Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Islamic Republic To Announce Giant Achievments In Coming Days

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

No other choice? Its called a GUN. Its called killing soldiers or policemen. Not women and children on a bus. Other Guerrila groups have been effective using these means, why don't Muslim groups give it a try?

As has your Quran :)

Actually Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek" and "Be passersby" not "Lets go blow up a bus full of Zionists." And I'm sorry? Remind me where we are "Fighting for Christianity."

... :!!!: Wow! Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot!

Ok! Off to Persian class now to try to use my brain. :squeez:

No other choice? Its called a GUN. Its called killing soldiers or policemen. Not women and children on a bus. Other Guerrila groups have been effective using these means, why don't Muslim groups give it a try?

Let me educate you a little in warfare! First of all, AK47 isnt as effective as a bomb. AK47 is kind hard to hide in your bag. Its mostly desperate people whom have lost their family and have seen alot of [Edited Out] that flip out and strap on a bomb. Either that, OR they dont have a choice according to the situation. What do you expect when they have nothing but some homemade bombs and some bullets? And you guys have f-16'z and missiles? Really, how many seconds do you use to think before you speak? And your such a hypocrite, your american soldiers rape and kill children and woman everyday. Seriously you really believe this stuff????

As has your Quran :)

At least we have one version of it, unlike your edited bible which comes in 100 different forms!

Actually Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek" and "Be passersby" not "Lets go blow up a bus full of Zionists." And I'm sorry? Remind me where we are "Fighting for Christianity."

... :!!!: Wow! Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot!

Thats what the manmade bible has fooled you to believe. Jesus would NEVER , ever make such a mistake. What your saying is that God made a mistake the first time when he told moses to NOT turn his cheek, whit jesus he changed his mind huh? A God that changes his mind ??? good luck curious,,,become a little more curious and do some thinking.

Oh let me remind you of Bush, who thinks his a new crusader. Thinking he does this in true belief that he is doing a mission for Christianity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Advanced Member
Oh Good Lord! Where does this guy learn the meaning of words. One can argue whether it is a good idea, but to try and portray willingness to make the ultimate scacrifice as "cowardice"? Is Fox News really that mind numbing?

This really takes the cake.... even for a good little dhimmi like you. Its one thing to kill oneself (and only oneself) by whatever method, in protest. Its another to take as many innocents with you as you can.

By your measure, the fruitcake who killed the little Amish girls in that little schoolhouse was a hero, one who made the "ultimate sacrifice."

Talk about numbed minds....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Who brought over the diseases?

And why was it transferred so easily?

The immigrants brought the disease, but unwittingly. They did not know that they were carriers of the diseases they passed on. The germ theory of transmission of disease was not established at the time was it?

It was transferred easily because having never been exposed to them, the natives developed no immunity.

When the bird flu becomes pandemic, who shall we blame? The Chinese?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
This really takes the cake.... even for a good little dhimmi like you. Its one thing to kill oneself (and only oneself) by whatever method, in protest. Its another to take as many innocents with you as you can.

By your measure, the fruitcake who killed the little Amish girls in that little schoolhouse was a hero, one who made the "ultimate sacrifice."

Talk about numbed minds....

I'm sorry, where did the discussion of innocents come into this? Is it simply that Faux News describes all martyrdom operations as being against "innocents"? Or that all attacks against Americans or Israelis (whether civilians or military) are considered "terrorism"?

For the record, I simply pointed out that when one sacrifices his own life in a struggle (whether one agrees with his cause or not, and regardless of whether his target are well chosen) it can hardly be called "cowardice".

Now if you wish to discuss under what circumstances such martyrdom operations (AKA fedayi attacks) are a good idea, and what constitutes a legitimate target under what circumstances, we can. But one should use words that actually have meaning - not simply mindlessly regurgitate every possible negative term to describe the people on the other side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Lol! You dont even know what an Ayatullah Means.

Or what being an ayatullah entails for that matter.

In your bigoted mind it is a political Title for a leader in Iran. And even an insult To Greg by calling him that.

