Ron Paul supported going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. Are we still going after bin Laden in Afghanistan?

The mission is to go after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That mission is still ongoing. Osama bin Laden is irrelevant and has been since early 2002.

It doesn’t matter if Ron Paul supported the war in Afghanistan originally, it matters that he opposes the war now. He hung himself Monday.

Huh? Ron Paul supported going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. Are we still going after bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Why can’t everyone see the elephant in the living room. Israel. Quit picking on OBL. The Mossad with our knowledge did 911. israel is the enemy and is running the US through the International Banking System who has members in the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission etc. We ned to get rid of AIPAC and the ADL here in the U.S.

I suppose your solution is gas chambers, right.

The Mecca version of Islam is peace and coexistence. The Medina version of Islam is aggressive and imposing. Since the Medina version came chronologically after the Mecca version, we can surmise that the Medina version was meant to supplant the Mecca version.

To some, the Mecca and Medina transition serves as an example. It is the strategy of to humbly co-exist when one is weak and to be domineering when one is strong.

Regardlessly, most Muslims are relatively unconcerned about asserting their religion and conquering foreign lands. It is more about living a prosperous life and maintaining personal piety rather than aggressively imposing one’s religion on others. This is the disconnect between religion – which can be used as a political tool – and actual people.

However, the significant part of the population of Muslims in Europe are highly radicalize. But that result is partially due to the policies in Europe that marginalize Muslims. Europe has created its own Muslim problem.

We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents.

And here’s another collection of fatwahs condemning Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

And just in case you think this is all a bunch of lies, how about this item from the US embassy in Jakarta, quoting the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar in Egypt, who is about as close to a Pope as Islam will ever have:

The Grand Imam said that the Koran specifically forbids the kinds of things the Taliban and al-Qaida are guilty of. He said the jihad Usama bin Laden has called for against America is invalid and not binding on Muslims. He said that “Islam rejects all of these acts.” He called terrorism un-Islamic. In fact, he says, “Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve.”

But you knew all this stuff already, didn’t you? ;-)

I’d also like to inquire into this peculiar statement of yours:

I also am unwilling to ignore the established truths about the differing genetic endowments of different peoples

Would you mind providing the scientific evidence for these “established truths”? I’m familiar with some of the recent genetic studies but I can’t recall anything that even begins to justify your wild claims. Could you cite the scientific paper on which you base these claims? Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the work of Dr. Cavalli-Sforza, which pretty well blasted into atoms all notions that there are behaviorally significant genetic differences among various races.

Among other things it is the only major world religion from which is lacking that most fundamental of principles underlying all truly civilized behavior, the Golden Rule. Thus my reference to Islam is the truth.

You want to protect it by labelling my criticism “uncivilized,” merely because it is long established and big. I doubt that you would have any objection to calling the koolaid cult of Jim Jones a “bullshit religion,” and the only difference is that his movement was brief and small.

I also am unwilling to ignore the established truths about the differing genetic endowments of different peoples, just so I can avoid stupid accusations of incivility by those who only use such terms as meaningless epithets.

If you have serious criticisms to make, please make them. The notions above are not serious criticisms, they are irrational prejudice.

As is often the case with people like you, you unwittingly condemn yourself with your own words. For if it is “uncivilized” of me to express what *I* object to about Islam’s murderous uncivilized ACTIONS, then what is it but uncivilized (according to your own muddled notion of what that word means) when YOU express yourself by saying that you “object” to MY “uncivilized” mere COMMENTS?

Mr. Noyon, the original lack of civilized behavior was when the disciples of Mohammed force-converted a peaceable Zoroastrian folk, and turned their country into just one more Muslim shithole to plague human society.