Libya's Gadaffi declares war on Switzerland!

[markw]

"BENGHAZI, Libya — Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi called on Thursday for a "jihad" or armed struggle against Switzerland, saying it was an infidel state that was destroying mosques."

Ya just can't make this stuff up.

 

[jamie2112]

I like turtles

 

[lsiberian]

"BENGHAZI, Libya — Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi called on Thursday for a "jihad" or armed struggle against Switzerland, saying it was an infidel state that was destroying mosques."

Ya just can't make this stuff up.

he's lost it.

 

[GO-NAD!]

he's lost it.

I'm not sure he ever had it. I'm always puzzled by lunatics like him, who actually have the mental faculties to get into power in the first place.

Idi Amin, Saddam, Mugabe, etc.

 

[highfigh]

Remember- he was a Colonel and Military officers usually reach that position of power by staging a coup. If they happen to be better than the previous leader, they stay.

Nothing I have read in any real Muslim text says that 'jihad' means 'armed struggle', as the article mentioned. I was surprised to see him say "that "this is not terrorism," in contrast with the work of al Qaeda which he called a "kind of crime and a psychological disease."". It's far less contentious than he was in the '80s.

Still, any violence that comes from this needs to be dealt with strongly.

 

[krzywica]

Sounds like a Hitler'esque move to me....

On a side note turtles ARE awesome!

 

[Jed M]

I don't mean to thread crap, but I am not really a big fan of turtles.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Remember- he was a Colonel and Military officers usually reach that position of power by staging a coup. If they happen to be better than the previous leader, they stay.

Nothing I have read in any real Muslim text says that 'jihad' means 'armed struggle', as the article mentioned. I was surprised to see him say "that "this is not terrorism," in contrast with the work of al Qaeda which he called a "kind of crime and a psychological disease."". It's far less contentious than he was in the '80s.

Still, any violence that comes from this needs to be dealt with strongly.

Oh, I understand that he came to power in a coup. However, he had to recruit followers to help him. Maybe he wasn't a nubar back then. He sure degenerated though...

It's probably just self-serving claptrap for domestic consumption. You know how it goes: "I've made a mess of this country, so I'd better find an external enemy to distract everyone's attention".

 

[highfigh]

Oh, I understand that he came to power in a coup. However, he had to recruit followers to help him. Maybe he wasn't a nubar back then. He sure degenerated though...

It's probably just self-serving claptrap for domestic consumption. You know how it goes: "I've made a mess of this country, so I'd better find an external enemy to distract everyone's attention".

I think most coups work that way- someone gets an idea that they can be the leader with the help of others, as opposed to a group who has an idea and looks for someone who they can groom to be "their guy".

What's a 'nubar'? 'Narfed up beyond all recognition'?

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think most coups work that way- someone gets an idea that they can be the leader with the help of others, as opposed to a group who has an idea and looks for someone who they can groom to be "their guy".

What's a 'nubar'? 'Narfed up beyond all recognition'?

Typo I meant "nutbar". But I like your interpretation.

 

[Chu Gai]

Yeah, but consider his pro stance on women. The guy always has a bevy of female security personnel and they're pretty hot looking.

 

[James NM]

The Swiss just need to B*tch slap Gaddafi, ala Ronald Reagan. Gaddafi would crawl back under his rock and not be heard from again for at least 10 years.

 

[Davemcc]

I think we need to clear up some definitions and define jihad against a person as incitement to murder and jihad by a state as a declaration of war. It appears to me that jihad is being used to accomplish these goals but with a vagueness and religious protection that prevents defining it for what it is.

 

[James NM]

... The guy always has a bevy of female security personnel and they're pretty hot looking.

I don't know about that. The one in the background picking her nose is sure ugly.

 

[highfigh]

I think we need to clear up some definitions and define jihad against a person as incitement to murder and jihad by a state as a declaration of war. It appears to me that jihad is being used to accomplish these goals but with a vagueness and religious protection that prevents defining it for what it is.

