Well, the virgins are just the cherry on top of the cakeOriginally Posted by MoFo
Originally Posted by Rafster
I've heard several people talking about the 72 virgins stuff. Is that really what the terrorist are killing for? I always thought it was because they disagree with other country's foreign policies and this is how they wrongfully get back at them.
Now that's just dirty, boris.Originally Posted by 0l33l
While they may not be killing to receive the 72 virgins, they believe that if they die a martyr, in the name of Allah, (whether or not by suicide, or thru the hands of someone else, or even at the time they die of natural causes) they will go to heaven, and there be treated to 72 virgins.Originally Posted by MoFo
...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.
I dont know..something about this doesnt seem right. Supposedly, in every religion, when you go to heaven you get whatever you want. whether its gardens, virgins, fruit, or whatever else people think they might want. Thats universally true for almost all religions.Originally Posted by Wiredwrx
What i'm getting at is...say for example a good American soldier dies on the battlefield in order to do what is right and earn his way to heaven..why is it that no one says "He did it for the gardens in heaven" or "he did it for the virgins in heaven" ?
PS - On another note heres a thought, how do we really know what we would want in heaven? everything we want now is based on our human desires and perceptions. It is our souls that would see heaven and why would our souls have the same desires that our "human" self desires.
PPS- I do believe in heaven and hell, i'm just trying to understand the concept a little better
Good good, wouldn't want you to be spreading misinformation, cause terrorist might win then.Originally Posted by 0l33l
I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
Okay, I guess i'll throw my two cents in.. (If anyone cares to hear it) first off...
Cash4M0ney- Dude, that was pretty cold.. If someone had said anything equally ****ty to you after 9/11, I bet you'd probably freak out on them. You are a bona-fide, soul-less, donkey-raping ****-eater. you ***...
Second, about this media ****.. Please everyone.. believe me on this one, i don't care where you get your news from, it's tainted or corrupt in one form or another. You are never getting the straight story, someone's always got to put their "twist" on the information during its transfer between the reporter to the people. I don't care who it is.. CNN, BBC, Fox News, Al Jazeera, etc.
Let me tell you something. I spent 9 months in Baghdad starting during May/ June in 2003. It was no picnic. The **** I was seeing on the news networks was something different than what was occuring outside in the streets. I am all for freedom of the press, but damn.
I met many good Arabs while I was there. Saw a few twisted ones as well. The coalition forces there, no matter what country they come from, are genuinely trying to do good, both for Iraq, and her people. The reason that you don't see much of this in the news, only "x number of soldiers/police got killed today by a bomb" is simply because the good deeds being done aren't sensational enough. They don't sell papers or airtime like the violence does.
Yeh, exactly.Originally Posted by rushnrockt
100% agreed... the news media isn't interested in the progress we're making in Iraq... only how many people get killed/woundedOriginally Posted by Snootch
I bet you'll still find people *cough*liberals*cough* who think that the people of Iraq would have prefered Sadam's regime over the coalition staying there.