Anyway keep on maybe you can convince yourself of the dumb things you are saying.

P.S Greg you gotta study 10+ years to become one. Just joking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol! You dont even know what an Ayatullah Means.

Or what being an ayatullah entails for that matter.

In your bigoted mind it is a political Title for a leader in Iran. And even an insult To Greg by calling him that.

Anyway keep on maybe you can convince yourself of the dumb things you are saying.

P.S Greg you gotta study 10+ years to become one. Just joking.

actually i know what it is. it's the most fanatical muslim they could find and he imposes his insane extremist believes on the rest of the population.

simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
The immigrants brought the disease, but unwittingly. They did not know that they were carriers of the diseases they passed on. The germ theory of transmission of disease was not established at the time was it?

It was transferred easily because having never been exposed to them, the natives developed no immunity.

When the bird flu becomes pandemic, who shall we blame? The Chinese?

Obviously the natives had no immunity. But do you believe that the diseases could have been passed more easily by the conquerers forcing a particular way of life on them?

Painting the conquerers as peaceful and loving the natives is deceiving.

Wasalaam

Edited by Path2Felicity
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

The colonizers give blankets as a nice gift to the the Natives. Guess what they were infected with? Small-pox! Once the Europeans found out that they could defeat the Natives by using disease, they used to it their full advantage by purposely spreading their diseases among the Natives as a way to defeat them. This is in history books, so you can't claim disease was fully spread accidentally. However, most of it was accidental.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
(salam)

(bismillah)

The colonizers give blankets as a nice gift to the the Natives. Guess what they were infected with? Small-pox! Once the Europeans found out that they could defeat the Natives by using disease, they used to it their full advantage by purposely spreading their diseases among the Natives as a way to defeat them. This is in history books, so you can't claim disease was fully spread accidentally. However, most of it was accidental.

This is sadly true.

And shamefully, it wasn't any Europeans, it was the British who were the first to use 'germ warfare'.

The only positive thing about this is that the British don't deny it and actually teach it in schools.

Owning up to shameful episodes of one's history is a very European trait. I think it is something to do with confidence and striving to be better. It is part of growing and becoming more civilised.

I find it facinating that much of the third world, Muslims included, prefer to believe 'alternative' histories where they were always the victim and never the perpetrator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
This is sadly true.

And shamefully, it wasn't any Europeans, it was the British who were the first to use 'germ warfare'.

The only positive thing about this is that the British don't deny it and actually teach it in schools.

Owning up to shameful episodes of one's history is a very European trait. I think it is something to do with confidence and striving to be better. It is part of growing and becoming more civilised.

I find it facinating that much of the third world, Muslims included, prefer to believe 'alternative' histories where they were always the victim and never the perpetrator.

(salam)

(bismillah)

I agree with you... I wish Muslims would own up to what they have done. Like Turkey/Ottoman Empire and the Armenian genocide, for example.

Edited by Ali Mahdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Oh Good Lord! Where does this guy learn the meaning of words. One can argue whether it is a good idea, but to try and portray willingness to make the ultimate scacrifice as "cowardice"? Is Fox News really that mind numbing?

Actually, suicide and the killing of others is cowardice among other things; to disregard the life that has been given. Instead of struggling to force change here on earth through positive actions and dialogue the killing of others along with yourself is the easy way out and very cowardly indeed.

Cowardice entails lack of courage to face difficulty and opposition every day as well as danger or pain.

I would think the "ultimate sacrifice" would constitute many decades serving your God and forcing positive change instead of a split second of bloody pain to yourself and many decades of pain to many undeserving families. Which do you think requires more courage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Oh Good Lord! Where does this guy learn the meaning of words. One can argue whether it is a good idea, but to try and portray willingness to make the ultimate scacrifice as "cowardice"? Is Fox News really that mind numbing?

Actually, suicide and the killing of others is cowardice among other things; to disregard the life that has been given. Instead of struggling to force change here on earth through positive actions and dialogue the killing of others along with yourself is the easy way out and very cowardly indeed.