Jihad means 'struggle', although it has been corrupted to mean the other things. FWIW, I have never heard anyone use 'jihad' in a peaceful situation. The puzzies in power who want everyone to feel good about themselves and don't want anyone to be profiled are making all of this BS possible. I don't see anyone but militant Muslims carrying out the vast majority of terrorist attacks. They may be white, black, Asian or any other type but they're always Muslim. For a religion that's supposedly peaceful, they sure do stand idly by when they should be doing something about it. How Muhammad can come along hundreds of years after the BC/AD transition and long after the Bible was written, saying that Islam is the only true religion and that the Q'ran is the only correct version of the Bible is beyond me. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic religions and because of that, many aspects and traditions are common, including the fact that all three worship the same God.

Not long after 9-11, in another forum, this discussion came up and one of the people who was the most vocally Christian said that Muslims don't worship his God. He then posted that Abraham was a foolish man. People using their own version and definitions in the observation of religion is a large part of why people who are different, but similar, will probably never get along except superficially.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Jihad means 'struggle', although it has been corrupted to mean the other things. FWIW, I have never heard anyone use 'jihad' in a peaceful situation. The puzzies in power who want everyone to feel good about themselves and don't want anyone to be profiled are making all of this BS possible. I don't see anyone but militant Muslims carrying out the vast majority of terrorist attacks. They may be white, black, Asian or any other type but they're always Muslim. For a religion that's supposedly peaceful, they sure do stand idly by when they should be doing something about it. How Muhammad can come along hundreds of years after the BC/AD transition and long after the Bible was written, saying that Islam is the only true religion and that the Q'ran is the only correct version of the Bible is beyond me. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamic religions and because of that, many aspects and traditions are common, including the fact that all three worship the same God.

Not long after 9-11, in another forum, this discussion came up and one of the people who was the most vocally Christian said that Muslims don't worship his God. He then posted that Abraham was a foolish man. People using their own version and definitions in the observation of religion is a large part of why people who are different, but similar, will probably never get along except superficially.

I believe the single biggest problem with the "Islamic World", for lack of a better phrase, is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims live under brutal totalitarian regimes. They are fed self-serving propaganda by their leadership in order to maintain control. Islam appears to be the main tool used by such governments.

Until these countries democratize and allow their peoples to think and learn for themselves, the problems will continue. I don't see much change happening in my lifetime...

At the same time, all other religions need to accept that they haven't exclusive possession of the "truth". In other words, even tree and rock worshipers should not be regarded with contempt. Everyone has a natural right to his views and as long as a religion's basic premise is to do good unto others, everything else is just details.

I am a Christian, in that I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus. He was a fantastic person, accepting of all peoples. He was not, in my view, devine, i.e. the literal son of God. To believe that, renders all other religions as bogus. Since that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, I have to believe that he was not devine.

I know lots of you out there may consider that to be heresy, but I consider myself to be just as Christian as any other. Nobody has to accept what I say, just respect my rights to my beliefs, without judgement or contempt.

I don't believe Islam to be inherently violent. It's the murderous clowns in charge who are at the root of any violence commited by Muslims.

 

[highfigh]

I believe the single biggest problem with the "Islamic World", for lack of a better phrase, is the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims live under brutal totalitarian regimes. They are fed self-serving propaganda by their leadership in order to maintain control. Islam appears to be the main tool used by such governments.

Until these countries democratize and allow their peoples to think and learn for themselves, the problems will continue. I don't see much change happening in my lifetime...

At the same time, all other religions need to accept that they haven't exclusive possession of the "truth". In other words, even tree and rock worshipers should not be regarded with contempt. Everyone has a natural right to his views and as long as a religion's basic premise is to do good unto others, everything else is just details.

I am a Christian, in that I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus. He was a fantastic person, accepting of all peoples. He was not, in my view, devine, i.e. the literal son of God. To believe that, renders all other religions as bogus. Since that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, I have to believe that he was not devine.

