yep , vague stuff like "look up RAF bomber command casualty rates" :2thumbsup:Quote:
But you get them from some where dont you. I ask you where and you tell me to go find out for myself and then give me some vague clue.
Printable View
yep , vague stuff like "look up RAF bomber command casualty rates" :2thumbsup:Quote:
But you get them from some where dont you. I ask you where and you tell me to go find out for myself and then give me some vague clue.
Talk about cherry picking :wall:
Oh, he might wish indeed - Islam, like Christianity, being proselytizing religion and all that. But in practice he and his ilk could hardly care less about us infidels far away - they have stuff to take care of much closer to home. Like corrupt and dictatorial regimes, "godless Western materialism threatening proper values", corrupt and dictatorial regimes not even trying to do a thing about that, Muslim heretics (who, depends on the exact confessional affiliations in question), infidel Western political and military encroachment, that sort of thing. 11/9 was a provocation and a show of force, not an attempt to "destroy civilization as we know it" or somesuch tinhatter nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The exact only thing he and his compatriots have managed thus far is a general hike in paranoia and security measures, and much of the former is really due to certain people here having an interest in continued fearmongering. Everything else we - or rather you Americans - did ourselves, and that frankly wasn't much either. There have been in the "West" all kinds of homegrown terrorist types and movements over the centuries you know, all of them avid adherents and proponents of some cause or other. Pretty much none ever could affect much anything fundamental, however much trouble they caused - how in the world can you seriously claim the Islamists with only a tenuous access to and understanding of our societies have a chance ? Xenophobic alarmist nonsense I say, no different from the Communist scares of the Cold War.Quote:
And if you dont think has had more of an influence on us and our lives since 911 you must be living on a different planet.
I'm slightly puzzled as to why you're so vastly inflating the militants' actual ability to do anything about our lives, although I can think of some ideological and rhetorical reasons.
Could it be that I used to almost be able to see the twin towers from my house and I lost a few mates there?Quote:
I'm slightly puzzled as to why you're so vastly inflating the militants' actual ability to do anything about our lives, although I can think of some ideological and rhetorical reasons.
Oh heres another hate site. This time its Christian though :)
It gives the same accounts. Wonder of wonders as do almost all accounts. As I said these things are taken from muslim texts. Only the intracies are argued over.
Just look at Mohameds change from Medina to Mecca.
LINK
That sounds like a failure of objectivity in analysis then. While quite understandable, it hardly helps in formulating a realistic and factual picture of the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Oh, and as regards those bits about Mohammed, they seemed to be historical enough as such by what I know - although the tone of the takes you quoted was so ragingly and absurdly biased it was almost funny. I'm under the impression the Muslim records of the power struggle are actually quite scrupulously honest and don't try to gloss over the fact the Prophet and his followers flatly broke the prevalent proper etiquette of warfare on several occasions, although naturally they also diligently list all the fig-leaf theological excuses and cannot exactly be claimed to have a critical tone.
Yes it makes me prejuduce LOL. NY will always be a target. That is as long as anyones pissed at us.Quote:
That sounds like a failure of objectivity in analysis then. While quite understandable, it hardly helps in formulating a realistic and factual picture of the matter.
Thats what Ive been telling you all , all along. Muslims dont tell me Im lying when I post these thiings. Ive said they defend his actions. And thats the problem with Islam. If your prophet can do these things then of course you can. He also says kill in the name of Alah and so that gives every Muslim the right to kill anyone who doesnt agree with him religously. As history has shown this usually means other Muslims.Quote:
I'm under the impression the Muslim records of the power struggle are actually quite scrupulously honest and don't try to gloss over the fact the Prophet and his followers flatly broke the prevalent proper etiquette of warfare on several occasions, although naturally they also diligently list all the fig-leaf theological excuses and cannot exactly be claimed to have a critical tone.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
It gives the same accounts. Wonder of wonders as do almost all accounts.
Kimo writes Answering Islam , Khan cites answering Islam as a source on his Persian news network contributions , which are actually the same as his prophet of terror writings were he cites other sources as the base for his writings .
Wonder of wonders Gawain what you mean is almost all anti Islamic sites give the same translations of the same verses to suit their agenda .
The really funny thing as Watchman points out as did I that Muslim ones have the same accounts. Find me something different. Its just the comments on the passages that are different.Quote:
Wonder of wonders Gawain what you mean is almost all anti Islamic sites give the same translations of the same verses to suit their agenda .
Hey Gawain , you wrote something thats strikes me as very odd .
how would you almost be able to see the towers from that far up the island ?Quote:
Could it be that I used to almost be able to see the twin towers from my house
errr... you mean the interpretations that are attributed to the translated passages that the commenters put there to explain what they think they mean according to their bias .:yes:Quote:
Its just the comments on the passages that are different.
Its a 15 minute drive. To me thats almost.Quote:
how would you almost be able to see the towers from that far up the island ?
I mean their stated reasons for doing what he did. In many cases its the same. Are you denying again that Mohamed was a warrior and ordered people killed? Are you denying he attacked Meccan Caravans? That he slaughtered those who opposed him?Quote:
errr... you mean the interpretations that are attributed to the translated passages that the commenters put there to explain what they think they mean according to their bias .
Today 22:38
The only difference on Muslim sites is that these things are seen as glorious and proof that Mohamed was a prophet.
