[Vote] Who did 911?

[J. J. Phillips]

^ Folks, both types are "true Muslims", by definition, because they are using Islam as the basis and justification for their actions. Same goes for Christians and Jews. It's about how what is written in those "holy books" is interpreted; there is no "true interpretation", only peaceful and non-peaceful interpretations. A good example of an extremely (even insanely) hateful interpretation is that of our own J.J Philips above!

Do you mean my interpretation of J. S. Mill's On Liberty? I didn't think my interpretation of it was hateful, but maybe that's my insanity deluding me from seeing it.

[GregH37]

@J.J Philips
Qur'an 5:33. "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."[/b]

 
My Answer
Hey listen to me the verse you quote is true If some will did war against Islam or say something about Muhammad (SAW) then he/she will be killed by muslims and he will no more in this world..
Let me ask one thing ? Suppose if someone did war against the one whom you believe ? What you can do ??

I suspect you use the word "war" very differently than I do. There's a huge difference between someone killing a Muslim and someone mocking Muhammed.

I defend the right of people to say things I disagree with. I get the impression this is difficult for Muslims to understand. Of course, obviously, I might argue with people I disagree with, but I wouldn't kill them.


If someone insult my Prophet (PBUH), it is equal to my killing or killing of muslim...The right which you want defend was described and introduce by Islam and our Prophet (SAW)....

[J. J. Phillips]

@J.J Philips
Qur'an 5:33. "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."[/b]

 
My Answer
Hey listen to me the verse you quote is true If some will did war against Islam or say something about Muhammad (SAW) then he/she will be killed by muslims and he will no more in this world..
Let me ask one thing ? Suppose if someone did war against the one whom you believe ? What you can do ??

I suspect you use the word "war" very differently than I do. There's a huge difference between someone killing a Muslim and someone mocking Muhammed.

I defend the right of people to say things I disagree with. I get the impression this is difficult for Muslims to understand. Of course, obviously, I might argue with people I disagree with, but I wouldn't kill them.

If someone insult my Prophet (PBUH), it is equal to my killing or killing of muslim...The right which you want defend was described and introduce by Islam and our Prophet (SAW)....

First of all, I (PBUM) fixed the "quote" tags so that it doesn't look like I (PBUM) wrote what you wrote (the last line). I (PBUM) think maybe there's a problem with your browser. You should look at using another one.

Second, I (PBUM) just want to point out that you simultaneously said: (1) In Islam insulting Muhammed is equal to killing. (2) Muhammed was the first person to describe and introduce the concept of freedom of expression.

This supports my assertion that Muslims are simply incapable of understanding the idea of freedom of expression. Unless you're saying Muhammed described freedom of expression in order to reject it, you're saying contradictory things. Is that what you meant? Muhammed described freedom of expression and then said it is forbidden? From context, it seems like you're saying Muhammed was in favor of freedom of expression. But to be fair, I'll make an explict variant (2') of your second statement:

(2') Islam supports freedom of expression.

(1) and (2') contradict each other.

Let me spell this contradiction out logically for you. I can spell out the steps in more detail if something isn't clear.

Here are three assertions I claim to be self-evident:

(A) Freedom of expression implies the right to say something without risking legal punishment.
(B) Insulting Muhammed is an example of saying something.
(C) Killing someone risks legal punishment.

If you think (A), (B) or (C) is false, let me know.

OK. Now, you asserted

(1) In Islam insulting Muhammed is equal to killing.

If one accepts (1) and (C), we conclude:

(D) Islam does not support the right to insult Muhammed without risk of legal punishment.

Here is my variant of your second statement:

(2') Islam supports freedom of expression.

By (2') and (A), we can conclude:

(E) Islam supports the right to say something without risking legal punishment.

By (E) and (B) we can conclude:

(F) Islam supports the right to insult Muhammed without risking legal punishment.

Now if we combine (D) and (F) we see that Islam both supports the mentioned right and does not support the mentioned right. This means Islam is contradictory.

Is there any step of this argument that isn't clear?

