Rozalia vs Ibrahim, on Islamic Misdeeds

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I'll stop feeding Assad's dogs.

 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Hah!

HAHAHA!

He should only remain in power until Daesh are defeated. ...

 

That'll be never.

[Peace and War]

That'll be never.

Anyway if you won't admit that Muslims commit misdeeds just like everyone else does, as is the nature of every human on this Earth to commit some sort of misdeed. It's called the human condition. Then I don't really know what's wrong with you sir, but you have to be pretty delusional to even think that way.

 

That's almost the same unwavering belief that the Nazis had. We never do no wrong everything we do is right. But I bet you wouldn't agree killing millions of Jews is a moral thing to do. Then tell me how killing gays and enslaving women is a moral thing to do. How can harming another human being be a moral thing? Killing innocent people, women and children, for not being Muslim, which ISIS is doing right now, and they are followers of Islam.

 

Tell me again, how can Muslims, every Muslim, do no wrong? Ever?

[Rozalia]

I'll stop feeding Assad's dogs.

 

 

Too scared/fanatical/both to even condemn ISIS. Pathetic/sad/so on. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Please, ignore the rest of my comment.

That works too.

 

I didn't respond to it because it was based on the assumption that you could somehow defeat IS. Anyway, the situation in Libya is far more preferable to that of Syria, were the regime is constantly raining down barrel bombs on the heads of the civilian population. Here is a video of them throwing barrel bombs out of the back of helicopters and allowing it to free-fall onto highly populated cities and towns (what has caused most of the civilians casualties in Syria):

 

WARNING! GRAPHIC FOOTAGE

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2015 by Sheepy

[Alex]

For everyone's future reference, if you're going to post something that's questionably graphic content, please wrap it in a

tag, and use clearly marked lettering to warn any potential viewers.

This does not mean it's okay to post any and all graphic content.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Ok, thanks.

 

 

EDIT: There is a warning at 1:51-1:54... but I see your point.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Rozalia]

I didn't respond to it because it was based on the assumption that you could somehow defeat IS. Anyway, the situation in Libya is far more preferable to that of Syria, were the regime is constantly raining down barrel bombs on the heads of the civilian population. Here is a video of them throwing barrel bombs out of the back of helicopters and allowing it to free-fall onto highly populated cities and towns (what has caused most of the civilians casualties in Syria):

 

Let me guess. We can't defeat the holy Islamic warriors of the desert doing Allah's divine will right? What a laugh, good job on constantly promoting anti-Islamic sentiment. Don't cry I suppose if one day you get stabbed for it but then again you must get all hot and aroused at the thought of being a "martyr". Of course considering how much you love ISIS you must be on some watch list by now as a possible terrorist so we'll see if they arrest you first or you do something first.

 

Anarchy is preferable to order apparently. Assad can actually defeat ISIS and then get back to ruling his country, Libya has no hope of that on it's own.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Lets see... America gathered a huge coalition and launched a decade long war to destroy Al Qaeda:

 

1) They sent hundreds of thousands of ground troops.

2) Launced tens of thousands of airstrikes.

2) Spent trillions of dollars.

3) Killed millions of people.

4) Thousands of American lives lost.

 

Has Al Qaeda been defeated?

 

No, they spread into a dozen countries, and are a lot stronger today than they were ten years ago.

 

Nobody today is even talking about "destroying" Al Qaeda, that's how much of a failure it was.

 

Will hundreds of thousands of US ground troops be sent in to confront IS (who have been described as Al Qaeda on steroids)? Obama said on numerous occasions that he was not going to do that, almost all the viable candidates vying for the US presidency don't want to do that, and the American people are extremely war weary. This is not to say that it would be successful even if that were to happen. 

 

So the question arises: How exactly are they going to be defeated? Without pleading to your emotions, I want you to answer this question, because if history tells us anything it's that such groups can't be defeated militarily.

[Rozalia]

Lets see... America gathered a huge coalition and launched a decade long war to destroy Al Qaeda:

 

1) They sent hundreds of thousands of ground troops.

2) Launced tens of thousands of airstrikes.

2) Spent trillions of dollars.

3) Killed millions of people.

4) Thousands of American lives lost.

 

Has Al Qaeda been defeated?

 

No, they spread into a dozen countries, and are a lot stronger today than they were ten years ago.

 

Nobody today is even talking about "destroying" Al Qaeda, that's how much of a failure it was.

 

Will hundreds of thousands of US ground troops be sent in to confront IS (who have been described as Al Qaeda on steroids)? Obama said on numerous occasions that he was not going to do that, almost all the viable candidates vying for the US presidency don't want to do that, and the American people are extremely war weary. This is not to say that it would be successful even if that were to happen. 

 

So the question arises: How exactly are they going to be defeated? Without pleading to your emotions, I want you to answer this question, because if history tells us anything it's that such groups can't be defeated militarily.

 

The "coalition" consists of America while everyone else serves up platitudes. America the only one really doing anything is also schizophrenic (or well calculated to some people) in it's actions as it'll arm terrorists one day and then bomb them the next. 

