FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Conditions to give up jihad





S3nd K3ys
Quote:
The Iraqi Al-Qaeda leader then laid down two conditions for giving up the jihad.

"First, chase out the invaders from our territory in Palestine, in Iraq and everywhere in Islamic land.

"Second, instal sharia (Islamic law) on the entire Earth and spread Islamic justice there (...). The attacks will not cease until after the victory of Islam and the setting up of sharia," he swore.

Zarqawi concluded: "O young Muslims everywhere in the world, and in particular in the neighbouring countries (of Iraq) and in Yemen, I recommend jihad to you (...). O nation of Islam, America is today drawing its last breath."


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/09/060109051601.0pm2jjra.html

So driving the USA out of there won't be enough. Only when Islam rules the world will it be over.

Alllll righty then. Shocked

He must be running low on suicide bombers...


Quote:
Zarqawi also said the guerrillas had carried out nearly 800 operations against "the crusader forces" since the occupation of Iraq, putting "crusader" casualties at around 40,000 soldiers.

"Since the start of mujahedeen operations after the fall of the Baathist regime and until today, nearly 800 martyr operations aimed at crusader targets and military convoys have been carried out (...). We estimate casualties among the adorers of the Cross in Iraq at no less than 40,000 soldiers," he declared.


The truth comes out! Bush has been doctoring the casualty numbers!!!
gonzo
S3nd K3ys wrote:


So driving the USA out of there won't be enough. Only when Islam rules the world will it be over.

Alllll righty then. Shocked



tbsly
Durka, durka, muhammed, jihad! I think one can reasonably believe everything they see and hear from the US media. After all, why would they be biased in their coverage, or choose to keep citizens in the dark about numerous pressing global issues. I see no reason, therefore the media is fair and balanced.

Hah
S3nd K3ys
tbsly wrote:
Durka, durka, muhammed, jihad! I think one can reasonably believe everything they see and hear from the US media. After all, why would they be biased in their coverage, or choose to keep citizens in the dark about numerous pressing global issues. I see no reason, therefore the media is fair and balanced.

Hah


Sorry to dissapoint, but this isn't from the AMERICAN media... perhaps you should research before you get your panties in a bunch.

Copyright AFP 2005 wrote:
Long Tradition of Newsgathering

AFP is the world's oldest established news agency, founded in 1835 by Charles-Louis Havas, the father of global journalism.
Today, the agency continues to expand its operations worldwide, reaching thousands of subscribers via radio, television, newspapers and companies from its main headquarters in Paris and regional centers in Washington, Hong Kong, Nicosia and Montevideo. All share the same goal: to guarantee top quality international service tailored to the specific needs of clients in each region.
Some Key Dates

[1835] - Agence Havas, the first worldwide information agency, is founded.
[1852] - Agence Havas sets up a dedicated advertising branch.
[1940] - In London, Paul-Louis Bret launches Agence Française d'Information (AFI). In November, legislation forces the split of the advertising and newsgathering operations of Agence Havas. The newsgathering operation, now owned by the State, becomes the Office Français d'Information (OFI, or French Information Office).
LeviticusMky
Yay, America wants to install capitalist democracy worldwide, and Muslim Extremists want to install Muslim Theocracy worldwide.

And both prefer to accomplish this through the use of military force! YAY!
S3nd K3ys
Quote:
Yay, America wants to install capitalist democracy worldwide, and Muslim Extremists want to install Muslim Theocracy worldwide.

And both prefer to accomplish this through the use of military force! YAY!


You're half right. The US only wants the people to decide who rules them instead of being forced to live under rutheless dictators.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/fight_islam.htm

Quote:
Radical Islam: The cycle of history repeats itself

By James Whorton
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Tuesday, January 7, 2003

Some 13 centuries ago, radical Islamic fundamentalism burst upon the world, spreading in just a few decades across most of the Middle East and North Africa and threatening the very existence of the West.

In their expansion, the armies of Islam took advantage of the weakness of the world¹s great powers at the time. Byzantium had just defeated Persia in a long war that had left both empires weakened. As Will Durant writes in The Story of Civilization, "both Byzantium and Persia, exhausted by war and mutual devastation, were in a tempting decline."


http://www.meforum.org/article/168

Quote:
At War With Whom?
A short history of radical Islam

by Jonathan Schanzer
Doublethink
Spring 2002

There's a "War on Terror" going on, says President George W. Bush. Sometimes we're even told it's a war against "evil." But regardless of nomenclature, the Bush administration takes great pains to emphasize that this is most certainly not a war on Islam. Is it?

The short answer is "no." We're not battling Islam, because there is no such thing as one Islam. One Islam cannot be extracted from the numerous offshoots, branches, and sects that make the world's 1.3 billion Muslims as ideologically, religiously, and politically fractured as the other two monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Judaism.

