It may come as a surprise to you but I am far less interested in explaining anything Islamic to you than you could ever be in asking. You are still wrong in your assumptions. The Qur'an does not deal with only matters of religious import but how could you possibly know that?Funny that you would label me a loser when you are the one who keeps changing your comments as you go along. Go back and see how many times you change your original comment. Then stick to what you know something about whatever that may be.

. . . and this is your confused, lame response . . . begging for a do-over.

When are going to give a constructive response?

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
I made THIS statement:
"[the Ummah] it's religious form is conceptualized in the Qur'an as the community of believers"

Sometime after you made this one; "the concept of the "ummah" originated in Islam."

So keep dancing around until you learn the meaning of words.

What's your point!? . . . still angling for a mulligan?

Poor U

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
What's your point!? . .

That I have allowed myself to argue with an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Ramakant_p:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
It may come as a surprise to you but I am far less interested in explaining anything Islamic to you than you could ever be in asking. You are still wrong in your assumptions. The Qur'an does not deal with only matters of religious import but how could you possibly know that?Funny that you would label me a loser when you are the one who keeps changing your comments as you go along. Go back and see how many times you change your original comment. Then stick to what you know something about whatever that may be.

. . . and this is your confused, lame response . . . begging for a do-over.

When are going to give a constructive response?

I have to believe that it is the effects of all that champagne that he had over the weekend.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
What's your point!? . . . still angling for a mulligan?

Poor U

That I have allowed myself to argue with an idiot.

Big Boys table dude . . . no do-overs, no mulligans.

But I can go there, if you insist . . .

DARE ME!!

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

I see that English Comprehension is not one of your strong points. Go back and read what I said - "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad, aka Boko Haram, is a militant Islamic group committed to the imposition of Sharia Law throughout Nigeria." There is no suggestion that Sharia Law is the motive for the bombing here. You have to be a dunce is that is what you understood especially if you look at the context of the statement. I even told you afterwards that Sharia law is not the cause for the bombing but you are trying to divert the discussion to something which is irrelevant. My intent was to establish the fact that they are a religious organization not to state that Sharia Law was the cause for the bombing. I did this to counter the lie that Jihadist apoligists like you are spreading, that this bombing had nothing to do with religion and it's all tribal. After all, Africans are all savages and they just go around bombing each other for no apparent reason.

What you should do instead of inventing a Straw Man Argument like "What is Sharia Law", is to explain how a militant Islamic organization like Boko Haram bombs Christians in their church on Christmas Day (on Christmas Eve the previous year) and it has nothing to do with their religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

To the contrary, I read constantly and that is self evident in the broad scope of my analogies. You need to diversify your reading repertoire so you do not come off as a stunted fundamentalist who cannot get your head out of that stilted reality. Note There is hardly anything in Sharia that is not detailed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is not Sharia but a matter of accepting the plurality of religions to be accommodated in the world.

You hinged your answer on questioning Andre as to his knowledge of what it is and asking whether Sharia is the cause of the bombing. The reality is that some folks claiming all other conception of the world is haram per their conception of the law was the philosophical orientation of those behind the bombing. Indirectly, Sharia as they conceive it to be is their driving force.


BTW, I dont have to pretend I am bright. I am and I am arrogantly so when it comes to idiots and pretentious fools like you using, stilted facts, stupid emotional appeals and baseless ad hominem attacks and in general hapless argumentation to beg a point. Let me be clear, denying that these people by name and by deed is appealing to sharia while driving home their point by violence will not win the day. That is what they do. That they are wrong has little to do with sharia but to generalized wrong headedness of fundamentalism.

Your highness, explain to me what Sharia LAW means. I dont know so explain or shut you blasted mouth.

Please note that all that I have commented about the bombing is that its more of a tribal affair than a religious one.

If you have information to the contrary, please expound.