 

Terrorist groups are naturally harder to kill off due to being like Cockroaches. ISIS however has an army and is going about conquering land so reversing that is simple enough. 

 

So lets armchair a bit because as you are an ISIS lover and think they're such upstanding guys lets think about what they'll do when they conquer Syria and Iraq. Now they do things good old mongol style, or Greek style if you think about it as Alexander did such things first, that being just conquering and then conquering some more seemingly without end. So where to next? North to Turkey? East to Iran? Unlikely. So that leaves south which I suppose has Jordan and Lebanon for them to smack about if Israel decides to sit on it's hands... then what? Fight Israel and get ripped apart by the people they (and you) hate most? So that leaves... biting the hand that feeds, Saudi Arabia.

 

Now Saudi Arabia is ruled by another group of murderous thugs who cut people's heads for little reason. "Holy Muslim" against "Holy Muslim". Who do you love more Ibrahim? Who will you be supporting? Both groups of religious fundamentalists can't both be right so which will be wrong? 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

1. Hundreds of thousands? Yes. Ground troops? No.

 

Yes, Ground Troops!

 

 

 

4. Lolno. Not even close. More like 50k if you want to be generous. Most losses are actually due to the Iraqi's killing their own people. THOSE fatalities are over 100k.

 

Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror†since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million. The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University. Here is the full report (read for yourself): http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Look what's making the headlines today: Taliban Capture The Provincial Capital Of Kunduz

 

Yes. That's the very same former government of Afghanistan that America along with all her allies desperately sought to destroy with all their might, for ten long years, and that's the same Kunduz that was one of the centers of the American troop surge five years ago. So tell me again how you plan on "destroying" IS

 

 

 American Humvees captured during the battle [source]:

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Rozalia]

Yes, Ground Troops!

 

 

 

 

Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS) released a landmark study concluding that the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror†since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million. The 97-page report by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ group is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led counter-terrorism interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

The PSR report is authored by an interdisciplinary team of leading public health experts, including Dr. Robert Gould, director of health professional outreach and education at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, and Professor Tim Takaro of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University. Here is the full report (read for yourself): http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf

 

A lot of association going on here.  Iraq troops were meant to be an occupying force first and foremost, not a terrorist hunter force. 

Were it as you are trying to make out then troop numbers would have increased not decreased.

 

Outside that you've decided not to give an answer to my question. Too cowardly to go against Saudi Arabia. Too cowardly to go against ISIS. Put two Muslims against each other and you can't even give an answer on who is wrong because to you any idiot who follows Islam is correct (which no doubt fuels your arrogance). What about ISIS killing so many Muslims? Well to you that just doesn't happen as ISIS are good Muslims. I suppose all those deaths an ISIS soldier accidentally slipped and his knife just happened to cut off an innocent person's head.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

>Claims Al-Qaida is stronger today

>Can't even control their own militant groups.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

>Claims Al-Qaida is stronger today

>Can't even control their own militant groups.

 

Those militant groups didn't even exist prior to the failed "war on terror".

 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

You sure? 

 

I'm pretty sure. Try quoting exactly what it is you are referring to.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Al-Qæda (/ælˈkaɪdÉ™/ or /ˌælkÉ‘ËˈiËdÉ™/; Arabic: Ø§Ù„قاعدة‎ al-qÄÊ¿idah, Arabic: [ælqÉ‘ËʕɪdÉ], translation: "The Base", "The Foundation" or "The Fundament" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida, al-Qæda and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamistorganization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam,^[24] and several others,^[25] at some point between August 1988^[26]and late 1989,^[25] with origins traceable to the Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

The War on Terror (WoT), also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), refers to the international military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States.^[40] The United States led a coalition of other countries in a long but unsuccessful campaign to destroy al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist organizations.^[41]

 

 

^{Still want to stick with your claims?}

All that is going to be said is that its a wiki article and that its not an acceptable or legitimate source. Its not worth arguing with soeone whose agenda is to defecate on every post abut his "religion."

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Al-Qæda (/ælˈkaɪdÉ™/ or /ˌælkÉ‘ËˈiËdÉ™/; Arabic: Ø§Ù„قاعدة‎ al-qÄÊ¿idah, Arabic: [ælqÉ‘ËʕɪdÉ], translation: "The Base", "The Foundation" or "The Fundament" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida, al-Qæda and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamistorganization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam,^[24] and several others,^[25] at some point between August 1988^[26]and late 1989,^[25] with origins traceable to the Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

The War on Terror (WoT), also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), refers to the international military campaign that started after the September 11 attacks on the United States.^[40] The United States led a coalition of other countries in a long but unsuccessful campaign to destroy al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist organizations.^[41]

 

 

^{Still want to stick with your claims?}

 

Obviously Al Qaeda existed.   

 

 

I was talking about the "militant group" who pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda that Francisco was referring to saying they "can't even control their own militant groups". Al Qaeda affiliated militant groups like Al Shabab,  AQAP, Al Nusra Front, AQIS, and AQIM did not exist prior to the "war on terror".

[Rozalia]

Obviously Al Qaeda existed.   

