Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29am:

LOL

The book that inspired the Crusades and Inquisitions, the book hat had Europe forced to consider the world as 'flat' for centuries? The book that teaches that women are the source of man's undoing and should be silent?

The Biblical view of women

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
(I Timothy 2:11-14)


"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman."
(Eccles. 25:13)


"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."
(Eccles. 25:22)


"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

Quote:

Quote:


Yes they were. You can only say this by ignoring the fact that they were captured as combatants in a war. Every time I post the details and ask you to explain the apparent contradiction between the reality and your claims you completely ignore it, only to regurgitate this BS again a few posts later. Is it pointless attempting to get you to address the facts?

Quote:


Can you give some examples please?

Quote:


Advantage for who? The POWs or the Muslims?

Quote:


So not executing POWs is an impossible standard?

Quote:


They were attempting to escape at the time. They were killed while fighting. So no, I am not particularly bothered by it, beyond my distaste for war in general.

It is certainly not the same thing as Muhammed executing 700 POWs who had surrendered unconditionally and were not attempting anything, if that is what you are suggesting. Is this just another transparent attempt at moral equivalence?

Quote:


Actually many westerners cannot accept the killing of civilians either. There is also a fundamental difference that once POWs are captured and disarmed, they are no longer an immediate threat. There are also all sorts of other more pragmatic reasons, and WWII is a good example of those, and you appear to be acknowledging those same reasons at play in Muhammed's thinking.

The 700 POWs that Muhammed executing were not aggressive. They had surrendered unconditionally. They did not attack Muhammed. Muhammed attacked them. The vast majority had committed no crime at all and had only defended themselves and their community against Muslims.

freediver wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 9:11pm:


Garbage. Madina was a city-state with a constitution.

Quote:

Quote:


So Muhammed didn't violate this when he told the Jews they "would be safe" if they converted to Islam, but otherwise he wants to exile them and they might as well sell their property?

Quote:


Wasn't it inside Medina where Muhammed laid siege to the third tribe, before executing 700 of them?

Quote:


And took all the women, including one for his own personal use?

Quote:


How long did it take him to expel or slaughter all three of the tribes?

Quote:


So, not slaughtering all 700 of them as a collective punishment?

Quote:


The wikipedia article I keep quoting from mentions that there was an agreement, but states that it is unknown whether it compelled them to fight, or merely not attack each other.

Quote:


So why is it not absurd when you compare the mass execution of 700 POWs with an individual trial of an individual US citizen combatant for his own personal actions, who was not then executed? How can you be so oblivious to the absurdity of your own argument?

Quote:


You mean like the US civil war, where mass execution of POWs was a regular occurrence, and where one side was definitely under siege by superior forces (and lost) and the other side thought it was for a while? There have been plenty of western countries in the situation Muhammed found himself in. Many were annihilated. Try to find one where they executed as many POWs in one session as Muhammed under orders from the top. Then show me one where westerners think that was the righteous thing to do, or even consider it God's will.

Quote:


Who is saying they should have immunity? You are creating a false dichotomy. There is a huge gulf between immunity and the mass execution of 700 POWs, raping all the women and enslaving them and the children. Muslims even acknowledge this themselves and often pretend Islam forbids execution of POWs, while still permitting harsh punishments that are also considered illegal today (though not as bad as killing all of them).

Quote:


Can you explain how this precludes a war? Hint - compare it with the US civil war. You argument simply makes no sense and requires the absolute rejection of reality.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 10:02am:


You don't even know the terms of the treaty, but you are perfectly happy to claim with certainty that Muhammad broke them. 

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 10:02am:


We are not going to get anywhere by you arguing on the assumption that I accept your premise that they were POWs.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 10:02am:


There you go folks: FD's argument - Muhammad should have done the "honourable" thing and allowed his nation to be anhialated instead of taking drastic measures to save it.

good logic 

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 11:37am:


Don't deflect FD - how can you explain your previous claim that Muhammad definitely broke a treaty which you now admit you don't know the terms of? Are you conceding you were leading us up the garden path? Can I now start ranting about non-muslim deception and lies?

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 11:37am:


Every point in your last post was prefaced on the assumption that we both agree they were POWs.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 11:37am:


I don't believe so.

Oh and almost missed this gem:

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 10:02am:


Cue laughter all round.

Shall I start with Richard the Lionheart's execution of 2700 muslim POWs at Acre? Or the execution of the surrendered garrison at Jerusalem (along with 10s of thousands of non-combatants).

Would you like me to go on? And these weren't even nations with an existential threat.

Have you actually ever come up with anything more ridiculous?

FD, a question if I may?

Are you condemning all "execution of prisoners of war" throughout history by anybody or just the supposed "execution of prisoners of war" by Muhammad?

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 12:26pm:


No. Apologise and feel silly for thinking that Muhammad was somehow bound by a treaty that had already been broken - and not by him.

freediver wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 12:26pm:


Give me a break. When the US was attacked on 9/11, they responded by indiscriminately bombing an estimated 3000 Afghan civilians to smithereens. Up to 10 thousand more were estimated to have died during the winter of 2001-2 as a result of the displacement caused by this bombing campaign. Admittedly they weren't bound and beheaded, but whichever way you spin it, its still a case of responding to an attack by slaughtering thousands of non-combatants who had nothing to do with the attack. And we won't even go into the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis as a result of the US invasion - also had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.