You draw some strange conclusions. Muslims have always been just as good at creative interpretation, omission and general pragmatic reading of Scriptures as anyone else. Just because the Koran tells Muslims and the Old Testament Scriptures Jews that they should smite this and that group and do any number of other unfeasible things hardly means they're actually obliged to, or tried to do so even if they technically speaking were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Holy texts in practice say only what their readers actually want them to, and the same Scriptures can notoriously be used to justify diametrically opposed ideas and actions. If some Muslims now are digging up certain parts and using them to legitimize their terrorist activity, that is happening because they need to legitimize their terrorist activity which has entirely different roots. Much the same as how Christians have always been incredibly creative (and flatly hypocritical) at quoting the Bible to legitimize mass violence whenever necessary, wholly regardless of the whole explicit Thou shalt Not Kill thing - armies have military chaplains now don't they ?
It is the reading of the Scripture which follows the intent and necessity, not the other way around. That's people for you.
You just dont get it. Terrorist #1 Mohamed He set the standard for all who followed.Quote:
If some Muslims now are digging up certain parts and using them to legitimize their terrorist activity, that is happening because they need to legitimize their terrorist activity which has entirely different roots.
:inquisitive:
Are you still hung up on that BS ? Get a grip.
You're also horribly misusing the term "terrorist". A terrorist is essentially a type of guerilla. A succesful warlord, Mohammed never had any use for such sneaky business to begin with.
He terroised the Meccans. He terrorized all who opposed him. He set the standard that it was good to kill in the name of god. In reality himself.Quote:
You're also horribly misusing the term "terrorist". A terrorist is essentially a type of guerilla. A succesful warlord, Mohammed never had any use for such sneaky business to begin with.
:dizzy2: You really need to do something about your absurdly loose terminology.
You also need to get a clue about a thing called "perspective". Especially when you're trying to discuss ancient warlords.
Bingo. We have a winner. I though he was a prophet. I thought it was a religion of peace. Now your catching on. Thats the same exact excuse the Muslims give.Quote:
You also need to get a clue about a thing called "perspective". Especially when you're trying to discuss ancient warlords.
I don't quite see a conflict there. I also don't quite understand why you keep kicking that pacifist strawman.
How can you start a religion of peace by starting a war and following a warlord?
If you need proof, just how much peace has there been there since he started Islam? How can a book with so many references to killing the unbeliever in it be a book of peace. Islam is the most intolerant religion Ive ever seen.
Dont get me wrong. many Muslims can see only the good in it and treat the rest as christians do the old testament. But IMO theres stuff in there thats dangerous. Especially if esposed as being inspired by the divine.
Of the three Abrahamic book-religions Islam has easily the best track record of tolerating the two others in the instances it was the dominant one you know. I cannot but wonder at where you got your knowledge of relevant history from, and also of your definitions of "intolerance".
I also still want to know where you picked this whole "religion of peace" thing from - I know I never called it that, but I fail to see why it could not be that (especially as it has spent a fair bit of time doing so) just as there's nothing keeping the oh-so-peaceable Christianity from being the faith of warriors and conquerors (which it has spent a fair bit of time doing). Ditto for Judaism (where AFAIK there was never any conflict between "prophet" and "warlord" - one gets the impression many of the OT prophets were specifically both), Buddhism (never kept the samurai from gutting each other much)...
OMG:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
If you need proof, just how much peace has there been there since he started Islam?
if you want "proof" how much peace was there before Islam:dizzy2:
...or in places where nobody ever knew what "Islam" was for that matter ?
Exactly, So the prophet hasnt done so well in improving things has he? Has Islam brought peace the world never mind the region? How do Muslims treat Muslims of different sects? The worst thing you can do is hear the word and not obey right?
And that makes Islam different from Christianity (or any other religion) where exactly ?
I take it you haven't yet gone and bought this "perspective" thing I keep recommending to you ?
Hey I dont believe in christianity either. But you do see a difference between Jesus and Mohamed i hope. Even you called him a warlord :dizzy2:
Jesus never had the slightest opportunity to become one anyway. Did drive the moneylenders out of the Temple with a whip IIRC though.
I don't quite see whatever point you're trying to make.
:wall:Quote:
I don't quite see whatever point you're trying to make.
That Jesus was a pacifist while Mohamed was a warrior. Everything he did is against western standards today. Can you say the same of Jesus? Who is a better example to follow? I look at both as philosophers not prophets. Whos philosophy is one of peace? Certainly not Mohamed. Unless you mean like Reagan "Peace through strength" :laugh4: Kill or defeat all your enemies until only Islam remains or you pay tribute.
Seriously, so what ? Like I've been telling you religions are what their adherents make them to be, not what their founders said in the Year of the Stick or someone wrote in some funny book. Both have always happily been ignored with impunity in favor of expediency.
Incidentally, you seem to ignore a whole lot of the counterpoints I keep making to your various historically and factually wholly inaccurate statements. Any reason besides the obvious ?
Try telling that to Muslims LOL You must take the Koran literaly. Theres no reformed Muslim movement.Quote:
Like I've been telling you religions are what their adherents make them to be, not what their founders said in the Year of the Stick
Funny it started out Mohamed didnt do all that stuff and i made it up to the same tired excuse the Muslims give. So what?
Have fun trying to find ten Muslims around the world who can agree to what the "literal" reading means in practice.
Nevermind now the merry way a lot of the book has been variously ignored throughout history for convenience.
Exactly so that gives then all the right to kill each other. How can following the warrior example of Mohamed be seen as peaceful?Quote:
Have fun trying to find ten Muslims around the world who can agree to what the "literal" reading means in practice.