 

 

I was talking about the "militant group" who pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda that Francisco was referring to saying they "can't even control their own militant groups". Al Qaeda affiliated militant groups like Al Shabab,  AQAP, Al Nusra Front, AQIS, and AQIM did not exist prior to the "war on terror".

 

And how pray tell those that render Francisco's statement as false? For all their supposed strength they went from a leader organization to a side show.

 

Keep avoiding answering the uncomfortable questions while targeting softballs though. Come on. Saudi Arabia vs ISIS death battle. Whose right? Who wins? Who are you going to cheer getting their heads cut off. Who is more of a "Holy Muslim" in those stakes to you? Come on now. 

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Keep avoiding answering the uncomfortable questions while targeting softballs though. Come on. Saudi Arabia vs ISIS death battle. Whose right? Who wins? Who are you going to cheer getting their heads cut off. Who is more of a "Holy Muslim" in those stakes to you? Come on now. 

 

What are you running from Khilafah? Are you so insecure in your faith that you refuse to accept that there are and have been unpleasant elements using a particular interpretation of the Quran to commit evil? I think that if you admit that IS is wrong you have to admit that you are wrong and that your view of Islam is wrong......am I right?

[Robert Ap Ioan]

People have, over time, acted most horrifically in the name of Christianity and that is something that I dislike. Those people who fought the crusades were men who had little knowledge of the bible in their native tongue in thrall to an oppressive regime. Alas they acted in a way that was not in line with the teachings of Christ, those responsible will face the wrath of God, as will the people behind Daesh. You claim to support these people and I ask you why, I also ask you to answer Rozalia's question to prove to us that you have integrity in debating.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

According to the Quran and the ijma (consensus) of the scholars regarding apostasy:

 

Any leader who allies with or becomes a puppet of or willingly supports any non-Muslim country (i.e America/Russia) against Muslims (like the Saudi leaders who are part of the US coalition), has apostatised from Islam, and the same for any ruler who implements laws contrary to the Sharia. Believe it or not but the Saudi government has also made Riba (interest) permissible by giving licenses to banks that charge interest, which is contrary to the Sharia, so even on this count the leadership would be deemed apostates. 

 

I don't believe there are any Muslim leaders of any recognised country, today.

[Rozalia]

According to the Quran and the ijma (consensus) of the scholars regarding apostasy:

 

Any leader who allies with or becomes a puppet of or willingly supports any non-Muslim country (i.e America/Russia) against Muslims (like the Saudi leaders who are part of the US coalition), has apostatised from Islam, and the same for any ruler who implements laws contrary to the Sharia. Believe it or not but the Saudi government has also made Riba (interest) permissible by giving licenses to banks that charge interest, which is contrary to the Sharia, so even on this count the leadership would be deemed apostates. 

 

I don't believe there are any Muslim leaders of any recognised country, today.

 

And there we have it. No Muslim can be in the wrong so when Muslim vs Muslim happens and one must be wrong, then one isn't a Muslim at all in this mad, mad, mad mindset. Predicable. 

So even the disgusting religious fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia are too "liberal" for you. So ridiculous, you couldn’t make it up.

 

Whats funny about this is no doubt after the news of Russia bombing "moderates" in Syria you'll now be talking about how evil they and Assad are. Meanwhile you support cutting people's heads off for little/no reason... yet have the gall to dare to try and appeal to emotion with us? 

 

You know thinking on it I thought your Assad fixation and propaganda was just because you loved ISIS so much. Now while that is a part I get the feeling something else is also a reason. Assad is an Alawite after all and no doubt you think all of them should have their heads cut off, they are no real Muslims after all.

 

So once again... why aren't you fighting the good fight for ISIS yet? You're a big tough holy Muslim who knows he is going to Heaven right? So whats stopping you? You just a coward who can tough talk on the internet? Or is it perhaps fear of meeting your heroes? They might cut off your head after all.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Rozalia

[Greatnate]

According to the Quran and the ijma (consensus) of the scholars regarding apostasy:

 

Any leader who allies with or becomes a puppet of or willingly supports any non-Muslim country (i.e America/Russia) against Muslims (like the Saudi leaders who are part of the US coalition), has apostatised from Islam, and the same for any ruler who implements laws contrary to the Sharia. Believe it or not but the Saudi government has also made Riba (interest) permissible by giving licenses to banks that charge interest, which is contrary to the Sharia, so even on this count the leadership would be deemed apostates. 

 

I don't believe there are any Muslim leaders of any recognised country, today.

 

So long as we're just acknowledging that there's no true Muslim.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

 So long as we're just acknowledging that there's no true Muslim.

 

I gave clear references (Quran and Ijma of the scholars), in my first sentence, for the specific objective rules regarding apostasy in Islam. Try again.

 

How on earth did you interpret: "I don't believe there are any Muslim leaders of any recognised country, today." to mean that there were no "true Muslim(s)" period? Do I honestly have to break everything I say down for you lot or are you taking the piss?

 

 

Next time I will just respond with this (instead of wasting my time)....

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2015 by Ibrahim