Printable View
Certainly a good deal of the Spanish domination in the New World can be ascribed to religious radicalism. However, I would argue that religious radicalism had little to do with most of the displacement of the native Amerinds -- which I would ascribe to Imperalism/simple greed -- and which appears to have been a fairly broad effort by all of the colonial powers regardless of creed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
First off I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of these non-Christians were sacrificing babies, worshipping God-Kings and fighting their own religious wars. Thugee in India was a cult erradicated by the British. Why? Mainly because their method of worship was the ritual murder of travelers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Compared to a lot the native religions Christianity was Hippie flower power.
At the same time religions had less to do with it than culture, and the fact that the Europeans won. The world today is a place created by Christian Europeans.
Are you seriously comparing the Crusades, a martial conflict which began with the desire to retake the Holy land sparked murder of pilgrims by Muslims and the general closing of said land to European Christians with Muslim Suicide bombers?Quote:
Originally Posted by HSeamus Fermanagh
Some dreadful things were done then in the name of God but after the First Crusade it was fundamentally a terretorial war between Christian Outremer and her Muslim neighbours.
Can you expand on that Wigferth ?Quote:
the general closing of said land to European Christians with Muslim Suicide bombers?
There might be a slight link there but what is it ?
Human sacrifice? In the Aztec world, true, but that doesn't warrant the murder and subjugation of an entire people (which was only one part of a larger Mexica civilization which did not practice human sacrifice on such a widespread basis as the Aztecs did), wouldn't you agree? On a side note, what Europeans interpreted in Africa as the same phenomenon was actually capital punishment in action. So much for savagery...Quote:
First off I think it's worth pointing out that a lot of these non-Christians were sacrificing babies, worshipping God-Kings and fighting their own religious wars. Thugee in India was a cult erradicated by the British. Why? Mainly because their method of worship was the ritual murder of travelers.
God-kings? Absolutism, anyone? One step down from being Pharaoh.
Don't get me wrong here -- these are things of the past, and Christianity has done far more good than anti-theists and the like give it credit for (just like Islam and other religions, I might add). But it isn't like religious violence (such as Crusaders, boasting that they didn't walk into Jerusalem, but waded into it, up to their heels in the blood of the infidel) in Christendom was merely a thing of nine hundred years ago, either.
My point was that a significant component of the church was motivated by Christian radicalism during that era. The Knights Templar, the Beggars and Children's Crusades, any number of other events all suggest a level of fanaticism which parallels the modern Islamist fanaticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That said, the Crusades were conducted according to rules of warfare that were fairly standard for that savage era. The sack of Jerusalem would be paralleled by the treatment of Caen after it and any number of other events. You could therefore make an argument that the Crusades were largely conducted by the accepted "rules" of the time -- in contrast to modern Islamist terrorism -- but even so the specifically religious motivation for the conflict signifies a more radicalized era for the church.
“That said, the Crusades were conducted according to rules of warfare that were fairly standard for that savage era.”
Not only, if you remember what did happen to the French Knights taken prisoners at Agincourt (1415!!!!) and how the Germans newly Protestants did crush the Peasants’ revolt (1525)… The Napoleonic Wars don’t show a great respect for what we call today the rules of engagement, slaughters of civilians, torching of towns and mistreatment of prisoners were common practice, even if efforts were tried…
In fact, the respect of Civilian Populations is quite new in warfare…
“Christianity has done far more good than anti-theists and the like”: That can be discussed…:inquisitive:
It's worth pointing out that in Palastine especially there was still a majoriety Jewish/Christian population. This was more than just "retake the Holy City for the glory of God". As I said, after the first Crusade you are talking about a Christian state with Christian subjects under attack from Muslims Caliphs, most notably Saladin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You seem to be under some missaprehension about the Knightly orders as well. The Knights of St. John and Knights Templar routinely protected Jews and Muslims from Christian lynch mobs.
The Crusades were really no different to any other war. The same language of God and heaven was employed in England's wars with France.
Baba, My point was two fold. Firstly the colonials, be they Spanish, English or French etc. encountered relatively primative civilisations with incomprehensible customs. Secondly, many of these customs would be considered barbaric today in our much more tollerant society. In that climate it's not surprising that a "convert or kill" attitude was adopted. After all, any society that throws a wife onto a funeral pire live after her dead husband is obviously steeped in Satan, right?
Tribes, at the very least it can be said that the Crusades were military campaigns conducted openly and aimed at predominately military targets. That's very different to strapping on a semtex vest and pulling the ripcord on a school bus.