Still, all of the 19 hijackers on September 11 were Muslims. Every one of the FBI's 22 most wanted terrorists are Muslims. Nearly all the groups and individuals listed in President Bush's executive order blocking terrorist funds were Muslims, too. So how is this not a war on Islam?

Correction: Militant Islam

The "War on Terror" should really be called the "War on Militant Islam." The terrorists of September 11, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban all adhere to an ideology we have come to know as militant Islam, a minority outgrowth of the faith that exudes a bitter hatred for Western ideas, including capitalism, individualism, and consumerism. It rejects the West and much that it has to offer (with the exception of weapons, medicines, and other useful technologies) seeking instead to implement a strict interpretation of the Koran (Islam's holy book) and shari'a (Islamic law). America, as radical Muslims see it, is the primary impediment to building an Islamic world order.

...

From Conquests to Conquered

The history begins with the birth of Islam in the year 610, when the prophet Muhammed received his divine mission and accepted Allah's instructions for a new religion that commanded belief in one God. For the next 22 years, Muhammed served as a transmitter of Allah's message, and his Muslim empire grew to encompass most of the Arabian Peninsula. After the prophet's death, the Muslim empire continued to expand until the 17th century, when Muslims were unquestionably the world's greatest military force, having conquered extensive territory and converted millions throughout the Middle East and Southern Europe. Islam had also achieved unmatched advances in architecture, art, law, mathematics, and science.

With the exception of battling Christian Crusaders, most Muslims had little to do with the West. In fact, Ottoman Turkey, the dominant Islamic power in the 16th century, viewed the West with what Islam expert Bernard Lewis, in his book Islam and the West, calls "amused disdain" for its inferior culture and religion.

By the 17th century, however, as the West achieved military superiority, Lewis writes that the tone shifted to "alarmed dislike." By 1769, the Russians handed the Turks their first sound defeat, pointing to a new and difficult road ahead for Islam. Instead of conquering, the Muslims were conquered.



http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm

Quote:
al-Qa'ida (The Base)
Qa‘idat al-Jihad
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
Islamic Salvation Foundation
Usama bin Laden Network

Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.

Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9860

Quote:
Qutb’s tradition is not the only one in Islam, and millions of peaceful Muslims would reject his theological and political ideas. But to imply that religious violence and religious terrorism are newly minted elements of Islam with no plausible traditional foundations is to ignore how jihad ideologues read (and use to recruit) the Qur’an, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s example, an elaborate body of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, and fourteen centuries of Islamic history.


http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/16941.html

Quote:
Daniel Pipes: Bush Declares War on Radical Islam

Source: NY Sun (10-11-05)

[Mr. Pipes is the director of the Middle East Forum. His website address is http://www.danielpipes.org. Click here for his HNN blog.]

A courageous speech by George W. Bush last week began a new era in what he calls the "war on terror."

To comprehend its full significance requires some background. Islamists (supporters of radical Islam) began their war on the United States in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran and later that year his supporters seized the American embassy in Tehran.

For the next 22 years, however, Americans thought they faced merely a criminal problem and failed to see that war had been declared on them. For example, in 1998, when Islamists attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa, Washington responded by unleashing detectives, arresting the perpetrators, taking them to New York, assigning them defense lawyers, then convicting and jailing them.


http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/islam-fundamentalists.html

Quote:
Civil World Sees Radical Islam's Evil Side
Nations adopting Islam as their national religion are unstable and dictatorial. Not a single Islamic nation provides individual freedom for all its citizens or is politically stable. The extremists manage to gain control by sheer cruelty and armed might.

...

Whatever the label, the civilized world is appalled at the gruesome beheadings. That such killings can happen in this age, and be aired on government-sponsored Arabian television, should tell even the slowest minds that we are seeing but the latest example of the dark and evil side of radical Islam.

Berg was among the thousands of Americans trying to help the violence-racked Iraq that Saddam Hussein left in economic ruin. Their efforts are hampered by fanatics whose hatred and distorted religious thinking are aimed at bringing about the disintegration of a country that has never known real freedom.

...

Consider the absence of a single Islamic nation that’s politically stable and provides freedom for its citizens. Not a single one! Nations adopting Islam as their national religion invariably become unstable and dictatorial.

Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Pakistan are prime exhibits. In Egypt, a sometimes-useful ally of the United States, religious persecution is officially condoned, even in the Egyptian press. Not all Muslims are violent radicals, of course, but the extremists manage to gain control, usually by sheer cruelty and armed might.

It’s also true that those claiming to be “peaceful Muslims” are slow to condemn atrocities like the Berg and Johnson murders. Their halfhearted disapproval is too often followed by complaints of past wrongs done to Muslims, somewhere, by someone that’s not Muslim.