What the hell does me explaining to your satisfaction ( not remotely possible in any conceivable reality) what is Sharia has to do with an odious and evil practice by this group? These people claiming to know what it is participated in targeting innocent people for death. On grounds of violent intolerance their view of Sharia is wrong from where I stand. No moral system is valid if built on enforcing its means to ends on by these kinds of sanctions. What you think it is matters little in this context and is therefore irrelevant. They violently object to what others can believe for themselves and that cannot be right. I am not obliged to meet your definition of terms to have an opinion on evil.

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

I see that English Comprehension is not one of your strong points. Go back and read what I said - "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad, aka Boko Haram, is a militant Islamic group committed to the imposition of Sharia Law throughout Nigeria." There is no suggestion that Sharia Law is the motive for the bombing here. You have to be a dunce is that is what you understood especially if you look at the context of the statement. I even told you afterwards that Sharia law is not the cause for the bombing but you are trying to divert the discussion to something which is irrelevant. My intent was to establish the fact that they are a religious organization not to state that Sharia Law was the cause for the bombing. I did this to counter the lie that Jihadist apoligists like you are spreading, that this bombing had nothing to do with religion and it's all tribal. After all, Africans are all savages and they just go around bombing each other for no apparent reason.

What you should do instead of inventing a Straw Man Argument like "What is Sharia Law", is to explain how a militant Islamic organization like Boko Haram bombs Christians in their church on Christmas Day (on Christmas Eve the previous year) and it has nothing to do with their religion.

Now, lets see:

the Quran explicitly forbid the desecration of mosques and Synagogues.

Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah.

You admitted that Sharia had no bearing on the situation after you were confronted yet you think that this is a religious issue.

You must be out of your mind.

If you look at the continent you see Muslim vs Christian in Nigeria, Christian vs Christian in South Sudan (remember only a year ago it was muslim vs Christian, and how they had to be protected), and Muslim vs Muslim in Darfur.

Your myopic and bigoted views are very evident with your convoluted ramblings.

quote:

the Quran explicitly forbid the desecration of mosques and Synagogues.

I guess a lot of Muslims in Iraq don't read the Quran.

quote:

Originally posted by Mad Max:

quote:

the Quran explicitly forbid the desecration of mosques and Synagogues.

I guess a lot of Muslims in Iraq don't read the Quran.

The most sensible thing said so far.

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

I see that English Comprehension is not one of your strong points. Go back and read what I said - "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad, aka Boko Haram, is a militant Islamic group committed to the imposition of Sharia Law throughout Nigeria." There is no suggestion that Sharia Law is the motive for the bombing here. You have to be a dunce is that is what you understood especially if you look at the context of the statement. I even told you afterwards that Sharia law is not the cause for the bombing but you are trying to divert the discussion to something which is irrelevant. My intent was to establish the fact that they are a religious organization not to state that Sharia Law was the cause for the bombing. I did this to counter the lie that Jihadist apoligists like you are spreading, that this bombing had nothing to do with religion and it's all tribal. After all, Africans are all savages and they just go around bombing each other for no apparent reason.

What you should do instead of inventing a Straw Man Argument like "What is Sharia Law", is to explain how a militant Islamic organization like Boko Haram bombs Christians in their church on Christmas Day (on Christmas Eve the previous year) and it has nothing to do with their religion.

Now, lets see:

the Quran explicitly forbid the desecration of mosques and Synagogues.

Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah.

You admitted that Sharia had no bearing on the situation after you were confronted yet you think that this is a religious issue.

You must be out of your mind.

If you look at the continent you see Muslim vs Christian in Nigeria, Christian vs Christian in South Sudan (remember only a year ago it was muslim vs Christian, and how they had to be protected), and Muslim vs Muslim in Darfur.

Your myopic and bigoted views are very evident with your convoluted ramblings.

It is because of the hatred of one religious group for another that they bombed them in their church on one of their holiest days. You can twist it and turn it how much you want but that's what is boils down to. Not because of tribal differences but because of religious differences.

quote:

Originally posted by Mad Max:
I guess a lot of Muslims in Iraq don't read the Quran.