[GregH37]

@J.J Philips
Qur'an 5:33. "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."[/b]

 
My Answer
Hey listen to me the verse you quote is true If some will did war against Islam or say something about Muhammad (SAW) then he/she will be killed by muslims and he will no more in this world..
Let me ask one thing ? Suppose if someone did war against the one whom you believe ? What you can do ??

I suspect you use the word "war" very differently than I do. There's a huge difference between someone killing a Muslim and someone mocking Muhammed.

I defend the right of people to say things I disagree with. I get the impression this is difficult for Muslims to understand. Of course, obviously, I might argue with people I disagree with, but I wouldn't kill them.

If someone insult my Prophet (PBUH), it is equal to my killing or killing of muslim...The right which you want defend was described and introduce by Islam and our Prophet (SAW)....

First of all, I (PBUM) fixed the "quote" tags so that it doesn't look like I (PBUM) wrote what you wrote (the last line). I (PBUM) think maybe there's a problem with your browser. You should look at using another one.

Second, I (PBUM) just want to point out that you simultaneously said: (1) In Islam insulting Muhammed is equal to killing. (2) Muhammed was the first person to describe and introduce the concept of freedom of expression.

This supports my assertion that Muslims are simply incapable of understanding the idea of freedom of expression. Unless you're saying Muhammed described freedom of expression in order to reject it, you're saying contradictory things. Is that what you meant? Muhammed described freedom of expression and then said it is forbidden? From context, it seems like you're saying Muhammed was in favor of freedom of expression. But to be fair, I'll make an explict variant (2') of your second statement:

(2') Islam supports freedom of expression.

(1) and (2') contradict each other.

Let me spell this contradiction out logically for you. I can spell out the steps in more detail if something isn't clear.

Here are three assertions I claim to be self-evident:

(A) Freedom of expression implies the right to say something without risking legal punishment.
(B) Insulting Muhammed is an example of saying something.
(C) Killing someone risks legal punishment.

If you think (A), (B) or (C) is false, let me know.

OK. Now, you asserted

(1) In Islam insulting Muhammed is equal to killing.

If one accepts (1) and (C), we conclude:

(D) Islam does not support the right to insult Muhammed without risk of legal punishment.

Here is my variant of your second statement:

(2') Islam supports freedom of expression.

By (2') and (A), we can conclude:

(E) Islam supports the right to say something without risking legal punishment.

By (E) and (B) we can conclude:

(F) Islam supports the right to insult Muhammed without risking legal punishment.

Now if we combine (D) and (F) we see that Islam both supports the mentioned right and does not support the mentioned right. This means Islam is contradictory.

Is there any step of this argument that isn't clear?

I didn't get you J J Philips, What you want to say , Would you please tell me again, Im confused between A,B,C,D and 1 2..
I didn't understand a single word from your words..
If you clear this to me i will be very thankful

[J. J. Phillips]

I didn't get you J J Philips, What you want to say , Would you please tell me again, Im confused between A,B,C,D and 1 2..
I didn't understand a single word from your words..
If you clear this to me i will be very thankful

Let me try a simpler example. I'm Canadian. Suppose I told you two things:

(1) Canadian law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Canadian law does not support freedom of expression.

Would you agree that both of these things cannot be true? Either (1) is true, or (2) is true, but not both.

[Spendulus]

.....

Your Israelis attacked the US on 911, just like they have attacked many other commerical airlines since the mid 1970s.  Just like they continue to attack innocent victims worldwide.
.....

Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL JOOOESSS!!!

Oh, and when I say "Youtube is not an authoritative source," that does not give you license to assume that I have alternate "authoritative sources" that you can refute.  It does not mean that you can leap to a conclusion that I agree with one or another government reports.

Authoritative sources I have used in this discussion are reference materials for high school chemistry and physics.  Most of that I know, but I did look up a few melting points and heats of combustion and so forth.

[GregH37]

I didn't get you J J Philips, What you want to say , Would you please tell me again, Im confused between A,B,C,D and 1 2..
I didn't understand a single word from your words..
If you clear this to me i will be very thankful

Let me try a simpler example. I'm Canadian. Suppose I told you two things:

(1) Canadian law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Canadian law does not support freedom of expression.

Would you agree that both of these things cannot be true? Either (1) is true, or (2) is true, but not both.