I know lots of you out there may consider that to be heresy, but I consider myself to be just as Christian as any other. Nobody has to accept what I say, just respect my rights to my beliefs, without judgement or contempt.

I don't believe Islam to be inherently violent. It's the murderous clowns in charge who are at the root of any violence commited by Muslims.

Are you sure those governments aren't there because the hard-line Muslims allow them to be? They'll never democratize because that gives the power to the people, which they wouldn't want.

If the leaders of a religion don't tell the followers that their way is the true path, what basis do they have for existing? They surely couldn't want people to think that "You don't have to follow this religion, as long as you follow any religion". Catholic leaders are absolutely cure they are the way to Heaven. The rest have some similar idea, more or less conservative but none of them will tell a Christian to go out and become Jewish, Muslim or embrace any other. The only ones who don't try to push their way is Buddhists. As Eddie Izzard said, "Buddism- take it, or leave it". HArd core atheists are as bad as any, too, and even though their numbers are pretty low, they make the most noise and get the courts to make the rest follow their demands.

"Everyone has a natural right to his views and as long as a religion's basic premise is to do good unto others, everything else is just details."

Not to Muslims. The first time Muslims fought a battle, they demanded that the losers accept, or die. It's still that way and hard-line Muslims will never be happy until every "infidel" accepts Islam, or dies.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Are you sure those governments aren't there because the hard-line Muslims allow them to be? They'll never democratize because that gives the power to the people, which they wouldn't want.

If the leaders of a religion don't tell the followers that their way is the true path, what basis do they have for existing? They surely couldn't want people to think that "You don't have to follow this religion, as long as you follow any religion". Catholic leaders are absolutely cure they are the way to Heaven. The rest have some similar idea, more or less conservative but none of them will tell a Christian to go out and become Jewish, Muslim or embrace any other. The only ones who don't try to push their way is Buddhists. As Eddie Izzard said, "Buddism- take it, or leave it". HArd core atheists are as bad as any, too, and even though their numbers are pretty low, they make the most noise and get the courts to make the rest follow their demands.

"Everyone has a natural right to his views and as long as a religion's basic premise is to do good unto others, everything else is just details."

Not to Muslims. The first time Muslims fought a battle, they demanded that the losers accept, or die. It's still that way and hard-line Muslims will never be happy until every "infidel" accepts Islam, or dies.

Well, I don't think Christanity is innocent of that particular practice. It may not be a current doctrine, but it wasn't that far in the past when it was all part of doing business. I just don't think Islam as whole, has "grown up", in that regard.

 

[highfigh]

Well, I don't think Christanity is innocent of that particular practice. It may not be a current doctrine, but it wasn't that far in the past when it was all part of doing business. I just don't think Islam as whole, has "grown up", in that regard.

Islam was started with an "all or nothing" policy, although they do allow some people to live without converting. They just don't have all of the same rights as Muslims if the country as a whole follows Islam. These people are often persecuted, but not as badly as Jews. Early Christians were persecuted but once the Roman l and heads of other countries accepted it as their official religion, this stopped until the Moors invaded, from the Middle East. The Christians responded with The Crusades.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Islam was started with an "all or nothing" policy, although they do allow some people to live without converting. They just don't have all of the same rights as Muslims if the country as a whole follows Islam. These people are often persecuted, but not as badly as Jews. Early Christians were persecuted but once the Roman l and heads of other countries accepted it as their official religion, this stopped until the Moors invaded, from the Middle East. The Christians responded with The Crusades.

You're talking about "dhimmitude", yes? That is a rather patronizing philosophy - "yes, you may remain Christian/Jew, but understand that you are a second class citizen. If you are not a person of the book (Muslim/Christian/Jew), you'll be lucky if we allow you to live". Rather repugnant, don't you think?

I won't debate who invaded who first, or has justfiable grievances - it would never end.

I don't think there will ever be a genuine peace amongst all religions, until each accepts that it does not have a monopoly on the truth. There are many paths to God.