Interesting how a book whose title means read isn't really read.

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

I see that English Comprehension is not one of your strong points. Go back and read what I said - "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad, aka Boko Haram, is a militant Islamic group committed to the imposition of Sharia Law throughout Nigeria." There is no suggestion that Sharia Law is the motive for the bombing here. You have to be a dunce is that is what you understood especially if you look at the context of the statement. I even told you afterwards that Sharia law is not the cause for the bombing but you are trying to divert the discussion to something which is irrelevant. My intent was to establish the fact that they are a religious organization not to state that Sharia Law was the cause for the bombing. I did this to counter the lie that Jihadist apoligists like you are spreading, that this bombing had nothing to do with religion and it's all tribal. After all, Africans are all savages and they just go around bombing each other for no apparent reason.

What you should do instead of inventing a Straw Man Argument like "What is Sharia Law", is to explain how a militant Islamic organization like Boko Haram bombs Christians in their church on Christmas Day (on Christmas Eve the previous year) and it has nothing to do with their religion.

Now, lets see:

the Quran explicitly forbid the desecration of mosques and Synagogues.

Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah.

You admitted that Sharia had no bearing on the situation after you were confronted yet you think that this is a religious issue.

You must be out of your mind.

If you look at the continent you see Muslim vs Christian in Nigeria, Christian vs Christian in South Sudan (remember only a year ago it was muslim vs Christian, and how they had to be protected), and Muslim vs Muslim in Darfur.

Your myopic and bigoted views are very evident with your convoluted ramblings.

It is because of the hatred of one religious group for another that they bombed them in their church on one of their holiest days. You can twist it and turn it how much you want but that's what is boils down to. Not because of tribal differences but because of religious differences.

Only true if you have a bigoted view of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

I see that English Comprehension is not one of your strong points. Go back and read what I said - "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad, aka Boko Haram, is a militant Islamic group committed to the imposition of Sharia Law throughout Nigeria." There is no suggestion that Sharia Law is the motive for the bombing here. You have to be a dunce is that is what you understood especially if you look at the context of the statement. I even told you afterwards that Sharia law is not the cause for the bombing but you are trying to divert the discussion to something which is irrelevant. My intent was to establish the fact that they are a religious organization not to state that Sharia Law was the cause for the bombing. I did this to counter the lie that Jihadist apoligists like you are spreading, that this bombing had nothing to do with religion and it's all tribal. After all, Africans are all savages and they just go around bombing each other for no apparent reason.

What you should do instead of inventing a Straw Man Argument like "What is Sharia Law", is to explain how a militant Islamic organization like Boko Haram bombs Christians in their church on Christmas Day (on Christmas Eve the previous year) and it has nothing to do with their religion.

Now, lets see:

the Quran explicitly forbid the desecration of mosques and Synagogues.

Sharia is derived from the Quran and Sunnah.

You admitted that Sharia had no bearing on the situation after you were confronted yet you think that this is a religious issue.

You must be out of your mind.

If you look at the continent you see Muslim vs Christian in Nigeria, Christian vs Christian in South Sudan (remember only a year ago it was muslim vs Christian, and how they had to be protected), and Muslim vs Muslim in Darfur.

Your myopic and bigoted views are very evident with your convoluted ramblings.

It is because of the hatred of one religious group for another that they bombed them in their church on one of their holiest days. You can twist it and turn it how much you want but that's what is boils down to. Not because of tribal differences but because of religious differences.

Only true if you have a bigoted view of the world.

Do you really believe the nonsense you write sometimes? The Koran explicitly forbids the desecration of mosques and synagogues. So does that mean that a Muslim cannot bomb a church because of religious hatred? The Bible explicitly forbids man from killing. Have you ever heard of Thou Shalt Not Kill? Does that mean that a Christian never killed a man you stupid fool?

A Jihadist apologist like you will always try to excuse the atrocities carried out by your Ummah buddies.

So tell me where does the hated come from?