In my opinion only one option is correct..If Law support freedom is correct then the other is wrong..And if you compare Islamic law with the canadian law then please for God sake think sensible..

[J. J. Phillips]

I didn't get you J J Philips, What you want to say , Would you please tell me again, Im confused between A,B,C,D and 1 2..
I didn't understand a single word from your words..
If you clear this to me i will be very thankful

Let me try a simpler example. I'm Canadian. Suppose I told you two things:

(1) Canadian law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Canadian law does not support freedom of expression.

Would you agree that both of these things cannot be true? Either (1) is true, or (2) is true, but not both.

In my opinion only one option is correct..If Law support freedom is correct then the other is wrong..And if you compare Islamic law with the canadian law then please for God sake think sensible..

Good. Now, let's switch to Islamic law. For the same reason, both (1) and (2) here cannot be both true:

(1) Islamic law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Islamic law does not support freedom of expression.

Do you believe (1) or (2) is true?

[BADecker]

I didn't get you J J Philips, What you want to say , Would you please tell me again, Im confused between A,B,C,D and 1 2..
I didn't understand a single word from your words..
If you clear this to me i will be very thankful

Let me try a simpler example. I'm Canadian. Suppose I told you two things:

(1) Canadian law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Canadian law does not support freedom of expression.

Would you agree that both of these things cannot be true? Either (1) is true, or (2) is true, but not both.

In my opinion only one option is correct..If Law support freedom is correct then the other is wrong..And if you compare Islamic law with the canadian law then please for God sake think sensible..

Good. Now, let's switch to Islamic law. For the same reason, both (1) and (2) here cannot be both true:

(1) Islamic law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Islamic law does not support freedom of expression.

Do you believe (1) or (2) is true?

Absolutely this:
(1) Islamic law supports freedom of expression.

In fact they want you to express yourself. This way they will know whether or not to assassinate you.

[Spendulus]

I didn't get you J J Philips, What you want to say , Would you please tell me again, Im confused between A,B,C,D and 1 2..
I didn't understand a single word from your words..
If you clear this to me i will be very thankful

Let me try a simpler example. I'm Canadian. Suppose I told you two things:

(1) Canadian law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Canadian law does not support freedom of expression.

Would you agree that both of these things cannot be true? Either (1) is true, or (2) is true, but not both.

In my opinion only one option is correct..If Law support freedom is correct then the other is wrong..And if you compare Islamic law with the canadian law then please for God sake think sensible..

Good. Now, let's switch to Islamic law. For the same reason, both (1) and (2) here cannot be both true:

(1) Islamic law supports freedom of expression.
(2) Islamic law does not support freedom of expression.

Do you believe (1) or (2) is true?

While we are at it, let's extend the question a bit.  Does JudeoChristian (old and new Testament) support (1) or (2)?

As an atheist, I do believe it is (1) - generally.  If we search all places and times we could find a bit of (2). 

[btcusury]

^The answer is yes to both (1) and (2). It's a matter of interpretation and narrowness of definitions (to whom does this law apply?, etc).

.....
Your Israelis attacked the US on 911, just like they have attacked many other commerical airlines since the mid 1970s.  Just like they continue to attack innocent victims worldwide.
.....

Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL JOOOESSS!!!

Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL MUUUUUZLIMZ!!!

Oh, and when I say "Youtube is not an authoritative source," that does not give you license to assume that I have alternate "authoritative sources" that you can refute.  It does not mean that you can leap to a conclusion that I agree with one or another government reports.
Authoritative sources I have used in this discussion are reference materials for high school chemistry and physics.  Most of that I know, but I did look up a few melting points and heats of combustion and so forth.

Way to ignore everything I said, such as the observation that you can't get yourself to believe (observe) that there was indeed molten metal.

I didn't assume anything. You're the one whose entire worldview is made of a bunch of half-assed unquestioned assumptions. Then again, so are most people's worldview/selfview.

There are no "authoritative sources" to which you can cling to neatly explain in your mind what happened. You're supposed to be the thinker/seeker/investigator -- if you're not, you're just a parrot. Again, why are you here?

[Spendulus]

^The answer is yes to both (1) and (2). It's a matter of interpretation and narrowness of definitions (to whom does this law apply?, etc).

.....
Your Israelis attacked the US on 911, just like they have attacked many other commerical airlines since the mid 1970s.  Just like they continue to attack innocent victims worldwide.
.....

Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL JOOOESSS!!!

Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL MUUUUUZLIMZ!!!

Oh, and when I say "Youtube is not an authoritative source," that does not give you license to assume that I have alternate "authoritative sources" that you can refute.  It does not mean that you can leap to a conclusion that I agree with one or another government reports.
Authoritative sources I have used in this discussion are reference materials for high school chemistry and physics.  Most of that I know, but I did look up a few melting points and heats of combustion and so forth.

Way to ignore everything I said, such as the observation that you can't get yourself to believe (observe) that there was indeed molten metal.

I didn't assume anything. You're the one whose entire worldview is made of a bunch of half-assed unquestioned assumptions. Then again, so are most people's worldview/selfview.

There are no "authoritative sources" to which you can cling to neatly explain in your mind what happened. You're supposed to be the thinker/seeker/investigator -- if you're not, you're just a parrot. Again, why are you here?

Have you ever worked with molten metal personally?  I have.  Steel, aluminum, and various alloys.  And cast iron, come to think of it.

So I really don't have any problem just talking about it.  I don't feel like I need to find some authoritative source to discuss "molten metal."  It's just a matter of looking up the reference numbers for melting points and heats of fusion.  Then some 8th grade math will tell us the effect of various amounts of energy on given masses of plastics, steels, and lightweight aluminum.

There isn't any way to interject conspiracy theories into the middle of a discussion about melting points and heats of fusion.  Well, that's my opinion, anyway.  I do not feel any particular need to convince you.

[J. J. Phillips]

^The answer is yes to both (1) and (2). It's a matter of interpretation and narrowness of definitions (to whom does this law apply?, etc).

The two statements are contradictory. Part of the reason to ask which of the two is true is to narrow down how the person uses the terminology. Saying both are true gives no information, except that the person answering apparently believes contradictions.

I didn't assume anything. You're the one whose entire worldview is made of a bunch of half-assed unquestioned assumptions. Then again, so are most people's worldview/selfview.

There are no "authoritative sources" to which you can cling to neatly explain in your mind what happened.

This wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to point out the irony of it. Much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world: It's the fault of The Jews. Your post history suggests you're one of the people with this assumption.

But, don't listen to me, I'm just someone you (falsely) believe to be a Jew.

[btcusury]

This wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to point out the irony of it. Much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world: It's the fault of The Jews. Your post history suggests you're one of the people with this assumption.

Change that to any other group and you'd be equally as correct. I observe that it's "more" the "fault" of "the Jews" than any other grouping of human beings, including "the Muslims" and "the US government"... but that doesn't come close to an accurate understanding of what's going on. Yes, "much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world"... and those worldviews were drilled into your and all those other people's minds via the MSM... who are not really actually telling you anything about anything worth knowing.

But, don't listen to me, I'm just someone you (falsely) believe to be a Jew.

You're a human being filled with an extreme degree of hatred for anyone that you perceive is an enemy of Jewish supremacy... whether you really are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Perhaps one day you'd like to join the human race?

[Spendulus]

This wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to point out the irony of it. Much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world: It's the fault of The Jews. Your post history suggests you're one of the people with this assumption.

Change that to any other group and you'd be equally as correct. I observe that it's "more" the "fault" of "the Jews" than any other grouping of human beings, including "the Muslims" and "the US government"... but that doesn't come close to an accurate understanding of what's going on. Yes, "much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world"... and those worldviews were drilled into your and all those other people's minds via the MSM... who are not really actually telling you anything about anything worth knowing.

But, don't listen to me, I'm just someone you (falsely) believe to be a Jew.

You're a human being filled with an extreme degree of hatred for anyone that you perceive is an enemy of Jewish supremacy... whether you really are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Perhaps one day you'd like to join the human race?

You seem to have many of what is bolded.