Cowardice entails lack of courage to face difficulty and opposition every day as well as danger or pain.

I would think the "ultimate sacrifice" would constitute many decades serving your God and forcing positive change instead of a split second of bloody pain to yourself and many decades of pain to many undeserving families. Which do you think requires more courage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Oh Good Lord! Where does this guy learn the meaning of words. One can argue whether it is a good idea, but to try and portray willingness to make the ultimate scacrifice as "cowardice"? Is Fox News really that mind numbing?

Actually, suicide and the killing of others is cowardice among other things; to disregard the life that has been given. Instead of struggling to force change here on earth through positive actions and dialogue the killing of others along with yourself is the easy way out and very cowardly indeed.

Cowardice entails lack of courage to face difficulty and opposition every day as well as danger or pain.

I would think the "ultimate sacrifice" would constitute many decades serving your God and forcing positive change instead of a split second of bloody pain to yourself and many decades of pain to many undeserving families. Which do you think requires more courage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Actually, suicide and the killing of others is cowardice among other things; to disregard the life that has been given. Instead of struggling to force change here on earth through positive actions and dialogue the killing of others along with yourself is the easy way out and very cowardly indeed.

Cowardice entails lack of courage to face difficulty and opposition every day as well as danger or pain.

I would think the "ultimate sacrifice" would constitute many decades serving your God and forcing positive change instead of a split second of bloody pain to yourself and many decades of pain to many undeserving families. Which do you think requires more courage?

Well - I have dialogue all the time, and I don't consider it much of a sacrifice. Positive actions might be a good thing under certain circumstances, but alas when dealing with moral monsters (Zionists, neo-cons and the like) it seems to me that they only understand force, and sometimes force must be applied.

Unfortunately, force is not always easy for the oppressed to apply, and sacrifice of their lives becomes necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Well - I have dialogue all the time, and I don't consider it much of a sacrifice. Positive actions might be a good thing under certain circumstances, but alas when dealing with moral monsters (Zionists, neo-cons and the like) it seems to me that they only understand force, and sometimes force must be applied.

Unfortunately, force is not always easy for the oppressed to apply, and sacrifice of their lives becomes necessary.

Like many rabid Jew-haters, Greg would rather get into bed with the Devil than criticise other Jew-haters. You’ll find him supporting Holocaust deniers and Jewish conspiracy theorists just as comfortably as he defends suicide bombers.

Greg, put your hatred to one side for a moment and think rationally.

It takes courage to take responsibility for, and face up to one's actions. To endure pain, incarceration, fear and hardship for one’s beliefs takes strength and integrity.

Blowing one’s self up requires none of the above. It really is the ultimate cowardly act.

It is reported that many suicide bombers are seen grinning before they blow themselves up. Afterwards, their families rejoice and have parties to celebrate. Hardly the behaviour of people who are making the "ultimate sacrifice" Greg.

And what about those who TARGET civilians in cafes and bakeries Greg? Are they also worthy of your admiration? Just as long as its Jews they're killing, eh?

Let's face it, everyone here knows that Muslims believe that dying as a Shaheed ('martyr') is a ticket straight to paradise. Some Sunni’s even believe they’ll get 72 nymphs or virgins in paradise as their reward (the disgusting animals!)

So the grinning, exploding morons actually believe that it's “Allah-o-Akhbar!!” a flash of light, then they're off to heaven for the shag of their lives. You couldn't make it up!

And their sorry, ignorant, relatives feel happy for them. It’s so pathetic. So evil. So Godless.

Real hero’s are selfless.

Suicide bombers are evil, selfish, cowards and any religion which supports them proves itself to be utterly, morally bankrupt.

Edited by Rezz
Link to post
Share on other sites
... and what's wrong with believing that dying a martyr is honorable?

Wasalaam

Nothing, Until you preach it constantly to young children glorifying it to such a level they are more than happy to kill scores and scores of innocent human beings in order to enter paradise and get 72 sex slaves.

and you can't honestly tell me that the VAST majority of suicide bombings aren't against completely random people.