All you finish early

quote:

Originally posted by Chief:
All you finish early

It seems like bigotry is now an acceptable way these days. People make such statements and dont even realize what they are saying.

Cheif I am disappointed in you since you did not even squeek about what Sharia Law is.

aBU,
All of us can't go to war at the same time.

Oh My God! The news reporters in London are prappuh bigoted. Look how many times they describe this as religious war, religious attacks, religious violence. They even make the claim twice that Boko Haram "wants the imposition of strict Sharia law in Nigeria." How can they say such a bigoted thing? Even Mr. Saidu Dogo, secretary general for CAN in Nigeria, mentions religious war. What a hateful man!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ot-dead-Muslims.html


Escalation in Nigerian 'religious war' as Christian couple and their one-year-old baby are shot dead by Muslims
Six children wounded after attackers throw homemade bomb into school in separate attack

'We fear that the situation may degenerate to a religious war and Nigeria may not be able to survive one'
90,000 people forced to flee during the violent clashes


By Rick Dewsbury

A Christian couple and their one-year-old son have been shot dead by Muslim gunmen in a 'religious attack' in Nigeria, police said today.
The family were in a village near the the city of Jos on Tuesday evening when the killers - believed to be Muslim herdsmen - opened fire.
Plateau state spokesman Pam Ayuba said today that assailants shot the Christian couple and their child near their home.
The attack just two days after Christmas is the latest in a spate of religious violence in the country.

In a separate attack, extremists threw a homemade bomb into an Arabic school in Nigeria's Delta state.
Seven people were wounded in the attack, including six children who were younger than nine.
The attack at around 10 p.m. on Tuesday came two days after a series of Christmas Day bombings on churches and other targets by Islamist militant group Boko Haram claimed around 32 lives.

Boko Haram, which means 'Western education is forbidden', wants the imposition of strict Sharia law in Nigeria.
'Some men driving in a Camri car threw a low capacity explosive into a building where an Arabic class was taking place,' police spokesman for the state Charles Muka said by telephone.
'Children aged between four and nine were taking a lesson. Six children were injured and one adult (was),' he added.
Hundreds have died in recent years in communal attacks and reprisal attacks in the Jos area in the nation's 'middle belt,' where the largely Muslim north meets the predominantly Christian south.
Around 90,000 people have so far been displaced during the clashes, according to the BBC

Christians in northern Nigeria said yesterday they feared that a spate of Christmas Day bombings by Islamist militants could lead to a religious war in Africa's most populous country.
The attacks killed more than two dozen people.

The warning was made by the northern branch of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), an umbrella organisation comprising various denominations including Catholics, Protestant and pentecostal churches.
The Boko Haram Islamist sect, which aims to impose sharia Islamic law across Nigeria, claimed responsibility for the blasts, the second Christmas in a row it has caused carnage at Christian churches.

Saidu Dogo, secretary general for CAN in Nigeria's 19 northern provinces called on Muslim leaders to control their faithful, saying Christians will be forced to defend themselves against further attacks.
'We fear that the situation may degenerate to a religious war and Nigeria may not be able to survive one. Once again, "enough is enough!",' Dogo said.
The attacks risk reviving tit-for-tat sectarian violence between the mostly Muslim north and the largely Christian south, which has claimed thousands of lives in the past decade.
Dogo said the CAN was calling on all Christians to continue respecting the law but to defend themselves when needed.
'We shall henceforth in the midst of these provocations and wanton destruction of innocent lives and property be compelled to make our own efforts and arrangements to protect the lives of innocent Christians and peace-loving citizens of this country,' Dogo said.
The most deadly attack killed at least 27 people in the St Theresa Catholic church in Madalla, a town on the edge of the capital Abuja, and devastated surrounding buildings and cars as faithful poured out of the church after Christmas mass.