[BADecker]

Besides, relatively speaking, there are multitudes of really wonderful people who are Jews. Then there are a few of them who are supreme crooks... like Stalin. It's just the same as with any ethnic or religious group.

[freakying99]

da joos da joos it waz da jooos

Da jooz did it. - 17 (100000.4%)
It was da muzlims. - 31 (19%)
A group of transnational heroin traffickers affiliated with various governments. - 5 (3.1%)
Some other group. - 10 (6.1%)
U.S. gov [added later] - 69 (42.3%)
I don't know but would like to know. - 15 (9.2%)
I don't care. Where is my crack pipe? - 16 (9.8%)

Forget the rest. Them joos want to take the whole world for themselves

[J. J. Phillips]

This wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to point out the irony of it. Much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world: It's the fault of The Jews. Your post history suggests you're one of the people with this assumption.

Change that to any other group and you'd be equally as correct. I observe that it's "more" the "fault" of "the Jews" than any other grouping of human beings, including "the Muslims" and "the US government"... but that doesn't come close to an accurate understanding of what's going on. Yes, "much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world"... and those worldviews were drilled into your and all those other people's minds via the MSM... who are not really actually telling you anything about anything worth knowing.

Reasonable people do not try to explain bad things by always blaming the same group. I believe Jihadists were (obviously) responsible for 9/11. But I don't believe Jihadists in particular or Muslims in general are responsible for a number of economic/social problems in modern Canada. Instead, I think the roots of many of those problems lie with the Trudeau eras of the 70s and 80s.

The problem with prejudiced people is that they always ask "who benefits?" because they always know the answer is "those people I don't like." After assuming both the question and its answer, they start filling in the details.

But, don't listen to me, I'm just someone you (falsely) believe to be a Jew.

You're a human being filled with an extreme degree of hatred for anyone that you perceive is an enemy of Jewish supremacy... whether you really are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Perhaps one day you'd like to join the human race?

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not proud of being human, so I'll consider it a compliment if you exclude me from that species. I was recently reading about various "archaic humans." (Neanderthals are the best known.) It isn't clear why modern humans survived while the others died out, but I'd put my money on Homo Sapiens learning to use tools to beat other Homos to death. Perhaps instead of being referred to as the "Wise Ape" the species should known as the "Genocidal Ape."

[BADecker]

This wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to point out the irony of it. Much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world: It's the fault of The Jews. Your post history suggests you're one of the people with this assumption.

Change that to any other group and you'd be equally as correct. I observe that it's "more" the "fault" of "the Jews" than any other grouping of human beings, including "the Muslims" and "the US government"... but that doesn't come close to an accurate understanding of what's going on. Yes, "much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world"... and those worldviews were drilled into your and all those other people's minds via the MSM... who are not really actually telling you anything about anything worth knowing.

Reasonable people do not try to explain bad things by always blaming the same group. I believe Jihadists were (obviously) responsible for 9/11. But I don't believe Jihadists in particular or Muslims in general are responsible for a number of economic/social problems in modern Canada. Instead, I think the roots of many of those problems lie with the Trudeau eras of the 70s and 80s.

The problem with prejudiced people is that they always ask "who benefits?" because they always know the answer is "those people I don't like." After assuming both the question and its answer, they start filling in the details.

But, don't listen to me, I'm just someone you (falsely) believe to be a Jew.

You're a human being filled with an extreme degree of hatred for anyone that you perceive is an enemy of Jewish supremacy... whether you really are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Perhaps one day you'd like to join the human race?

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not proud of being human, so I'll consider it a compliment if you exclude me from that species. I was recently reading about various "archaic humans." (Neanderthals are the best known.) It isn't clear why modern humans survived while the others died out, but I'd put my money on Homo Sapiens learning to use tools to beat other Homos to death. Perhaps instead of being referred to as the "Wise Ape" the species should known as the "Genocidal Ape."

Neanderthals are simply very aged humans, aged in the range of several hundred years old.

http://www.jackcuozzo.com/

[bojan92]

i don't want to judge but as seen on many american documentary movies there a lot of facts that it was an inside job. In the documentary movies there were many experts talking on this subject, saying that the towers were blasted with explosive placed in the bottom of the buildings.