Edited by Curious Infidel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I'm sorry, where did the discussion of innocents come into this? Is it simply that Faux News describes all martyrdom operations as being against "innocents"? Or that all attacks against Americans or Israelis (whether civilians or military) are considered "terrorism"?

For the record, I simply pointed out that when one sacrifices his own life in a struggle (whether one agrees with his cause or not, and regardless of whether his target are well chosen (ed:??) it can hardly be called "cowardice".

Now if you wish to discuss under what circumstances such martyrdom operations (AKA fedayi attacks) are a good idea, and what constitutes a legitimate target under what circumstances, we can. But one should use words that actually have meaning - not simply mindlessly regurgitate every possible negative term to describe the people on the other side.

Greg,

How many of these martyrdom operations that you so adore haven't involved the loss of innocent life?

Are you implying that attacks against American or Israeli civilians cannot be called terrorism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Nothing, Until you preach it constantly to young children glorifying it to such a level they are more than happy to kill scores and scores of innocent human beings in order to enter paradise and get 72 sex slaves.

and you can't honestly tell me that the VAST majority of suicide bombings aren't against completely random people.

I was talking about mayrtydom. Who said anything about suicide bombing?

Wasalaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
... and what's wrong with believing that dying a martyr is honorable?

Wasalaam

A martyr means different things to different people Path2Felicity?

Let’s not bother with the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ side arguments. Obviously, in most wars, most fighters believe they are fighting for the ‘right’ side.

Let us consider only “honour”.

I can imagine that a fighter who dies fighting armed combatants could be technically described as “honourable” or a ‘martyr’ by his ‘side’.

But what about the guy who sneaks into a bakery or a café and blows himself up, deliberately TARGETING and killing unarmed non-combatants? Men, women and children?

Is that "honourable" Path2Felicity?

And before we get the usual comments about the Americans killing women and children in Iraq, let us get it clear that no one, not even the Americans sink so low as to try to describe that act as “honourable”. And they never deliberately TARGET non-combatants. (If some soldier is found out to be targeting non-combatants, he is not “honoured”, he is thrown into jail.)

Such is the ‘dishonour’, even shame in killing non-combatants that the Americans have coined a euphamism for it; “collateral damage”. Not that it makes it less unacceptable.

But I really can’t think of a single ethnic or religious group which rejoices at the killing of non-combatants and “honours” the killer. Except for one.

It seems that the only ‘side’ that finds such an act as being “honourable” is the Muslim side.

What does that say about Islam?

Edited by Rezz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
A martyr means different things to different people Path2Felicity?

Let’s not bother with the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ side arguments. Obviously, in most wars, most fighters believe they are fighting for the ‘right’ side.

Let us consider only “honour”.

I can imagine that a fighter who dies fighting armed combatants could be technically described as “honourable” or a ‘martyr’ by his ‘side’.

But what about the guy who sneaks into a bakery or a café and blows himself up, deliberately TARGETING and killing unarmed non-combatants? Men, women and children?

Is that "honourable" Path2Felicity?

And before we get the usual comments about the Americans killing women and children in Iraq, let us get it clear that no one, not even the Americans sink so low as to try to describe that act as “honourable”. And they never deliberately TARGET non-combatants. (If some soldier is found out to be targeting non-combatants, he is not “honoured”, he is thrown into jail.)

Such is the ‘dishonour’, even shame in killing non-combatants that the Americans have coined a euphamism for it; “collateral damage”. Not that it makes it less unacceptable.

But I really can’t think of a single ethnic or religious group which rejoices at the killing of non-combatants and “honours” the killer. Except for one.

It seems that the only ‘side’ that finds such an act as being “honourable” is the Muslim side.

What does that say about Islam?

Your whole post is just a bunch of rhetoric. Martyrdom has always been an honorable thing.

And Muslims are not the only suicide bombers. So there goes that whole theory.

And I never said anything about suicide bombing. I'm talking about the CONCEPT of martyrdom.

Wasalaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Your whole post is just a bunch of rhetoric. Martyrdom has always been an honorable thing.

And Muslims are not the only suicide bombers. So there goes that whole theory.