Radical Islam’s roots run deep in its history. Mohammed, Islam’s founder, was given to violence. The spread of Islam was accompanied by wholesale bloodshed and the elimination of Islam’s perceived enemies. Scholars report Mohammed ordered hundreds of victims beheaded. Beheading victims has a long history among Islamic extremists.

...

During past centuries the world could not rid itself of Islamic terrorists. And with so many hypocritical foes – both in Washington and in some European countries – the 21st century doesn’t hold much promise either.

Unless, that is, the world wakes up and realizes it must deal with the likes of the executioners of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson. Which may be easier than dealing with anti-American critics seeking political gain from our efforts to win the war against terrorism.

Animal
S3nd K3ys wrote:
You're half right. The US only wants the people to decide who rules them instead of being forced to live under rutheless dictators.


That is... unless the "Ruthless Dictators" are willing to trade oil at a good price to the US, in which case, he's not a "Ruthless Dictator", but a "Strong Leader"
Soulfire
Yes, because I'm sure oil is the whole reason we're in Iraq... not. I do agree with you in some sense, but what are you to do when our nation needs oil? We use the most, we need it, and we just don't have it, so if someone offers us cheap(er) oil, of course we'll take it.

Islam "means" peace is what I hear from people, then why all the violence? Democracy is not a theocracy, and the people should know it. Seperation of church and state is HUGE in democracy (unfortunately).

They want to kill America, so we fight back, and then they take it personal. Hmm. What's wrong with this picture? Islam is really unattractive to me. How can someone live such a hypocrytical life, if Islam truly is meant to be peace? It's terrible.

I'm going to find an island somewhere and make a Roman Catholic utopia, forget world relations.
Animal
Soulfire wrote:
Islam is really unattractive to me. How can someone live such a hypocrytical life, if Islam truly is meant to be peace? It's terrible.

I'm going to find an island somewhere and make a Roman Catholic utopia, forget world relations.


I think this is the key to the problem with extremist islam followers. They completely believe that their way is correct and others are wrong and therefore must be brought to the "true path". Many other faiths have a more "live and let live" attitude... mine incuded (I'm an atheist)

I should just make clear though that not all Islamic followers are evil-doers. In percentage terms, it's a tiny minority that causes big problems with their extreme fanaticism.
ocalhoun
Still, one rarely hears of extremist catholics blowing people up...
I'm an extremist christian, but my religion (unlike islam) does not condone killing anyone who does not agree with me.
Animal
ocalhoun wrote:
Still, one rarely hears of extremist catholics blowing people up...


Maybe not blowing people up etc, but you do hear of the odd person of whatever religious background beating homosexuals to death because they think that they're the anti-christ.

It's not on the same scale, but religious violence is not entirely a problem in islam.
ocalhoun
Its true you do see an occasional highly publicised event such as that or perhaps an abortion clinic bombing...

However, there are no christian groups who organize and methodically plan such acts. Unless, however, you count groups like the KKK as christian.
DX-Blog
ocalhoun wrote:
Still, one rarely hears of extremist catholics blowing people up...
I'm an extremist christian, but my religion (unlike islam) does not condone killing anyone who does not agree with me.

It once did, but that's in the past Razz. Rape and murder was a common thing during those "holy" crusades in the past Razz. Muslims are just a bit late with theirs Laughing.
S3nd K3ys
DX-Blog wrote:
Muslims are just a bit late with theirs Laughing.


Hardly. Have you looked at the history of radical islam? Rolling Eyes
DX-Blog
S3nd K3ys wrote:
DX-Blog wrote:
Muslims are just a bit late with theirs Laughing.


Hardly. Have you looked at the history of radical islam? Rolling Eyes

Mwuah, they had this same wish about 1300 years ago or so, but then they were kicked of easily on the connection towards Europe somewhere around turkey or so.

Cannot truly call that a good job well done or anything Razz, they didn't even make it to the western world Laughing. Whilst the christian crusades did make it into muslim territories and such Razz.

Perhaps that's just it, radical muslims are jealous on what the western world succeeded on in the past Laughing
S3nd K3ys
DX-Blog wrote:


Perhaps that's just it, radical muslims are jealous on what the western world succeeded on in the past Laughing


I'll agree to that.
rvec
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Quote:
Yay, America wants to install capitalist democracy worldwide, and Muslim Extremists want to install Muslim Theocracy worldwide.

And both prefer to accomplish this through the use of military force! YAY!


You're half right. The US only wants the people to decide who rules them instead of being forced to live under rutheless dictators.