Security forces also blamed the sect for two explosions in the north targeting their facilities. Officials have confirmed 32 people died in the wave of attacks across Nigeria, though local media have put the number higher.
But the church bombs are more worrying because they raise fears that Boko Haram is trying to ignite a sectarian civil war in the nearly 160million nation split evenly between Christians and Muslims, who for the most part co-exist in peace.
Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has come under pressure to do more fight the growing security threat which risks derailing economic gains in the OPEC member and Africa's top oil-producing nation.
Nigeria's main opposition leader Muhammadu Buhari, a northerner and former military ruler who lost a presidential election in April to Jonathan, accused the government of incompetence on Monday, saying government was slow to respond and had shown indifference to the bombings.
The CAN said in the statement that it was concerned that the perpetrators and their sponsors 'are well-known to government and no serious or decisive actions have been taken to stem their nefarious activities'.

From CNN. Bad Jewish Media making bigoted claims!!!


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12...sectarian-divisions/

Boko Haram demands the imposition of Islamic Sharia law across Nigeria, and has recently extended its attacks beyond the deserts of northern Nigeria.

Even Muslims in Nigeria are being bigoted. Bad Muslims. Off with their heads!!!

http://www.thenationonlineng.n...-islamic-groups.html

Attacks designed to ignite religious war, says Islamic groups

By Tajudeen Adebanjo29/12/2011 00:05:00

Three Islamic organisations, Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), The Companion and Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC), yesterday said the bombings were designed to ignate religions war.

Let me recap:

1) What is Sharia Law?

2) Is Sharia Law to be blamed (you said no)?

3) Is Islam to be blamed for these attacks?

4) What/who is motivated to commit these attacks?

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:
Let me recap:

1) What is Sharia Law?

2) Is Sharia Law to be blamed (you said no)?

3) Is Islam to be blamed for these attacks?

4) What/who is motivated to commit these attacks?

1) What is Sharia Law? Irrelevant to the discussion.

2) Is Sharia Law to be blamed (you said no)? Already answered, no need to ask again.

3) Is Islam to be blamed for these attacks? Stupid question. Religions do not attack anyone.

4) What/who is motivated to commit these attacks? Are you dumb or what? Aren't you aware that the Islamic militant group Boko Haram committed these attacks?


Are you really this dumb to ask all these stupid questions as a diversion from your support for the Jihadists? Stop wasting my time with your nonsense. Your arguments are so comedic, they are like Amateur Night at the Improv.

quote:

Are you really this dumb to ask all these stupid questions as a diversion from your support for the Jihadists?

Please provide the information where i support jihadist.

quote:

1) What is Sharia Law? Irrelevant to the discussion.

Quite interesting since you keep posting article after article about it.

quote:

Stop wasting my time with your nonsense. Your arguments are so comedic, they are like Amateur Night at the Improv.

It is not nonsense when you cannot provide a cohearent answer as to what motivates these people to perform such hideous acts.

In Nigeria, Boko Haram Is Not the Problem

By Jean Herskovits

January 04, 2012 "New York Times" -- But the news media and American policy makers are chasing an elusive and ill-defined threat; there is no proof that a well-organized, ideologically coherent terrorist group called Boko Haram even exists today. Evidence suggests instead that, while the original core of the group remains active, criminal gangs have adopted the name Boko Haram to claim responsibility for attacks when it suits them.

The United States must not be drawn into a Nigerian “war on terror” — rhetorical or real — that would make us appear biased toward a Christian president. Getting involved in an escalating sectarian conflict that threatens the country’s unity could turn Nigerian Muslims against America without addressing any of the underlying problems that are fueling instability and sectarian strife in Nigeria.

Since August, when Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Africa Command, warned that Boko Haram had links to Al Qaeda affiliates, the perceived threat has grown. Shortly after General Ham’s warning, the United Nations’ headquarters in Abuja was bombed, and simplistic explanations blaming Boko Haram for Nigeria’s mounting security crisis became routine. Someone who claims to be a spokesman for Boko Haram — with a name no one recognizes and whom no one has been able to identify or meet with — has issued threats and statements claiming responsibility for attacks. Remarkably, the Nigerian government and the international news media have simply accepted what he says.