And I never said anything about suicide bombing. I'm talking about the CONCEPT of martyrdom.

Wasalaam

Are we disagreeing?

Didn’t I accept that the concept of martyrdom could be seen as honourable to the martyr's side? However, I started my post by stating that martyrdom means different things to different people.

My problem is with suicide bombers and the fact that I often hear the term “martyr” used by Muslims to describe those people. Similarly, I’ve heard suicide bombings described as “martyrdom operations”, by Muslims, as I’m sure you have.

And yes, every now and then, a Tamil Tiger blows themselves up. But let’s leave out the diversionary arguments; it’s a fact that Muslims have a virtual monopoly on the suicide bombing market with, according to some Islamic scholars, divine approval.

What’s your position on suicide bombers Path2Felicity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Are we disagreeing?

Didn�t I accept that the concept of martyrdom could be seen as honourable to the martyr's side? However, I started my post by stating that martyrdom means different things to different people.

My problem is with suicide bombers and the fact that I often hear the term “martyr†used by Muslims to describe those people. Similarly, I�ve heard suicide bombings described as “martyrdom operationsâ€, by Muslims, as I�m sure you have.

And yes, every now and then, a Tamil Tiger blows themselves up. But let�s leave out the diversionary arguments; it�s a fact that Muslims have a virtual monopoly on the suicide bombing market with, according to some Islamic scholars, divine approval.

What�s your position on suicide bombers Path2Felicity?

Forget Tamil Tigers. I'm talking about Palestinian and Lebanese Christians.

Anytime where there is desperation, these acts take place, regardless of religion.

And why are you so adamant about finding out my position on suicide bombers? I am against the killing of all innocent civilians, which is NOT just limited to suicide bombers.

Wasalaam

P.S. Just because you disagree with how a certain group of people use the term "martyr" it doesn't mean that the whole concept in the religion is ridiculous. If this is what you think, then you should look to the King of Shaheeds, Imam Husayn (as).

Edited by Path2Felicity
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Before Christianity became the official religion under Constantine, Martyrdom was the highest level a Christian can achieve. Many of the early Saints are saints because they were martyrs. Once it became the official religion, then things changed. Hence, when one is oppressed martyrdom is necessary and honorable.

Rezz, are you saying Israel did not target civilians and civilian infrastructure this past summer? How come you have not condemned them yet, when your beloved Amnesty even has.

Hasan Sajjad

President

If you asked a Christian to describe Martyrdom, they would tell you that it is dying, peacefully and without resistance, for ones beliefs. Only in Islam it is taken to mean dying whilst killing others.

And yes, Israel did target civilian buildings, for reasons you are fully aware of. Hezbollah hide in the civilian population. They fire rockets from the top of civilian buildings. The Israelis took steps to warn the civilians to evacuate the areas before bombing civilian buildings. I often feel uncomfortable about the behaviour of Israel, but I accept that even they take precautions to avoid TARGETING civilians. Because I suspect that even the Israelis would say that it’s such an immoral and indefensible thing to do.

I really think that morally, you're onto a loser here Hasan_Sajjad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Forget Tamil Tigers. I'm talking about Palestinian and Lebanese Christians.

Anytime where there is desperation, these acts take place, regardless of religion.

And why are you so adamant about finding out my position on suicide bombers? I am against the killing of all innocent civilians, which is NOT just limited to suicide bombers.

Wasalaam

P.S. Just because you disagree with how a certain group of people use the term "martyr" it doesn't mean that the whole concept in the religion is ridiculous. If this is what you think, then you should look to the King of Shaheeds, Imam Husayn (as).

Your answer is ambiguous because the term “innocent” is subjective.

At university I was actually a member of a pro-Palestinian group called ‘The Friends of Palestine”.

I left in disgust and ceased to sympathise with the Palestinian cause when I learned most of the Palestinian members of that organisation believed that no Israeli citizen is 'innocent' and therefore all can be legitimately killed because Israel has national service. I’ve seen similar arguments used in Shia Chat.