So they are forced to be Theocrats ? Lol I think you are american Razz . Don't you see america is doing exatly the same? American troops invaded a country without any reasen. Or you should count oil. But what if america needs something els will they just invade another country? And don't tel me america was trying to catch bin laden. If bin laden was in europe would they invade europe? Can you give me one reasen why america was alowed to invade this country?
S3nd K3ys
rvec wrote:
American troops invaded a country without any reasen.


In your opinion.

Quote:
Or you should count oil.





Quote:
But what if america needs something els will they just invade another country?


See reply two above...

Quote:
And don't tel me america was trying to catch bin laden. If bin laden was in europe would they invade europe?


Afghan = ho-mamma bin-laden. If a country in EU was aiding and abbedding him, yes. We (the US) made it perfectly clear that ANY country harboring/funding/housing/training etc terrorists is fair game.

Iraq = Saddam.


Quote:
Can you give me one reasen why america was alowed to invade this country?


How about 17 reasons instead?
DX-Blog
I'm definately wanting to see what would happen if the country in which I live would decide NOT to hand out the supposed to be terrorist to the US Razz. I'm just dying to see whether the US will truly attack the EU over something like that.
benwhite
DX-Blog wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
DX-Blog wrote:
Muslims are just a bit late with theirs Laughing.


Hardly. Have you looked at the history of radical islam? Rolling Eyes

Mwuah, they had this same wish about 1300 years ago or so, but then they were kicked of easily on the connection towards Europe somewhere around turkey or so.

Cannot truly call that a good job well done or anything Razz, they didn't even make it to the western world Laughing. Whilst the christian crusades did make it into muslim territories and such Razz.

Perhaps that's just it, radical muslims are jealous on what the western world succeeded on in the past Laughing


The Ottoman Turks certainly made into Christian territory and succeeded in scaring the crap out of most of Western Europe. They conquered until they sieged Malta in Italy and made it until the failed siege of Vienna, Austria. The reason the expansion stopped was because their forces and supply lines were stretched too long, not because the Western forces were so strong--they weren't. They also conquered all of Spain from Christian kingdoms before the reconquest.
ocalhoun
rvec wrote:
Can you give me one reasen why america was alowed to invade this country?

America was not allowed to invade Iraq.
I very much approved when the President sent our troops to Iraq without the approval of the UN.

The USA owns the UN, not the other way around.
Dorsk82
Quote:
You're half right. The US only wants the people to decide who rules them instead of being forced to live under rutheless dictators.


Am I reading this right? Do you actually believe what you are saying here or are you just so totally blinded by your love of the US that you can't comprehend reality? The US was responsible in large part for installing the aforementioned dictator Hussein in Iraq not to mention US friendly dictators in a large portion of South American countries as well. The irony of your statement in the context of the current war is shocking...

The US does grant freedom but seemingly only when it suits them!
S3nd K3ys
Dorsk82 wrote:

Am I reading this right? Do you actually believe what you are saying here or are you just so totally blinded by your love of the US that you can't comprehend reality? The US was responsible in large part for installing the aforementioned dictator Hussein in Iraq not to mention US friendly dictators in a large portion of South American countries as well. The irony of your statement in the context of the current war is shocking...


In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt (coup) on Qasim, the dictator in Iraq. The failed assassin was Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power. The US took out one idiot and put in another. Oops. It's not like the US put him there knowing he'd kill hundreds of thousands of his own people and attack other countries for no reason.
Devil
USA also supported Binladen , they gave him money and weapons , to fight the russians , but what pissed binladen was the ua army coming in saudi ,

IRaq was really not at fault for the kuwait war , it was the british who divided the land , and they gave rich land to kuwaitis , which indeed belonged to iraq ,
Dorsk82
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Dorsk82 wrote:

Am I reading this right? Do you actually believe what you are saying here or are you just so totally blinded by your love of the US that you can't comprehend reality? The US was responsible in large part for installing the aforementioned dictator Hussein in Iraq not to mention US friendly dictators in a large portion of South American countries as well. The irony of your statement in the context of the current war is shocking...


In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt (coup) on Qasim, the dictator in Iraq. The failed assassin was Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power. The US took out one idiot and put in another. Oops. It's not like the US put him there knowing he'd kill hundreds of thousands of his own people and attack other countries for no reason.


It's also not like they tried to stop him when he was slaughtering the kurds, fighting Iran or committing a large portion of those atrocities you are referencing!
Related topics
Do you give 100% at work ?
Okay, I'm done trying to use CSS for layout.
Woman Ordered to Marry Rapist
20 Frih$
Site Nav Suggestions...
Can i give download links?
"terrorist" my thoughts
Windows Vista Official Thread
gazza withdraw
Willing To Give For 88x31 Banner
Football according to the laws of the Sharía
islam is...
Muslims killed in stampede
Islamic claims of world rule
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.