In late November, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security issued a report with the provocative title: “Boko Haram: Emerging Threat to the U.S. Homeland.” The report makes no such case, but nevertheless proposes that the organization be added to America’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. The State Department’s Africa bureau disagrees, but pressure from Congress and several government agencies is mounting.

Boko Haram began in 2002 as a peaceful Islamic splinter group. Then politicians began exploiting it for electoral purposes. But it was not until 2009 that Boko Haram turned to violence, especially after its leader, a young Muslim cleric named Mohammed Yusuf, was killed while in police custody. Video footage of Mr. Yusuf’s interrogation soon went viral, but no one was tried and punished for the crime. Seeking revenge, Boko Haram targeted the police, the military and local politicians — all of them Muslims.

It was clear in 2009, as it is now, that the root cause of violence and anger in both the north and south of Nigeria is endemic poverty and hopelessness. Influential Nigerians from Maiduguri, where Boko Haram is centered, pleaded with Mr. Jonathan’s government in June and July not to respond to Boko Haram with force alone. Likewise, the American ambassador, Terence P. McCulley, has emphasized, both privately and publicly, that the government must address socio-economic deprivation, which is most severe in the north. No one seems to be listening.

Instead, approximately 25 percent of Nigeria’s budget for 2012 is allocated for security, even though the military and police routinely respond to attacks with indiscriminate force and killing. Indeed, according to many Nigerians I’ve talked to from the northeast, the army is more feared than Boko Haram.

Meanwhile, Boko Haram has evolved into a franchise that includes criminal groups claiming its identity. Revealingly, Nigeria’s State Security Services issued a statement on Nov. 30, identifying members of four “criminal syndicates” that send threatening text messages in the name of Boko Haram. Southern Nigerians — not northern Muslims — ran three of these four syndicates, including the one that led the American Embassy and other foreign missions to issue warnings that emptied Abuja’s high-end hotels. And last week, the security services arrested a Christian southerner wearing northern Muslim garb as he set fire to a church in the Niger Delta. In Nigeria, religious terrorism is not always what it seems.

None of this excuses Boko Haram’s killing of innocents. But it does raise questions about a rush to judgment that obscures Nigeria’s complex reality.

Many Nigerians already believe that the United States unconditionally supports Mr. Jonathan’s government, despite its failings. They believe this because Washington praised the April elections that international observers found credible, but that many Nigerians, especially in the north, did not. Likewise, Washington’s financial support for Nigeria’s security forces, despite their documented human rights abuses, further inflames Muslim Nigerians in the north.

Mr. Jonathan’s recent actions have not helped matters. He told Nigerians last week, “The issue of bombing is one of the burdens we must live with.” On New Year’s Eve, he declared a state of emergency in parts of four northern states, leading to increased military activity there. And on New Year’s Day, he removed a subsidy on petroleum products, more than doubling the price of fuel. In a country where 90 percent of the population lives on $2 or less a day, anger is rising nationwide as the costs of transport and food increase dramatically.

Since Nigeria’s return to civilian rule in 1999, many politicians have used ethnic and regional differences and, most disastrously, religion for their own purposes. Northern Muslims — indeed, all Nigerians — are desperate for a government that responds to their most basic needs: personal security and hope for improvement in their lives. They are outraged over government policies and expenditures that undermine both.

The United States should not allow itself to be drawn into this quicksand by focusing on Boko Haram alone. Washington is already seen by many northern Muslims — including a large number of longtime admirers of America — as biased toward a Christian president from the south. The United States must work to avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy that makes us into their enemy. Placing Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would cement such views and make more Nigerians fear and distrust America.

Jean Herskovits, a professor of history at the State University of New York, Purchase, has written on Nigerian politics since 1970.

© 2012 The New York Times Company

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Stop wasting my time with your nonsense. Your arguments are so comedic, they are like Amateur Night at the Improv.

It is not nonsense when you cannot provide a cohearent answer as to what motivates these people to perform such hideous acts.

I answered the question as you asked it dummy. Go and read what you wrote or can't you even understand what you wrote?

You claim that the bombing of the churches and the slaughter of Christians on Christmas Day have no religious implications. Your first "coherent answer" you provided was that the Koran forbids the bombing of mosques and synagogues. I've already dismissed that as nonsense.

Now you post a newspaper article which I'm assuming should support your position. Lo and behold, it states "Getting involved in an escalating sectarian conflict that threatens the country’s unity could turn Nigerian Muslims against America without addressing any of the underlying problems that are fueling instability and sectarian strife in Nigeria."

I go to the dictionary and I find this for the meaning of the word "sect" -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sect

sect
   
noun
1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.

2. a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.

3. (in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches.

4. any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader.


Given that the sectarian conflict is between Muslims and Christians, are you now agreeing that there are religious implications involved?

You are one confused individual. You should be sacked for doing such a poor job of promoting Jihadist propaganda. I've already wasted enough time with you and your arguments which make no sense whatsoever. Please appoint someone else who can at least read and understand basic English as I've had enougth of schooling you.

This is my original statement regarding this incident:

"The issue in Africa is not religion, its tribalism and that has been there forever, the west is just taking advantage of the situation on the ground."

Now WTF are you coming up with your moronic statements that I said that there is no religious implications. I dont see anywhere that I made any judgement for or against.

Unfortunately, your bigoted mindset prevents you from having proper comprehension.

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:
This is my original statement regarding this incident:

"The issue in Africa is not religion, its tribalism and that has been there forever, the west is just taking advantage of the situation on the ground."

Now WTF are you coming up with your moronic statements that I said that there is no religious implications. I dont see anywhere that I made any judgement for or against.

Unfortunately, your bigoted mindset prevents you from having proper comprehension.

Tribalism combined with religious fundamentalism is a potent poison. You were trying to excuse this on the back of the west as usual. I guess you are an honorary member of boko haram!

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:
This is my original statement regarding this incident:

"The issue in Africa is not religion, its tribalism and that has been there forever, the west is just taking advantage of the situation on the ground."

Now WTF are you coming up with your moronic statements that I said that there is no religious implications. I dont see anywhere that I made any judgement for or against.

Unfortunately, your bigoted mindset prevents you from having proper comprehension.

You said that I am out of my mind to suggest that the bombimg is because of religious hatred. That it is a result of tribalism and not religion. Whatever that means since I haven't seen any explanation to support it.

So what are you saying now? That you don't know one way or another if there are religious implications to this bombing? You are one confused individual. One time you claim that it is because of tribalism and denied the religious hatred aspect, now you're changing your tune.

Glad to see you're backpedalling now though and accepting my viewpoint after I exposed you to be a fraud and a liar.

quote:

Glad to see you're backpedalling now though and accepting my viewpoint after I exposed you to be a fraud and a liar.

Jackass, where did I back-pedal. You are just too dumb to understand.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:
This is my original statement regarding this incident:

"The issue in Africa is not religion, its tribalism and that has been there forever, the west is just taking advantage of the situation on the ground."

Now WTF are you coming up with your moronic statements that I said that there is no religious implications. I dont see anywhere that I made any judgement for or against.

Unfortunately, your bigoted mindset prevents you from having proper comprehension.

Tribalism combined with religious fundamentalism is a potent poison. You were trying to excuse this on the back of the west as usual. I guess you are an honorary member of boko haram!

Why would I need to come up with an excuse for anybody. I just state the facts that the west is taking advantage the tribal conflicts in Africa. If you disagree, provide your points for diagreements. I already posted an article that supports my point and your sidekick was too dumb to understand.

Andre & Abu,
Can I ask why the two of you keep addressing each other with such names as Jackass,Fool, liar etc?

quote:

Originally posted by Chief:
Andre & Abu,
Can I ask why the two of you keep addressing each other with such names as Jackass,Fool, liar etc?

Sounds better than, Fatboy,Buggerman,Hop an drop,Dawg rice an so on.