So forgive me if I’m still unclear about whether or not, as a Muslim, you think that suicide bombing is a route to martyrdom.

Any chance of a straight answer?

Edited by Rezz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Your answer is ambiguous because the term “innocent†is subjective.

At university I was actually a member of a pro-Palestinian group called �The Friends of Palestineâ€.

I left in disgust and ceased to sympathise with the Palestinian cause when I learned most of the Palestinian members of that organisations say that no Israeli is innocent and therefore all can be legitimately killed because Israel has national service. I�ve seen similar arguments used in Shia Chat.

So forgive me if I�m still unclear about whether or not, as a Muslim, you think that suicide bombing is a route to martyrdom.

Any chance of a straight answer?

Why are you so interested in my beliefs, Rezz? What difference does it make to you what I, Path2Felicity, thinks? I grow more and more weary of you with every post I read. Why do you feel that I need to justify myself to you?

I said - I am against the killing of ANY INNOCENT CIVILIAN. Stop trying to twist around my words and make me beg for your approval.

Wasalaam

Edited by Path2Felicity
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If you asked a true mainstream Muslim (like the ones I showed you in another thread, the ones that don't get any media coverage) to describe a martyr, they would tell you that it is dying, dying defending your mother, child, wife, daughter, from aggressors. They would tell you it is the ultimate sacrifice in the name of the Lord, something they strive to become one day. They would acknowledge one who purposely takes an innocent life is wrong and would quote the Holy Book, Chapter 5 Verse 32:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men;

Yes you are right, Hezbollah was attacking from Beirut airport, and from the bridges and interstates. The leaflets were dropped down telling the civilians to flee...minutes later the attacks began. So lets say Israel gave the civilians an HOUR to flee, HOW CAN THEY? Israel blew up all the roads! Is this getting through your thick skull?

I really think...you need match.com

Hasan Sajjad

President

So does that mean that you disagree that suicide bombing is a route into your "martyrdom"?

I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

And you don't need to beat me over the head with Israel's actions. I’m no apologist for them. I think they behaved appallingly, as did Hezbollah by using the civilian population as cover in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Why are you so interested in my beliefs, Rezz? What difference does it make to you what I, Path2Felicity, thinks? I grow more and more weary of you with every post I read. Why do you feel that I need to justify myself to you?

I said - I am against the killing of ANY INNOCENT CIVILIAN. Stop trying to twist around my words and make me beg for your approval.

Wasalaam

I think you're being unfair Path2Felicity. I'm not trying to twist anyone’s words. But I find it strange that so few Muslims are willing to come out and say "I believe that suicide bombing is wrong, period".

I think that the vast majority of people of other faiths would be unequivocal about it But not it would seem Muslims. Is that not a noteworthy difference in values worth discussing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I think you're being unfair Path2Felicity. I'm not trying to twist anyone�s words. But I find it strange that so few Muslims are willing to come out and say "I believe that suicide bombing is wrong, period".

I think that the vast majority of people of other faiths would be unequivocal about it But not it would seem Muslims. Is that not a noteworthy difference in values worth discussing?

Fine then.

I believe that suicide bombing is wrong, period. Ugh. Your continuous rhetoric annoys me. Sorry, but it's true. No offense.

Wasalaam

P.S. You should have a dinner date with that Robert Spencer guy. It would be like Paradise for the two of you.

Edited by Path2Felicity
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
If suicide bombing is the only means to defending your family, people, and nation, many respected scholars have allowed it as long as civilians are not targets of the attack and only aggressors (military) are, and I agree. I would gladly give my life for my family and I would pick the most effective weapon in doing so. My aim would be to target military aggressors.

Please don't say a suicide bomb can kill even civilians since you cannot control it because that is the case with any bomb whether it is a suicide bomb or dropped from an airplane.

And NO, I do not support what many of the Palestinian suicide bombers have done because they have targeted innocent lives and NO I do not support the suicide bombers in Pakistan or in Iraq because only civilians are being killed.

Hasan Sajjad

President

Thank you for responding. I'm trying to learn. You've helped me understand something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...