It was aimed at towns and cities full of people wasn't it ?Quote:
Tribes, at the very least it can be said that the Crusades were military campaigns conducted openly and aimed at predominately military targets.
However you mentioned stopping European Christian pilgrims with suicide bombs , how does that work ?
No, that cannot be said, as towns full of people were put to the sword and a lot of massacres occured. Though that was pretty standard in the middle ages. Actually, it's STILL a standard tactic...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I think you'll find that towns that resisted were put to the sword. That is certainly a standard tactic, particually if the town refused to capitulate after a siege and forced the army to assault it's walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Tribes, frankly I would have thought such petty sophistry was beneath you. Perhaps I should have written to instead of with.:inquisitive:
Nah it was just a wierd statement that I cannot fathom, changing those words would make even more indecipherable .:shrug:
Does that really change anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The full quote is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
From a humanitarian point of view no, from a military and sociological point of view, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Strategically the destruction of a resisting city is a good move. Alexander crushed dissent in Greece by raising Thebes to the ground, the result being that overall lives were saved by avoiding a protracted war. Also, after an assault all but the most diciplined soldiers will rape an pillage. Seeing your friends killed by the defenders gets your blood up.
It's not defensible but it's no where near as bad as cold blooded and cowardly murder of civilians. THe best thing about suicide bombing is you don't have to face the consequences of your actions, in this world in any case.
Most generals who did these things had trouble sleeping, I would imagine.
Doesn't matter how many moderates there are, it are the hardliners that make up the agenda. People are so quik to dismiss identity as a dominator, and islam is a strong identity. How that came to be, well we leave them no choice because we insist on giving it a place while we should be fighting radical elements, we pour water on small surface fires but the fundament is smoldering. Surveys have shown that in GB the majority of the muslims want the sharia or the sharia light, they might not be a danger now but when we need them they aren't on our side. No scientist has ever dismissed group dynamics, and we got groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
ps, last week, Brussels. Apparantly the foolishness has gone so far that a days peace is worth more then the constitutional right to demonstrate, multiculture is starting the affect vital organs.
Nope , it is the hardliners that make most noise .Quote:
Doesn't matter how many moderates there are, it are the hardliners that make up the agenda.
Quite succesfully if howmanywasit want the sharia/sharia-light, more then half at least no? Doesn't have to be the violent interpetation, it is undemocratic at best, hostile at it's worst. We simply cannot allow that, integration can only be achieved from a position of dominance. Muslims must understand that this is not a islamist country, and multicultists should stop trying to give them the idea that these terms are debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Well done Frag you just undermined your whole irrational rationale .Quote:
Quite succesfully if howmanywasit want the sharia/sharia-light, more then half at least no?
So now frag , would you be one of those noisy hardliners that try to set the agenda but fail because the majority see the hardline stance as nonsense ?
Hmmmmm nope sorry, not the majority says it's nonsense, half of UK mosks have radical idea's, looked it up, 61% want sharia courts (with the obligitory within brittish law), what is so hard about it? Cause and effect just doesn't exist for you? That percentage will rise as time progresses, that is the most likely because of the soft pressure on moderate muslims. We have seen that happening in other country's, and we have seen nothing that shows otherwise, it's a global trend and in England it is pretty severe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
1+1=2
article, http://www.meforum.org/article/687 no smiley's hope you like it.
^---these guys worry me, they have a lot of influence here in the Netherlands. Some dhimmi politicians insist on apleasement.
'This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of radicalization because the greater the political legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood, the more opportunity it and its proxy groups will have to influence and radicalize various European Muslim communities.'
Do not forget he is smarter then you, and currently probably without a hangover.
More; http://en.internationalepolitik.de/a...warranted.html
It's not integration gone wrong it's a coordinated attempt. All (well not all just the smart ones) scholars agree on this, pubs have a hard time catching up.
hmmm, silence. It screams.
Really ?Quote:
Hmmmmm nope sorry, not the majority says it's nonsense
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Are you using the Times article or the Sun one ...all mosques have "radical" ideas .Quote:
half of UK mosks have radical idea's
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: errrr....within British law :oops: thats that bit in their scriptures isn't it , the bit about the law of the locals that you must follow:dizzy2:Quote:
61% want sharia courts (with the obligitory within brittish law),
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: just like the hardline radical mullahs you are big on noise and short on substance .Quote:
it's a global trend and in England it is pretty severe
Yes it does in most cases , so how are you ending up with 1+1= 56,457 ?Quote:
1+1=2
Yes promoting Americas interests in the middle-east worries me too :yes:Quote:
these guys worry me, they have a lot of influence here in the Netherlands.
Now that is interesting , very interesting :2thumbsup:Quote:
'This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of radicalization because the greater the political legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood, the more opportunity it and its proxy groups will have to influence and radicalize various European Muslim communities.'
Is he ?Quote:
Do not forget he is smarter then you
Well in this case obviously not , the greater political legitimacy of the Brotherhood arises from the fact that it is suppressed , while it is a poor oppressed organisation it can get its message across with lots of willing listeners , let them stand freely and see how much they screw up and lose support . Much like the poor old BNP , let them get office in their homelands and see how crap they really are .
Hey what a crazy idea , take away the "legitimacy" by letting them be legitimate :yes: Much better than Vidinos article eh perhaps he was drunk , was he out with the Murdoch journalists at the time ?
Have you checked under the bed ? :scared:Quote:
It's not integration gone wrong it's a coordinated attempt.
It is a combination of many things , including a few nutters getting together , the same sort of nutters who want a whites only paradise .
If you want to get upset over a few idiots feel free , but don't expect people to take your bogeymen stories seriously .
Yup, really, as surveys have shown.
Times.
In a democracy laws can change, for better or worse.
Well at least you used plural.
Just pure luck I guess.
Agreed, but why exactly. Think of how that could affect you for starters.
Glad you like it.
Yeah that is crazy, see point 3.
Yup, it's a combination of things, a combination of blind multiculturalism and leap of faith-attitude of the political elite, who in 4 years will be working at the UN or Shell and just have to stay on their feet for a limited time.
Little addition to point 3, laws don't need to change, see Brussels last week. A demonstration against the islamisation wasn't allowed by a scared mayor, would be participants went to court, but a dhimmi judge denied citizens their constitutional right to demonstrate. Some high-ranking politicians got arrested exercising their fundamental rights.
Ah yes , what did one of your compatriots say about that article.....Quote:
Times.
.....hmmmmmm.:oops:Quote:
The Times article claims to be based on a police report but fails to mention what sort of report. That's sloppy. The hacks obviously didn't do their own math on the mosques, the Deobandis and related radicals.
Whatever next , back stabbing industrialists and the Jewish conspiracy :dizzy2: Are you on the right forum ?Quote:
Yup, it's a combination of things, a combination of blind multiculturalism and leap of faith-attitude of the political elite, who in 4 years will be working at the UN or Shell and just have to stay on their feet for a limited time.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Little addition to point 3, laws don't need to change, see Brussels last week. A demonstration against the islamisation wasn't allowed by a scared mayor, would be participants went to court, but a dhimmi judge denied citizens their constitutional right to demonstrate. Some high-ranking politicians got arrested exercising their fundamental rights.
Well done Frag , your imagination really does run riot .
Did the main organiser of the march agree with the judges , did he complain that the march was being hijacked by far right extremists and neo-nazis , did the "high ranking" seperatist politicians that got arrested get arrested for breaking the law .
Were they officially not representing the party (it is election time after all and law breaking and neo-nazi association doesn't sit well with most voters) when they gathered along the route of the illegal gathering .
Is it their fundamental right to break the law or are they just as crazy as the nutters they complain about ?
Downplaying is part of the game.
enjoying your icecream?
Uhm, yeah good one :dizzy2:
Vlaams belang aren't nazi's, even took a stand against Wilders when he wanted to ban the quran. Go figure. Why would nazi's want to ban the quran, they should get along just fine, and they do. And did.
Yes. We know the Enlightened Opposers of Islam are the only ones who get banned from demonstrating. No lefties ever get that... :inquisitive:
Perhaps you could get Blood and Honour and 88 to remove the parties web page from the links section then , maybe they ain't Nazis but the Nazis think they are .Quote:
Vlaams belang aren't nazi's
Maybe thats why they go on the same rallies :idea2:
So you are acusing nazi's of thinking now? Bald communists, replace rich with jews and it's the same thing.
No Frag , replace Jews with Muslims and we get exactly your little fetish .
Oh common. Why don't you try finding some stuff that actually contradicts me and the dynamics that I describe, good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
What you mean this tripe ?Quote:
Why don't you try finding some stuff that actually contradicts me and the dynamics that I describe
Yeah you got groups , little groups that manage to alienate themselves from their so called supporters purely because when it comes down to it they are nuttier than a sack of almonds , and you worry that a bunch of fruitcakes that cannot even keep their own so called supporters supporting them are going to take over the world .Quote:
No scientist has ever dismissed group dynamics, and we got groups.
Frag there is nothing needed to contradict you .
Your own writing with its irrational fear and hatred stands alone in that department .
Just to blend in Godwins law, the Third Reich did have several regiments of Waffen SS Moslem troops.
I'll do a Tribes and let anyone interested do the 'leg work'.
I've just had a very long day, apologies fellas.
G'nite.
Yep , and Handschar gained the distinction of being the only SS division to mutiny , perhaps it was really only the Catholics in the division that did that , or maybe they didn't like France .Quote:
Just to blend in Godwins law, the Third Reich did have several regiments of Waffen SS Moslem troops.
Whereas Kuma had a lot of desertions on the way to Hungary and by the time they got there were disbanded into other units .
Wierd fellow that Himmler eh , apparently european Muslims are true Aryans .
Iran.
Wasn't the leader of the Muslim SS Division(s) an Iraqi or something like that? I watched a History Channel piece on Sadam Hussein and I am certain that the guy was the "Grand Mufti" or something like that and hailed from Iraq. I'll wiki it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
[link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_%281st_Croatian%29[/link]
Okay so it says under "recruitment" that the guy I am thinking of was the Mufti of Jerusalem and worked to recruit Muslims into the SS.
Uesegi , it depends what source you use .
There is a hell of a lot of crap written about it
According to some sources they slit the throats of 80,000 jews in Jugoslavia and Greece, others say 800,000 Serbs , one anti-islam site that is often posted here says they killed 5,000 Americans in Italy of all places , another says that their job was to guard the trains going to the death camps .
Crazy stuff out there on that internet thingy eh :laugh4:
I fail to see how "muslims in the SS" is a good argument against Islam.
God knows the christians and europeans were by FAR in the majority. Next I'll probably hear that Hitler was a muslim from Pakistan, or that the Holocaust was mainly done by muslims...
BTW Fragony, for someone accusing us lefties for apologizing for muslims, you sure are making a lot of apologies for europeans when they do something horrible...
And yet another vague reply that brings nothing to the table. Gave you article, gave you numbers, these speak for themselve. Why don't you feed me some positive events, or something that in general speaks against the article, and no that friendly guy where you buy your kebab don't count. Sigh snipers......... always waiting to make a shot but we will never know his position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Reminds me of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And I work out with some muslims who don't seem to be terrorists but then I never really talked to them, the guy where I get my Currwurst is also muslim and nice and many middle-eastern or turkish looking girls here don't wear veils or headscarfs so I'd guess their parents aren't very extreme. :shrug:
Screw terrorism, it's a devided nation that worries me, and it's quikly going that way in Brittain it seems, or some forces are at least aiming to do so. It isn't nowhere as bad here in the Netherlands, but it as the same thing yanking their chain here as it is in Brittain.
edit, screw terrorists, in her case, gladly
http://www.dag.nl/upload_mm/e/c/b/18...n2_440x293.jpg
Our very own Ché
Yes you gave the article , and I gave the same stables common version of the article , both were crap alarmist tripe , the numbers you gave do speak for themselves , since the have the caveat that completely destroys what you are attempting to say they say .Quote:
And yet another vague reply that brings nothing to the table. Gave you article, gave you numbers, these speak for themselve.
You don't have to know my position , it takes very little effort to completely destoy yours though .Quote:
Sigh snipers......... always waiting to make a shot but we will never know his position.
Most of it you do yourself by claiming stories say something when they clearly don't , claim crime figures or statistics show something that they don't , claim legal cases show things when it is patently untrue .
On the subjects of Islam , immigration and intergration your fears seem to have interrupted the chain of rational thought .
Irrational thoughts due to their nature are easy to shoot down , not as an attempt to get you to change your mind , that would be futile , but simply to show your "thoughts" up for what they are .
Nice duel, gentlemen.
Now spell out how you might resolve the socio-political dimension to this.
Perhaps the Beziers solution?
:devilish:
I guess you aren't very good at it then, since I still got zero, besides anger wrapped in a moral appeal. If these articles are alarmist, untrue, show me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
On the subjects of Islam , immigration and intergration your fears seem to have interrupted the chain of rational thought .
That is fun to say isn't it, irrationality, great for scrabble, but in a discussion when you call someone irrational you ussually say why, and bring something to the table that shows why. I still have nada. I fear a country with no sense of direction, multiculturalism is a self-denying profecy, for a multiculturalist the outcome must be a 100 whatever the sum. Very rational. Go there! where? I dunno I hoped you knew.
oooooo thats a hard one ...try post #11Quote:
if these articles are alarmist, untrue, show me.
another hard one , a real struggle that will be .:dizzy2:Quote:
That is fun to say isn't it, irrationality, great for scrabble, but in a discussion when you call someone irrational you ussually say why, and bring something to the table that shows why.
So ......a woman is gang raped and murdered , you say she was a dumb american MTV loving bitch who wanted a bit of rough but got more than she expected ....... another woman is gang raped and you say its because the rapists were muslims and that is what they do ...rational or irrational ?
A bloke gets no charges put against him because there is no evidence , you say its because he was a Muslim and the police and judges won't prosecute Muslims.......a bloke gets caught red handed , there is a pile of evidence and even his friends testify against him , you say he is innocent and was only prosecuted because he isn't a Muslim....rational or irrational ?
A group gets some grants to subsidise those parts of a construction project that are grant eligible , you say the dutch taxpater is paying for the whole project because they are Muslims .......lots of groups get the same grants for those parts of their projects that are eligable for grants and you say .....errrrr......nothing ....because they are not Muslim...rational or irrational ?
Does that bring enough to the table ?
Would you like some more of your posts to remind you what you have claimed on this forum ?
Or should I just finish with your "I am going out to beat up some immigrants this weekend , they need to be taught a lesson" post ?:thumbsdown:
That's the post where you say it's rubbish right.
No Tribes, that, again, brings absolutily nothing to the table, yet another moral appeal. Several. If you want to discuss me fine, start a thread, but right now we are discussing the article in post 1. About that particular example, guy wasn't caught red handed, he was arrested at home. The judge even said the punnishment was so high because he wanted to stress the multicultural society, he said so in the verdict, tribes.
Ah well let's play. Mosk was funded with fraud, city bought their ground and gave it back, 2.000.000 euro there you go. Illegal as heck. I can give you a little background if you want, the moderate council of the time insisted they needed the money to prevent the hardliners from taking over, nothing but blackmail. They got the money and the hardliners took over anyway. It is doubtfull the mosk will ever be build.
About that rape, no idea what you are talking about, sure you have it somewhere in the Fragony files but I am kinda lost, not only on this particular example but also about what the hell it has to do with the subject.
About beating up, I was wrong but I was upset. How long was that ago? 2 years? Was during the Paris riots I believe (or van Gogh, forgot) and there was talk of the same thing happening in Rotterdam that weekend, but it never happened.
ps, wasn't it at the same time you were going to teach me a lesson and I gave you my adress and phonenumber and how best to get here? (schiphol amersfoort, about 40 minutes, nice route by the way, lots of water very pretty)
YepQuote:
That's the post where you say it's rubbish right.
It brings everything that is needed ....if half the mosques are talking about Jihad then what are the other half talking about ?Quote:
No Tribes, that, again, brings absolutily nothing to the table
Are they not mosques?
Jihad is part of islam isn't it , do these moques not talk about it ?
Do they talk about the lesser or the greater ?
Do they talk about the Shia or Sunni Jihad ?
One good thing in the article is that it quotes something ...about Jihad being a taboo word ....thats true , due to the alarmism associated with the word .
Oh so if the police acting on information about a planned firebomb attack raid a house and find the racist git with firebombs he hasn't been caught red handed because he was at home:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
About that particular example, guy wasn't caught red handed, he was arrested at home.
The judge said that the sentance was towards the higher end of the possible scale because racist attacks must not be tolerated .Quote:
The judge even said the punnishment was so high because he wanted to stress the multicultural society, he said so in the verdict, tribes.
No thats OK Frag , thanks for the offer , but I shall just wait for your next attempt in a long line of "muslims gonna get ya" topics :2thumbsup:Quote:
If you want to discuss me fine, start a thread,
Will I have to wait long ?
Hey if you try the Daily "hate" Mail instead of the Times you should be able to post several every day .~;)
I was the american student raped and murdered in Aruba , what it and the others have to do with the subject is to show a pattern in your thought process...everything is different to you if it is Muslims involved .Quote:
About that rape, no idea what you are talking about, sure you have it somewhere in the Fragony files but I am kinda lost, not only on this particular example but also about what the hell it has to do with the subject.
That isn't illegal , that is town planning and provision of community facilities in a run down area , it is normal , you have an issue with it purely because of the religeon involved .Quote:
Mosk was funded with fraud, city bought their ground and gave it back, 2.000.000 euro there you go. Illegal as heck.
Hey Frag get it right , the quote was "if you cannot introduce a racist to a reasonable point of view then introduce his head to the floor"Quote:
ps, wasn't it at the same time you were going to teach me a lesson
Those are fascinating questions indeed, quite philosophical, let me fetch my pipe. If I didn't know any better I would think that I would be interested in them, but alas I am not. If the muslims are unsure about what it is why should I know? Now let's get back to article, you can call it suzie if you want, I'll just call it +/- half the mosks in brittain teach the hardline version of islam which tells muslims to shed blood in the name of the prophet. Maybe that is rubbish, but you seem to have a little difficulty in proving that. Back on track, no need to thank me I am therefore I can.
I was the american student raped and murdered in Aruba , what it and the others have to do with the subject is to show a pattern in your thought process...everything is different to you if it is Muslims involved
Oh, Hogaway. You know two of the suspects are black right? If you want to nail me here you could do with a better example. Most gangrapes are done by muslims(here at least), since you are burdening yourselve with the greater meanings, go for it.
That isn't illegal , that is town planning and provision of community facilities in a run down area , it is normal , you have an issue with it purely because of the religeon involved .
It's legal when it is done legally. And, it wasn't.
Oh so if the police acting on information about a planned firebomb attack raid a house and find the racist git with firebombs he hasn't been caught red handed because he was at home
Indeed, that is what red handed means you know. Caught in the act. He wasn't. Why is that so hard for you?
Hey Frag get it right , the quote was "if you cannot introduce a racist to a reasonable point of view then introduce his head to the floor"
Hmm I guess you don't remember it. I wonder why.
were they black Muslims ?Quote:
Oh, Hogaway. You know two of the suspects are black right? If you want to nail me here you could do with a better example.
Then undoubtably you can provide details of the convictions:laugh4:Quote:
It's legal when it is done legally. And, it wasn't
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Indeed, that is what red handed means you know. Caught in the act. He wasn't. Why is that so hard for you?
He was caught in the act of those crimes he was charged with and convicted for :idea2: You claimed he was innocent:dizzy2:
My memory is fine frag , you took the quote as being a threat to you ...I was ever so scared when you said you did kick-boxing I was so scared I nearly wet myself laughing :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Hmm I guess you don't remember it. I wonder why.
Ahh, it's getting shorter and shorter, since we aren't discussing the subject anymore this thread could just as well be closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I don't know if they were muslims tribes.
Nope can't give details of convictions, there weren't any. Why that is I'll leave to your imagination.
Afraid not tribes, look for the thread 'Dearest Fragony' in the archieves :yes:
Thanks for the memories,
-xxx- Frag
ow, missed one. Which act?
Ah so if you don't know they are muslims you don't make an issue of it :idea2: in fact you did the opposite and blamed the victim .Quote:
I don't know if they were muslims tribes.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Frag it is your imagination... the whole mosque building finance topic and the way you presented it was your imagination running riot .Quote:
Nope can't give details of convictions, there weren't any. Why that is I'll leave to your imagination.
Oooooo thats a hard one , but since you couldn't remember the judges summing up correctly I suppose you cannot remember the charges either...so ....consipacy to commit an act of terrorism , incitemet to racial hatred , illegal possesion of explosive devices , illegal possesion of explosive devices with intent...but hey you said he was innocent because he wasn't a Muslim:oops:Quote:
ow, missed one. Which act?
See the pattern .
Explosives huh, you mean a molotov cocktail, I think you are confused with the case of Samir A. He was charged with attempted arson, that's it, he got max penalty because of his motives(was 2,5 years not 3 my bad). Now I am not sorry to see him in jail mind you, but to put it into perspective, nobody ever got charged for burning down churches. I started that thread because of the obvious double standard of the legal system.
Read up on the Samir A case and look for similarities, quite interesting.
Frag it is your imagination... the whole mosque building finance topic and the way you presented it was your imagination running riot .
Was a removing of a christian warmonument topic. Someone took offense.
but hey you said he was innocent because he wasn't a Muslim
See the pattern .
:laugh4: :laugh4: oh man you finally really lost it, there a straw grab it while you can.
God why even react.....
I suspect that we have drifted somewhat.
:closed: