Westy, please straighten this clown out!

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by AKIron
If it had been Christians that commited this atrocity in the name of Christ you guys defending the Muslims would be demanding the resignation of the Pope, Billy Graham, and Mr T. Spare us your hypocracy.  

I cannot speak for others, but in that case I would not.  Much like I wouldn't hold the Pope accountable for the terrorist bombings of abortion clinics and murder of such facility's staff by Christians.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
I cannot speak for others, but in that case I would not.  Much like I wouldn't hold the Pope accountable for the terrorist bombings of abortion clinics and murder of such facility's staff by Christians.

Good point. While many Christians consider abortion murder, many prominent Christian leaders have spoken out loudly against this violence against abortionists.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Toad
As I said, you've presented little at all. Which makes Powell's case and the case of all those who realize the Muslim "authorities" have been nearly mute.

Uh huh.  So when the highest Sunni authorities condemn the murder, simply change the goalposts and demand the handwritten notes delivered via carrier pigeon from the Shia.  But I am glad to see you admit that the entire case of Powell and others rests on the fallacy that a lack of evidence for a proposition proves that its negation is true.

[Toad]

Get real.

Your Sunni reference has been acknowledged. That's about it as far as true "Islamic authorities" go. Note well Sunnis are the minority in the area of conflict. Note well those Sunnis are based at a Mosque in Egypt, considered the 7th "holiest" site in Islam.

You also have the British Muslim Council. Also a bit far away from the area of conflict and certainly having dubious influence on those doing the killing and those caught in the crossfire.

Basically, you have Westy's famous "8th Mullah on the 3rd step of the Mosque".

I understand why you have to keep returning to these two examples, however.

It's because there IS no condemnation from Al-Sistani, clearly THE religious leader in Shiite Iraq. Nor is there one from Kahmeni, THE religious leader in Shiite Iran. Nor is there anything from the three holiest Mosques in Isalm as has been noted before.

In short and once again you've got little to show from the "authorities" of Islam. What you do have is from the lower levels of leadership.

Continue to deny the undeniable.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by AKIron
Good point. While many Christians consider abortion murder, many prominent Christian leaders have spoken out loudly against this violence against abortionists.

Right.  Whether in the West or the Middle East, there are going to be unsavory, fringe elements that approve and justify of these acts.  But the reaction of the moderate mainstream in both cases has been fairly comparable.

[Toad]

Horsepucky. There's zippo from Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian or even Libyan  Muslim leaders. You've got the one Sunni Mosque in Egypt, the British Muslim Council and I also saw the Northern California Muslim society speak out.

YGBSM.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
Right.  Whether in the West or the Middle East, there are going to be unsavory, fringe elements that approve and justify of these acts.  But the reaction of the moderate mainstream in both cases has been fairly comparable.

I'd like to believe that but I am skeptical. Consider an article ran by Al Jazeera. The title was US angry at beheading or something similar. They interviewed a "man on the street" who basically said this atrocity was deserved by the US. A cleric, who while he denounced the act, at the same time said something about the rule must be the same for all, whatever the hell meant, maybe implying it was the fault of the US that this happened?

From the lack of response I'm inclined to believe that while most Muslims abhor this sort of violence, many, if not most of them would be happy to see every American in the middle east instantly smitten by Allah.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
Yah, shure. I love this one. Guess he wasn't trying REAL hard though.

How do you figure?

Mainly they destroyed it knowing it would save a lot of Coalition troopers' lives. No electricity, no "modern warfare capability" for the Iraqis. The C3 function goes away. It's this war thing, where you try to save your soldiers' lives.

No it isn't it's an American thing.

"Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977."

...

"2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party: (a) as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or (b) if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."


Abount 150 nations ratified the second Protocol, the US was not one of them.

What's worse is you know it too and posted it anyway.

Yeah well, one million to four hundred thousand.

[Toad]

for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population

It wasn't. It wasn't "aimed" at the civilian population in any way.

... shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:... in direct support of military action,

Clearly the electrical generating was in direct support of military action.

may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."

It didn't. You are aware you can also boil water, right? I'll bet there were and still are areas of Iraq where that's been the procedure since time began.

There's no way you can make the case that the electrical grid isn't a military target in time of war. Well, maybe Lawyer Thrawn can but no one else with a clear understanding of war would even try.

SH's death toll at a mere 1 million? US killed 400,000?

Document the 400,000 please and omit the BS like "destroyed electrical grid, killed XXXXXX" and omit "sanctions killed XXXXX". Just US as the direct cause of death please. Like SH was the direct cause of death to the Kurds and Shiites during the rebellion.

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Toad
Get real.

Your Sunni reference has been acknowledged. That's about it as far as true "Islamic authorities" go. Note well Sunnis are the minority in the area of conflict. Note well those Sunnis are based at a Mosque in Egypt, considered the 7th "holiest" site in Islam.

Al-Azhar is the highest authority in Sunni Islam regardless of its ranking as a holy site.  Sunnis are majority populations in such insignificant countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, and Turkey.  You discount this source at the expense of your own credibility.

Sunni leaders are not the only ones to condemn this killing, as has been shown previously.  You were already provided a story on Iraqi Shiite leaders.  The political leadership of the UAE, the closest Arab country outside Iraq and Iran with a Shiite majority, has also condemned the killing.  Even the militant Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah has condemned the killing.  Whether or not any of these fit your daily re-definition of "true Muslim leaders" is not anything I can control - but for those who can approach this issue with the slightest bit of honesty, there you have it.

I understand why you have to keep returning to these two examples, however.

It's because there IS no condemnation from Al-Sistani, clearly THE religious leader in Shiite Iraq. Nor is there one from Kahmeni, THE religious leader in Shiite Iran. Nor is there anything from the three holiest Mosques in Isalm as has been noted before.

"I don't have evidence for p.  Therefore, not-p."

I understand why you keep returning to this fallacious argument form.

It's because you really have nothing to contribute but your manufactured indignation.

[Toad]

What was supplied was the Iraq Governing Council's condemnation. You're putting them forth as a religious authority?

Beyond that, again, you've got Al-Azhar ONLY speaking out in the Middle East and the British Muslim Council and the Northern California Muslims chiming in from a distance.

The religious powers that be in the battlezone are silent. These are, as you know, Sistani and Khameni.

If you were the least bit honest you'd admit there hasn't been any real condemnation.

[Erlkonig]

I don’t have the patience to argue over what the meaning of “is” is.  I’m starting to feel embarrassed for you.  So it’s time to put a nail in this coffin.  In recap:

5/12, Toad hasn't seen any condemnation from any Muslim:

However, I don't see ANY of the "Islam is a religion of peace" Mullahs or Clerics speaking out against this. I see no Fatwah condemning these killers. In fact, there is only silence from the peaceful religion of Islam and all its followers. Well, except for the followers of Islam that are openly rejoicing in this murder of a civilian, of course.

Once Westy pointed out that Muslims were repulsed by what happened, Toad changes his tune, the first in a long line. Now the goalposts are set at the issue of condemnation from relgious and political leaders of Islamic countries:

I have yet to find a comment from a leading Mullah or Islamic Cleric in any Islamic country condemning this action. Where's the speech from the Mosque telling the faithful that this is an unconscionable act? No news of that....... and there probably won't be.

[...]

Where is the condemnation by the government of any Islamic state saying these people are an embarrassment to Muslims everywhere?

And if they did, Toad would be the first to know it, followed by the rest of the world:

I think if any Muslim Cleric or government spoke out against this beheading it'd be front page news on every paper in the world.

But Toad is a patient man - he even said so himself!  Thanks, Toad!  Good things come to those who wait.  5/13, Tarmac posts the of the condemnation by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the UAE.  But those darn slippery goalposts never quite manage to remain in place.  Uh-oh!  Islamic governments did condemn the murder!  What can he get all indignant about now?

Saudi, UAE and Jordan... yep, the three countries with the best relations with the US.

Still waiting to hear from the religious sector; wonder what they think about chanting "Allah Hu Akbar" while you behead a civilian.

I just wonder if they think Allah would approve.

WWAD?

I point him towards the response of Al-Azhar, the pre-eminent Sunni authority.  Sunnis are the majority of all Muslims, and hold majority populations in most countries outside Iraq and Iran.  But even that fails to satisfy.  Apparently it's Al Jazeera's fault he didn't hear about it.  The issue then isn’t so much that Muslims are silent, but that media sources aren’t loud enough:

However, it's a beginning. The Sunni piece is the best reaction to date. Now if Al Jazeera would just make it headline news, right?

Fall back!  Retreat!!!

Of course, in the area where the fighting and killing is actually taking place, the place where we need a little leadership and guidance for the masses, there's been what from the leading Ayatollahs and Mullah? Can anyone give me links to condemnations of this act by the religious leaders in Iraq, Iran, Syria or Saudia Arabia?

Oh, you mean like how the highest Sunni authority condemned the murder?  The Sunnis, as in the cheeky fellows that live in Falluja?

But Toad, expert on Arab and Muslim thought, knows what the real score is:

And then of course, there is a lot of this sentiment [approving of the murder] floating around. Probably FAR more of this attitude than condemnation.

[...]

And, obviously, this attitude pervades the religious and governmental leadership near the actual fighting.

Well, there you have it folks!  It’s obviously true!  QED.  And all without a single piece of evidence, or non-fallacious argument in support.

And that brings us to this thread.  There is no “deafening silence,” except that which follows all the dust Toad has kicked up over this issue.

Case closed.

[Toad]

You still fainting over the Al-Azhar and British Muslim council, eh? That does it for you?

Not for me, sorry. For the reasons you outlined. There's been very little condemnation.

Say it ain't so all you like. Doesn't change anything.

And, of course, as Berg followed Pearl, there'll be another one. We'll get to see the same response then, probably.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
It wasn't. It wasn't "aimed" at the civilian population in any way.

Right, and if you can drop a nuke on city as long as you "aim" it at a military target.

Clearly the electrical generating was in direct support of military action.

"however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."

It didn't. You are aware you can also boil water, right? I'll bet there were and still are areas of Iraq where that's been the procedure since time began.

Stupid million Iraqis, they should have just boiled the water.  They obviously drank the poisoned water on purpose.  

Just US as the direct cause of death please.

"Your Honour, it wasn't my pushing the man off the building the building that killed him, it was the gound he hit that did it."

The Defense Intelligence Agency did an analysis of what the result would be for the Iraqis.  You government knew that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would die as a result.  They attacked the infrastrure anyway, and sure enough hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

[Toad]

Sorry, not buying Thrawn. Where's the DIA link?

Military target? Civilians killed? No kidding? So, it's like a war then? Like Hiroshima or something?

"expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water "  Who expected that? Same DIA link?

Ta.