Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 134
  1. #76
    Live by what you Speak. DarkReign's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    10,571
    He is very careful not to piss off the resident moonbats too much or step on their toes.

    He will poke fun at the nbadan's but will try to compensate by going after conservatives with an asshole left of Extra Stunt.
    Sure, sure. Got me there, no doubt.

    I dont cowtow to anyone and could care less who I offend or dont (though I do not try on purpose).

    Bottom line: I would have waited. Thats my opinion. The region was ripe for a iron-clad reason to invade with international support.

    As much as it may pain some, the truth is the American military is over-extended and its only because we didnt have patience. I dont like the UN and certainly hold no allegiance to any piss-poor country in the middle east. But if you use your tools effectively, the UN and the ME could be very useful.

    I think this administration (and by proxy this government) failed to use its tools to maximum efficency. Either by not recognizing its best use or disregarding them as not useful. The UN is a useful tool, no matter how ineffectual. If half the force occupying Iraq right now were forces other than American, half the Administrations problems wouldnt even exist. Administration doesnt have problems = America has no problems. And vice versa.

    Thats why the presidency is so important. Its a direct reflection of the American people as a whole, like it or not. Here, on an American board, I criticize and poke fun at the leadership in this country daily. When I venture into other countries (very often) I put up an ironclad facade of support out of loyalty.

    Either way, the ME could have been done much differently and IMO, much more effectively. I think this President has made a mess out of a messy situation.

    Wipe the ME off the face of the earth? You got my vote. Pussy foot inside and out, lie about what your true intentions in the region are then that up beyond any sort of recovery, set back our foreign relations about 40 years, put way too much pressure on our largest ally basically causing its people to openly protest its alliance with the US, etc.

    Yeah, sounds like we have a winner. I am not a Bush crony. Sorry. He ed up. He ed up reeeeeal bad. What he has done will damage our country for many Presidents to come. Congrats.

  2. #77
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    There is no compulsion in religion." (The Qur'an 2:256)

    "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabaeans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness their wage awaits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Q. 2:62)

    "If it had been thy Lord's Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind against their will to believe!" (Q. 10:99)

    "To you your religion, and to me my religion." (Q. 109:6)

    "Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors (2:190)"

    More?
    Yeah, explain the context of each passage. What was going on? Are these proverbs or are they scriptural imperatives?

    When the Koran is cited by Muslims, or apologists such as yourself, in response to assertions it is a violent religion, it is often discussed in such a way as to shut down a meaningful exploration of the text. A few mild passages are usually offered, as if these fully represented the contents of a scripture containing 6,000-plus verses.

    But, the Koran -- literally interpreted to mean "recitation" -- is a collection of diverse materials that include polemic, praise, eschatology, law, narrative, battle calls, and details of the domestic life of the Prophet.

    The Koran contains five commands to kill and 12 commands to fight (literally, "try to kill"). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras.

    And, in classical Muslim discussions of these verses, two verses attracted more attention than any others. They came to be known as "the sword verse" (9.5) and "the verse of tribute" (9.29).

    The verse of tribute concerns the "people of the book" -- generally understood by Muslims to be faith communities possessing a scripture, especially Jews and Christians. The command is to fight those who have been given the book "until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled."

    The command in the sword verse is to "kill the associators (mushrikin) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush." At face value, therefore, polytheists appear to be at greater risk than Jews or Christians. But Jews and Christians only evade the same fate by subjugating themselves to Islam and paying a fee to do so.

    The Arabic verb in all of these verses is not the verb related to jihad. Rather, it is the verb qatala in its first ("to kill") and third ("to fight, try to kill") forms.

    The Koran contains many other verses using forms of qatala which -- though not imperatives -- appear to encourage fighting or killing. Among these is 61.4: "Allah loves those who fight in his way."

    These are the commands. But what do they mean?

    David S. Powers, professor of near eastern studies at Cornell University, has noted that Muslim scholars of abrogation such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) claimed the "sword verse" cited above (9.5) had abrogating power over 124 other verses, including "every other verse in the Koran which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers." U.S.-born historian John Wansbrough found that the sword verse "became the scriptural prop of a formulation designed to cover any and all situations which might arise between the Muslim community and its enemies." Influential Islamist authors such as 'Abd al-Salam Faraj, Maulana Maududi and Sayyid Qutb have all expressed their agreement with the classical interpretation of the commands to fight and kill.

    A famous illustration of this Islamist tendency is in the pre-9/11 communiques of Osama bin Laden. His "Declaration of War" of October, 1996, makes prominent use of Koranic commands to fight and kill. His Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders of February, 1998, opens with the sword verse and applies it directly to those he considers to be the modern enemies of Islam.

    Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing peace advocates in Muslim nations is that the Islamist voices that seem to have the greatest appeal to youth are those that portray the Koranic commands to kill as clear and unequivocal. Some of these Islamists have already carefully processed Western criticisms and have deliberately reasserted the classical understandings. For instance, Egypt's Sayyid Qutb, a guiding force of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which al-Qaeda sprang), wrote that the tendency to interpret the Koran as if it enjoins only defensive war is an error of Muslims minds "defeated by the pressure of unfavourable conditions and the treacherous propaganda of the orientalists."

    It's not a peaceful religion, except for the Muslim cowards that want us all to just get along.

    Kind of like Catholics that think abortion is okie dokie. It's obviously, emphatically, contradictory to their religion -- but, somehow, they're able to ignore that and call themselves Catholic anyway.

  3. #78
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    I guess your point is that no one can believe that Islam advocates violence because then we would have to kill them, and thus your PC world would not stay intact.

    Please elaborate, because no one on this board with the exception of Dark Reign has promoted that.
    I'm not disputing your thesis. I'm wondering what the you are advocating that we do about it. Are you advocating that we eliminate all Muslims?

  4. #79
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    So is the point that we should wipe out Muslims because their religion advocates or provides a justification for violence?
    No, just those Muslims that won't stop killing until they, themselves, are dead.

  5. #80
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    No, just those Muslims that won't stop killing until they, themselves, are dead.
    And?

  6. #81
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    And nothing. That'd do the trick. Well, as far as Islamo-fascism is concerned.

  7. #82
    Maaaaaannnn fuck.... E20's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Post Count
    15,142
    Yeah, explain the context of each passage. What was going on? Are these proverbs or are they scriptural imperatives?

    When the Koran is cited by Muslims, or apologists such as yourself, in response to assertions it is a violent religion, it is often discussed in such a way as to shut down a meaningful exploration of the text. A few mild passages are usually offered, as if these fully represented the contents of a scripture containing 6,000-plus verses.

    But, the Koran -- literally interpreted to mean "recitation" -- is a collection of diverse materials that include polemic, praise, eschatology, law, narrative, battle calls, and details of the domestic life of the Prophet.

    The Koran contains five commands to kill and 12 commands to fight (literally, "try to kill"). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras.

    And, in classical Muslim discussions of these verses, two verses attracted more attention than any others. They came to be known as "the sword verse" (9.5) and "the verse of tribute" (9.29).

    The verse of tribute concerns the "people of the book" -- generally understood by Muslims to be faith communities possessing a scripture, especially Jews and Christians. The command is to fight those who have been given the book "until they pay the tribute (jizya) out of hand and have been humbled."

    The command in the sword verse is to "kill the associators (mushrikin) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush." At face value, therefore, polytheists appear to be at greater risk than Jews or Christians. But Jews and Christians only evade the same fate by subjugating themselves to Islam and paying a fee to do so.

    The Arabic verb in all of these verses is not the verb related to jihad. Rather, it is the verb qatala in its first ("to kill") and third ("to fight, try to kill") forms.

    The Koran contains many other verses using forms of qatala which -- though not imperatives -- appear to encourage fighting or killing. Among these is 61.4: "Allah loves those who fight in his way."

    These are the commands. But what do they mean?

    David S. Powers, professor of near eastern studies at Cornell University, has noted that Muslim scholars of abrogation such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) claimed the "sword verse" cited above (9.5) had abrogating power over 124 other verses, including "every other verse in the Koran which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the non-believers." U.S.-born historian John Wansbrough found that the sword verse "became the scriptural prop of a formulation designed to cover any and all situations which might arise between the Muslim community and its enemies." Influential Islamist authors such as 'Abd al-Salam Faraj, Maulana Maududi and Sayyid Qutb have all expressed their agreement with the classical interpretation of the commands to fight and kill.

    A famous illustration of this Islamist tendency is in the pre-9/11 communiques of Osama bin Laden. His "Declaration of War" of October, 1996, makes prominent use of Koranic commands to fight and kill. His Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders of February, 1998, opens with the sword verse and applies it directly to those he considers to be the modern enemies of Islam.

    Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing peace advocates in Muslim nations is that the Islamist voices that seem to have the greatest appeal to youth are those that portray the Koranic commands to kill as clear and unequivocal. Some of these Islamists have already carefully processed Western criticisms and have deliberately reasserted the classical understandings. For instance, Egypt's Sayyid Qutb, a guiding force of the Muslim Brotherhood (from which al-Qaeda sprang), wrote that the tendency to interpret the Koran as if it enjoins only defensive war is an error of Muslims minds "defeated by the pressure of unfavourable conditions and the treacherous propaganda of the orientalists."

    It's not a peaceful religion, except for the Muslim cowards that want us all to just get along.

    Kind of like Catholics that think abortion is okie dokie. It's obviously, emphatically, contradictory to their religion -- but, somehow, they're able to ignore that and call themselves Catholic anyway.
    The violence written is towards the Quyrash, sure you can argue it another way and given the fact that throught history Muslims have used the Quran to start wars and get there ways whether it be land or power.

    During Islam's birth period which took around 20 years to full establish it self it was the Muslims vs the Quyrash. I don't know how Muhammad could even think of saying Kill all Christians, because for a good amount of time he was living in Medina, which was a province under Abbesyinia which was ruled under a Christian King. In the Quran it says that God does not condone killing(Sura 9 verse 116). It also says that not everybody is intended to be Muslim, if it was then if God is all powerful it should be like that(Sura 10 Line 99. Whatever Muhammad says that is contradictory to the Quran is nullified because in Islam. God > Muhammad and anything in the Quran > Hadith.

    The Koran contains five commands to kill and 12 commands to fight (literally, "try to kill"). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras.
    Sura 2 lines 190-194
    [2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

    [2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those.

    [2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

    [2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

    [2:194] During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe GOD and know that GOD is with the righteous.

    [2:195] You shall spend in the cause of GOD

    V. 244
    [2:244] You shall fight in the cause of GOD, and know that GOD is Hearer, Knower.

    Sura 4
    [4:75] Why should you not fight in the cause of GOD when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master."

    [4:76] Those who believe are fighting for the cause of GOD, while those who disbelieve are fighting for the cause of tyranny. Therefore, you shall fight the devil's allies; the devil's power is nil.

    [4:77] Have you noted those who were told, "You do not have to fight; all you need to do is observe the Contact Prayers and give the obligatory charity," then, when fighting was decreed for them, they feared the people as much as they feared GOD, or even more? They said, "Our Lord, why did You force this fighting on us? If only You respite us for awhile!" Say, "The materials of this world are nil, while the Hereafter is far better for the righteous, and you never suffer the slightest injustice."

    [4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.

    [9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
    **Side note** This is directly towards the Quyrash and the Pageans, during Ramadan(The Forbidden Month) the Muslims and Quyrash had a treaty for no fighting. The treaty was broken, fighting continued after Ramadan.

    [9:12] If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.
    **Simple enough, if they break the treaty and continue to fight, then go on ahead and fight back.***

    [9:13] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers.

    [9:14] You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.
    **Same as above, I'm not gonna post lines 29, 36 and 123 in Sura 9, becaue they're all towards the Quyarsh and say the exact samething.**

  8. #83
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    So, you disagree that it is a fundamental tenet of Islam that everyone should be Muslim or dead?
    Basically.

    From what I can see, the fundamental tenets of Islam are the Five Pillars.

    It's hard for me to understand how anyone with long-term exposure to the greater Christian community could think there would be widespread doctrinal agreement about anything but the absolute bare basics of any faith among 1 billion people. They aren't drones.

    It's also hard for me to understand how people with so little exposure to a faith can make sweeping generalizations about it. It irritates me when liberals do that to Christianity.

    If killing the infidels were one of the true obvious fundamental pillars of Islam, then the majority of devout Muslims would be out there killing infidels. To claim that the reason they aren't is simply because they don't know their faith, a faith that you do not yourself study or practice in any depth, is utterly presumptuous.

    Clearly, it's obvious that in the contemporary Middle Eastern culture, a sizable minority of people practice a violent brand of Islam. It seems fairly clear that there are verses in the Koran that can be used to glorify religious violence. These things happen a lot more in Islam in 2006 than they do in any other religions today. That in itself is enough of a problem. That is enough of a flaw in that belief system. That is enough of a big waving crimson red flag of a crisis for the whole world to deal with.

    Since you purportedly are a conservative Christian, it would follow that you believe that Islam is invalid and not from God. If you believe it is not from God, then it follows that it can be... somewhat malleable in its practice. And that in a big, long, sometimes self-contradictory tome like the Qu-ran, which requires interpretation to figure out which verses cancel which other ones out, over time, in the Zeitgeist of that part of the world, the faithful can be persuaded to heed the more peaceful verses over the more violent ones under the right set of geopolitical and socioeconomic cir stances. I always thought that was the goal anyway.

    I wonder what is the point of arguing that Islam is inherently and unavoidably violent? Are you arguing to eliminate all Muslims? To eliminate the practice of Islam? To kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity? Or are you implying that Islamic terrorism will never go away?

  9. #84
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    And nothing. That'd do the trick. Well, as far as Islamo-fascism is concerned.
    So wipe 'em out, eh?

  10. #85
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    Exactly how fundamentalist does own have to be to dictate that only one interpretation of a religion one doesn't even believe in or practice is the "correct" one, and that everyone who doesn't practice it that way are "cowards?"

    It would be absurd even if said person had anything more than a cursory knowledge about said religion.

    Hey, FWD, I've decided that Stalinism is the only correct left-of-center ideology. Since you're merely a center-left moderate, that must mean you are just a mealy-mouthed coward. If you truly embraced your ideology, you'd let all the non-collectivizing farmers starve to death and execute all dissenters.

  11. #86
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    I wonder what is the point of arguing that Islam is inherently and unavoidably violent? Are you arguing to eliminate all Muslims? To eliminate the practice of Islam? To kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity? Or are you implying that Islamic terrorism will never go away?
    I've wondered that myself. Seems to me the only thing it accomplishes is to fuel the belief of many Muslims that the West is waging a war on Islam.

    I'd like for peaceful Muslims to be morally aligned with us against Terrorism, and I don't think it helps our cause to accuse them all of following a violent set of beliefs. If we expect Middle Easterners to reject Terror organizations' rhetoric on the "Western War on Islam" then it's probably not in our best interests to flaunt our supposed religious/moral superiority.

  12. #87
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Like I said, just those that are bent on killing everyone else.

  13. #88
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Hey, FWD, I've decided that Stalinism is the only correct left-of-center ideology. Since you're merely a center-left moderate, that must mean you are just a mealy-mouthed coward. If you truly embraced your ideology, you'd let all the non-collectivizing farmers starve to death and execute all dissenters.
    Exactly as the Islamo-fascists see it, I believe. Nice. Put very succinctly.

    Osama couldn't have said it better himself.

  14. #89
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,412
    It was my first question at the beginning of this thread. Why are we going through the motions of trying to establish a democracy in Iraq as a shining beacon for the Islamic world to follow when all we should be doing according to the chickenhawks on this board is genocide?

  15. #90
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    I've wondered that myself. Seems to me the only thing it accomplishes is to fuel the belief of many Muslims that the West is waging a war on Islam.

    I'd like for peaceful Muslims to be morally aligned with us against Terrorism, and I don't think it helps our cause to accuse them all of following a violent set of beliefs. If we expect Middle Easterners to reject Terror organizations' rhetoric on the "Western War on Islam" then it's probably not in our best interests to flaunt our supposed religious/moral superiority.
    Are these folks worried a whole bunch of church-going Americans are going to convert to Islamism and start blowing up buildings unless they label it a violent death cult? Are they thinking that Dr. Abdel Aziz at Minneapolis General Hospital is going to read their essays and say, "My goodness! I was not aware my wife, five children, and I were following a violent death cult! Lord Jesus, I want be a Christian!"

    The thinking is so weak.

  16. #91
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    Exactly as the Islamo-fascists see it, I believe. Nice. Put very succinctly.

    Osama couldn't have said it better himself.
    OK...

    And you said above that peaceful Muslims are cowards.

    So you agree with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists?

  17. #92
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    OK...

    And you said above that peaceful Muslims are cowards.

    So you agree with Osama bin Laden and the terrorists?
    Maybe a poor choice of words. I meant to insinuate they didn't practice what their religion preached because, well, they don't want to be violent because of the consequences. I used the analogy of pro-abortion Catholics.

    Coward was the first word that popped into my head. You pick.

    Obversely, I believe they don't speak out against the violent elements of their religion for the same reason -- they don't like the consequences. Those people tend to kill you if you disagree.

  18. #93
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    Maybe a poor choice of words. I meant to insinuate they didn't practice what their religion preached because, well, they don't want to be violent because of the consequences. I used the analogy of pro-abortion Catholics.

    Coward was the first word that popped into my head. You pick.

    Obversely, I believe they don't speak out against the violent elements of their religion for the same reason -- they don't like the consequences. Those people tend to kill you if you disagree.
    I think that Islam is a false religion made by men. I think that its holy book requires interpretation because a lot of it appears muddled and self-contradictory. I think that since it is so subject to interpretation, there will be multiple interpretations. I in no way think that anything approaching a majority, much less a consensus, of Muslim scholars, would subscribe to this "abrogation principle" that elevates the verse of the sword above all others.

    Maybe 90% sincerely believe it preaches peace, and 10% believe it preaches violence. That's still 100 million potential terrorists. I also would say that a big chunk of that 900 million non-terrorist group either cower in fear of the violent ones and just try to stay out of their way, or are indifferent to their violence against the infidels even though they themselves don't think it's right to lift up the sword.

    Even then, it's a huge-ass problem, and you don't have to sacrifice your intellectual consistency, or rely on fallacies, or impugn the sincerity of the other 900 million, to communicate it.

  19. #94
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    Like I said, just those that are bent on killing everyone else.
    Should the guards at the camps be invested with the discretion to decide which Muslims belong to which groups?

  20. #95
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,412
    C'mon, Yoni merely wants to kill 100 million Muslims.

    No biggie.

  21. #96
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    Should the guards at the camps be invested with the discretion to decide which Muslims belong to which groups?
    FWD, weren't you aware that the Islamo-fascist ones have a big green stripe going down their backs? Super easy to find.

  22. #97
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    Should the guards at the camps be invested with the discretion to decide which Muslims belong to which groups?
    If you encounter them on the battlefield...take no prisoners. Kind of eliminates the need for guards or camps.

    Oh, and that is neither a violation of the Geneva Conventions or the internationally recognized rules of engagement.

  23. #98
    I Got Hops Extra Stout's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    13,614
    If you encounter them on the battlefield...take no prisoners. Kind of eliminates the need for guards or camps.

    Oh, and that is neither a violation of the Geneva Conventions or the internationally recognized rules of engagement.
    That's sort of like trying to get rid of the ants in your house by squashing the ones you see.

  24. #99
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,412
    How many invasions would getting rid of them all necessitate?

  25. #100
    I don't really care... Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    26,781
    That's sort of like trying to get rid of the ants in your house by squashing the ones you see.
    Yeah, I suppose you could just give in to to Dhimmitude.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •