So this is the Islam I am supposed to understand ?

[Fountainhead]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9806DBD9-777C-42B2-A740-BC9991C195DF.htm

Islamic courts that arrest and JAIL reporters for writing "unfavorable" stories about Islam and Mohammad

And we want to step backward into the 7th century ... because ... ?? ... anyone ... anyone ... ?? ...

[zefrendylia]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9806DBD9-777C-42B2-A740-BC9991C195DF.htm

Islamic courts that arrest and JAIL reporters for writing "unfavorable" stories about Islam and Mohammad

And we want to step backward into the 7th century ... because ... ?? ... anyone ... anyone ... ?? ...



You are confusing the issue of religion and government. The religion of Islam, like Christianity teaches peace, love, and tolerance. Both should be spiritual guides for enlightenment and how we treat our fellow human beings. Moderate as well as conservative Muslims do not condone violent jihad or violence. Although as we know, religion can be twisted by those who seek to use it for power and control. Both religions have for centuries been used to promote and even justify violence and aggression. I can give you dozens of examples if you want.

That being said, government is or should inherently be separate from religion. In certain countries around the world, religion has been intertwined with government to create what is know as theocracies. Theocracy, monarchy, autocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy etc. are all forms of government. The fact is, any county without democratic institutions , even a democracy can use religion to justify its means. Azerbaijan and most of the former Soviet republics are still very un-democratic yet because of massive foreign investment--are capitalist as well.

The point here is, although the authors are factually wrong about their arguments regarding Islam (I don't know what the entire article said), in a democratic society they should have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Instead, the government of Azerbaijan is not democratic but authoritarian and will use any justification to maintain control and their way of thinking. Today it's criticism of the state religion, tomorrow it will be criticizing the government--and no totalitarian regime can have that.

[Nukeman]

You are confusing the issue of religion and government. The religion of Islam, like Christianity teaches peace, love, and tolerance. Both should be spiritual guides for enlightenment and how we treat our fellow human beings. Moderate as well as conservative Muslims do not condone violent jihad or violence. Although as we know, religion can be twisted by those who seek to use it for power and control. Both religions have for centuries been used to promote and even justify violence and aggression. I can give you dozens of examples if you want.

That being said, government is or should inherently be separate from religion. In certain countries around the world, religion has been intertwined with government to create what is know as theocracies. Theocracy, monarchy, autocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy etc. are all forms of government. The fact is, any county without democratic institutions , even a democracy can use religion to justify its means. Azerbaijan and most of the former Soviet republics are still very un-democratic yet because of massive foreign investment--are capitalist as well.

The point here is, although the authors are factually wrong about their arguments regarding Islam (I don't know what the entire article said), in a democratic society they should have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Instead, the government of Azerbaijan is not democratic but authoritarian and will use any justification to maintain control and their way of thinking. Today it's criticism of the state religion, tomorrow it will be criticizing the government--and no totalitarian regime can have that.

Islam is much more than a religion it is a way of life to include not only your spirtual self but how you are to do business with others, to interact with others of differing faith's and also how to ultimately GOVERN... the very theocracy you spoke of in your post is exactly what Islam is about.

The Islamic countries are not run by the ellected officials they are run by the Ayetolahs (sp). The learned religious leaders of the Islamic faith are the ones that pull all the strings. All members of the Iranian government are members of the ruling religious sect.

By the way, Islam teaches peace untill the time that you have sufficient numbers to take over the country you are living in. They have done this throughout history. Islam has no hierarchy like other religions the iman and mullahs and other religious leaders are just individuals who have studied the Koran longer than others. They inturn give only thier Interpritation of the Koran. They also do not have to answer to any higher authority in the Islamic "church if you will" when they issue a fatwah or ruling/action as a member of your mosque you are responsible for caring out the fatwah without guestion since you are not as learned.

I've said it before and I will say it again Islam is a religion of peace untill it comes into power than it become a religion of oppression

[Nukeman]

You are confusing the issue of religion and government. The religion of Islam, like Christianity teaches peace, love, and tolerance. Both should be spiritual guides for enlightenment and how we treat our fellow human beings. Moderate as well as conservative Muslims do not condone violent jihad or violence. Although as we know, religion can be twisted by those who seek to use it for power and control. Both religions have for centuries been used to promote and even justify violence and aggression. I can give you dozens of examples if you want.

That being said, government is or should inherently be separate from religion. In certain countries around the world, religion has been intertwined with government to create what is know as theocracies. Theocracy, monarchy, autocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy etc. are all forms of government. The fact is, any county without democratic institutions , even a democracy can use religion to justify its means. Azerbaijan and most of the former Soviet republics are still very un-democratic yet because of massive foreign investment--are capitalist as well.

The point here is, although the authors are factually wrong about their arguments regarding Islam (I don't know what the entire article said), in a democratic society they should have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Instead, the government of Azerbaijan is not democratic but authoritarian and will use any justification to maintain control and their way of thinking. Today it's criticism of the state religion, tomorrow it will be criticizing the government--and no totalitarian regime can have that.

I would like to point you to another chat board that is solely about Islam. This sight is not a bach Islam sight it is quite the opposite, it is frequented by both mainstream and hard line Muslims.

Shiachat.com

Take a look and learn something about how they are actually thinking...

[zefrendylia]

Islam is much more than a religion it is a way of life to include not only your spirtual self but how you are to do business with others, to interact with others of differing faith's and also how to ultimately GOVERN... the very theocracy you spoke of in your post is exactly what Islam is about...

I've said it before and I will say it again Islam is a religion of peace untill it comes into power than it become a religion of oppression

May I ask what education you have had on Islam? Are you a practicing Muslim? Are you a Muslim scholar or a world religion scholar?

I humbly disagree. Islam does not ultimately teach how to govern. In fact in the five tenets there is nothing about politics or governance:

The shahādatān, "I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God."
Salah, or ritual prayer, which must be performed five times a day at fixed times. Salah is intended to focus the mind on God; it is seen as a personal communication with God, expressing gratitude and worship. According to the Qur'an, the benefit of prayer "restrains [one] from shameful and evil deeds
Zakat, or alms-giving. This is the practice of charitable giving by Muslims based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all who are able to do so.
Sawm, or fasting during the month of Ramadan. The fast is meant to allow Muslims to seek nearness to God, to express their gratitude to and dependence on him, to atone for their past sins, and to remind them of the needy.
The Hajj, which is the pilgrimage that occurs during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah in the city of Mecca. The pilgrim, or the hajji, is honored in his or her community, although Islamic teachers say that the Hajj should be an expression of devotion to God, not a means to gain social standing.

You are simply using the example of Iran to form a generalization of every country whose main religion is Islam. Present day Iran has come about through unique circumstances but I will come back to that later. For now, take into account the majority of major Islamic countries whose governments are in no way theocratic but in fact many are dictatorships or authoritarian regimes which was the original point I was trying to make. Totalitarian regimes can use but don't have to use religion, in this case Islam, to control the people. Countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and most of Central Asia are decidedly Muslim but their governments are authoritarian. Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam, yet it is ruled by a monarchy. Turkey is more democratic and very secular. Indonesia has the most Muslims in the world but is also democratic. In these cases, every government is very secular. In every case except Indonesia and Turkey, these countries lack fundamental democratic institutions. This means, a secular government even in a Muslim country can be oppressive. While a secular government in another Muslim country isn't. Religion has nothing to do with it. It is the type of government that determines denial of human rights and democratic freedoms.

That being said, thank you for bringing up the issue of Iran. What many Americans forget or do not simply know is that up until 1953, Iran was a liberal democracy with a parliamentary government. When PM Mohammed Mossadeq was voted into office in the 1950's he had a bold new idea: Iranians should get their fair share of the profits from their oil reserves that British Petroleum had exploited for years. He then nationalized the domestic oil industry. When BP got wind of this, they appealed to American oil companies to boycott Iranian oil exports much like they did earlier to Mexican oil. This tactic worked again, and Iran was on the verge of economic disaster. Mossadeq had no choice but to turn to the Soviet Union for loans. When the U.S. got wind of this, they sent in CIA operatives under Operation Ajax to stage a coup on Mossadeq and install the Shah as a puppet leader. It was a success and for a few decades the Shah ruled with an iron fist. His CIA-trained secret police kidnapped, tortured, and executed tens of thousands of any opposition. (do you see the oppressiveness without the theocracy?) The irony of this all is the U.S. took over all entire oil industry and didn't allow BP to get back in. Well, a funny thing happens when people are oppressed, they tend to fight back and revolt. So in the 1970's, the Islamic Revolution started, much of it by university students. The rest is what you probably know: oil spikes, hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter, etc. until we see what we have today.

Now of course, remember that what we read about Iran in the mainstream media is not the entire story. Those who support a bomb-bomb-bombardment of Iran always float back to Ahmadenijad's explosive statement that Jews should be wiped off the map. Yet, you yourself admit that the Ayatollahs have all the power. Iran isn't the only country with leaders making insensitive and belligerent public statements on foreign policy. Here is what the Ayatollah Khameini said in response to Ahmadinejad's statement: "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country."

In fact before Ahmadinejad came into power in 2003 (any coincidence?), Iran had a fairly moderate President who encouraged freedoms, democratic institutions, peace and dialogue with the U.S. They even offered to help hunt down Al Qaeda which was also a threat in their country. Yet, the extremes of right-wing and left-wing ideology can swing in any country. But for the most part Ayatollah Khameini seems to be consistently progressive:

"Ali Khamenei has been supportive of science progress in Iran. He was among the first Islamic clerics to allow stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In 2004, Ayatollah Khamenei said that the country's progress is dependent on investment in the field of science and technology. He also said that attaching a high status to scholars and scientists in society would help talents to flourish and science and technology to become domesticated, thus ensuring the country's progress and development.

In 2007, Khamenei requested that government officials speed up Iran's move towards economic privatization. Its last move towards such a goal was in 2004, when Article 44 of the constitution was overturned. Article 44 had decreed that Iran's core infrastructure should remain state-run. Khamenei also suggested that ownership rights should be protected in courts set up by the Justice Ministry; the hope was that this new protection would give a measure of security to and encourage private investment.

Additionally, Khamenei has stated that he believes in the importance of nuclear technology for civilian purposes because "oil and gas reserves cannot last forever."

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, he condemned the act and the attackers and called for a condemnation of terrorist activities all over the world, whether in the United States, Israel, the Balkans, or elsewhere. Candlelight vigils in Iran for the victims of the 9/11 attacks were commonplace during the next several nights."

[Samantha]

This is what happens when there is no seperation of church and state.

[Psychoblues]

Exactly!!!!



This is what happens when there is no seperation of church and state.

Why don't they get it? No question about it. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Budda, etc. would not be wearing the flag of any government as a shawl.

[glockmail]

May I ask what education you have had on Islam? Are you a practicing Muslim? Are you a Muslim scholar or a world religion scholar?......


what? If you're not a muzzy, you can't comment on Islam?

It's a bullshit religion, created by some jerk named Mohamed in his lust for power. It's spread by the sword. Not comparable at all to the true religions of Jews and Christians.

:pee:

[theHawk]

I humbly disagree. Islam does not ultimately teach how to govern. In fact in the five tenets there is nothing about politics or governance:

The shahādatān, "I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God."
Salah, or ritual prayer, which must be performed five times a day at fixed times. Salah is intended to focus the mind on God; it is seen as a personal communication with God, expressing gratitude and worship. According to the Qur'an, the benefit of prayer "restrains [one] from shameful and evil deeds
Zakat, or alms-giving. This is the practice of charitable giving by Muslims based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all who are able to do so.
Sawm, or fasting during the month of Ramadan. The fast is meant to allow Muslims to seek nearness to God, to express their gratitude to and dependence on him, to atone for their past sins, and to remind them of the needy.
The Hajj, which is the pilgrimage that occurs during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah in the city of Mecca. The pilgrim, or the hajji, is honored in his or her community, although Islamic teachers say that the Hajj should be an expression of devotion to God, not a means to gain social standing.


Islam is such as ass-backwards religion that none of its followers can ever admit to its infinite contradictions. First and foremost, all muslims deny the simple fact that the man, a so called "prophet of God", was a pedophile. And then of course they claim they regard Jesus Christ as another true prophet of God, yet claim his own chosen disciples ended up writing a bunch of "lies" when they wrote their Gospels. Its because of these very apparent contradictions in their religion that they can never mesh with freedom of speech, they wouldn't dare let their younger generation hear these simple facts that would inject a great deal of doubt into anyone who can think logically.

Is there a tenet for getting married to 6 year old girls to follow the example of the great 'prophet of God'?

[TheSage]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9806DBD9-777C-42B2-A740-BC9991C195DF.htm

Islamic courts that arrest and JAIL reporters for writing "unfavorable" stories about Islam and Mohammad

And we want to step backward into the 7th century ... because ... ?? ... anyone ... anyone ... ?? ...

Because the general knowledge level of people in the west is too high to keep them under the level of control the elites prefer. Olam Ha Ba, a new dark age of theocracy and suppression, is coming.

[Gaffer]

Looks like we picked up a muzzy. Gotta get my opinion in :pee: islam

[Kathianne]

Because the general knowledge level of people in the west is too high to keep them under the level of control the elites prefer. Olam Ha Ba, a new dark age of theocracy and suppression, is coming.

So the knowledge level is too high, but they are too stupid to see what's coming?

[avatar4321]

This is what happens when there is no seperation of church and state.

and yet you want to unite the Church of Al Gore with the state for some reason.

[Pale Rider]

The religion of Islam, like Christianity teaches peace, love, and tolerance.

Excuse me... ? It's teaches WHAT?!


UNHOLY QUOTES FROM THE KORAN
THAT PROMOTE TERRORISM
THE KINGDOM ALERT #130, P.1, WEEKLY UPDATE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning: The following quotes are blasphemous. They are taken from the Koran (translated by N.J. Danwood). By reading these quotes you will have a basic understanding of the Muslim religion, the wars and tension in the Middle East, and the terrorism on September 11:

"...now that a Book confirming their own has come to them from God, they deny it...they reply: 'We believe in what was revealed to us.' But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is truth...Say: 'Whoever is an enemy of Gabriel' (who has by God's grace revealed to you [Muhammad] the Koran as a guide...confirming previous scriptures)..will surely find that God is the enemy of the unbelievers.'...And now that an apostle has come to them from God confirming their own Scriptures, some of those to whom the Scriptures were given cast off the Book of God behind their backs...The unbelievers among the People of the Book, and the pagans, resent that any blessings should have been sent down to you from your Lord. " (Surah 2:88-, 98-, 103-)

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Men are tempted [in this life] by the lure of women...far better is the return of God. Say: 'Shall I tell you of better things than these, with which the righteous shall be rewarded by their Lord? Theirs shall be gardens watered by running streams, where they shall dwell for ever: wives of perfect chastity..." (Surah 3:14, 15)

"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)

"To those that declare: 'God has commanded us to believe no apostle unless he brings down fire to consume an offering,' say: 'Other apostles before me [Muhammad] have come to you with veritable signs and worked the miracle you asked for...If they reject you [Muhammad], other apostles have been rejected before you..." (Surah 3:183-)

"If you wish to replace a wife with another, do not take from her the dowry you have given her..." (Surah 4:20)

"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)

"Believers, do not approach your prayers when you are drunk, but wait till you can grasp the meaning of your words..." (Surah 4:43)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially." (Surah 4:126-)

"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"The God will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind 'Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?' 'Glory to You, 'he will answer, 'how could I ever say that to which I have no right?" (Surah 5:114-)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-)

"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)

"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)

"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)

"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)

"You shall not force your slave-girls into prostitution in order that you make money, if they wish to preserve their chastity." (Surah 24:33-)

"As for the faithful who do good works and believe what is revealed to Muhammad...He will forgive them their sins..." (Surah 47:1)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html

[Lightning Waltz]

You can find quotes like that in the Bible, as well...

[Pale Rider]

You can find quotes like that in the Bible, as well...

So? That has nothing to do with this thread, or my reply.

[Monkeybone]

yah in the old testament, when they were supposed to clear out israel.

new testament, love your neighbor as yourself. not kill him and his family cause they don't believe the same. just the classic thing again, muzzies need to get into today's world or ppl should tell them about tolerance that is shoved down everyone else throats now-a-days

[Lightning Waltz]

So? That has nothing to do with this thread, or my reply.

Actually it does. But you'd need a bit of abstract thought and a willingness to view both sides of an issue.

[Pale Rider]

Actually it does. But you'd need a bit of abstract thought and a willingness to view both sides of an issue.

No, it doesn't. A post was made purporting that islam taught peace and love, I showed that it does in fact teach hate, and killing. What it say's in the bible has no bearing in this thread about "islam."

Get with the program, and quite taking passive aggresive cheap shots at me.

Either debate islam, or start another thread about the bible.

[Lightning Waltz]

No, it doesn't. A post was made purporting that islam taught peace and love, I should that it does in fact teach hate, and killing.

Get with the program, and quite taking passive aggresive cheap shots at me.

Either debate islam, or start another thread about the bible.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. You aren't getting that whole "abstract thought" thingie...

Yes, there are some hateful verses in the Koran. Taken out of context, they can make Islam look like a hateful religion in general.

Similarly, there are some hateful verses in the Bible. Taken out of context, they can make Christianity like a hateful religion in general.

If you excuse one, there is no reason not to excuse the other. I would suggest that a few verses taken out of context of ANY book would be a disservice to the overall message of that book, or to the followers and the religion that they may follow based on that book.

[Lightning Waltz]

yah in the old testament, when they were supposed to clear out israel.

Let's suppose that you are right, and there are no verses in the NT that can be seen as hateful. You're then saying that Judaism is a hateful religion, then, right?

[Monkeybone]

no mr. abstract thought process,stop taking my one sentence out of context. the bible is to also give history. they were commanded to do that, it is not part of the religion to always kill and destroy.

[Hobbit]

The Old Testament does have its share of violence, but it's always short-lived and narrowly focussed. God told the Israelis to defeat specific groups that were mocking Him or threatening His people. The Koran (or is it Quran, I'm confused) has a broadly focussed mandate to cut off the heads of the unbelievers, with no stipulations limiting that mandate to a select few.

[Lightning Waltz]

The Old Testament does have its share of violence, but it's always short-lived and narrowly focussed. God told the Israelis to defeat specific groups that were mocking Him or threatening His people. The Koran (or is it Quran, I'm confused) has a broadly focussed mandate to cut off the heads of the unbelievers, with no stipulations limiting that mandate to a select few.

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

[Lightning Waltz]

no mr. abstract thought process,stop taking my one sentence out of context. the bible is to also give history. they were commanded to do that, it is not part of the religion to always kill and destroy.

And believers of Islam can't make the same excuse?

[TheSage]

And believers of Islam can't make the same excuse?

Right. Because the commandments are NOT referring to specific instances of aggression from history and, in fact, ARE broad mandates for continual aggression against non-believers.

[Hobbit]

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

A) The King James Bible is poetic, but it isn't the best or the easiest to read.

B) You removed much of the context. The first verse specifically refers to a prophet of another god who comes and attempts to convert you. The second and third verses obviously refer to someone who was within the Jewish community and tries to convince others to turn away from the one true God. The fourth verse was direct at one specific group, not the world as a whole.

While I don't have a copy of the Koran on me right now, I don't remember such limitations in there. It seemed to be saying to kill or subjugate anyone who isn't Muslim, period.

[Lightning Waltz]

A) The King James Bible is poetic, but it isn't the best or the easiest to read.

B) You removed much of the context. The first verse specifically refers to a prophet of another god who comes and attempts to convert you. The second and third verses obviously refer to someone who was within the Jewish community and tries to convince others to turn away from the one true God. The fourth verse was direct at one specific group, not the world as a whole.

While I don't have a copy of the Koran on me right now, I don't remember such limitations in there. It seemed to be saying to kill or subjugate anyone who isn't Muslim, period.

Yup...again, you make excuses for the Bible. Which is fine. I'm not trying to claim that the Bible is a bloodthirsty religion. I'm only trying to show that you can take stuff out of context of the religion to make it look evil.

What excuses do we have so far?
1. Not a good version.
2. Out of context with the rest of the passage.
3. Only part of the history that it documents.
4. Only says to kill certain people, not everyone who isn't a follower.

Did I miss any?

BTW, I'm waiting for this one, "yes, it does say that but it's an antiquated passage that isn't followed literally. The overall message is one of love".

[TheSage]

Yup...again, you make excuses for the Bible. Which is fine. I'm not trying to claim that the Bible is a bloodthirsty religion. I'm only trying to show that you can take stuff out of context of the religion to make it look evil.

What excuses do we have so far?
1. Not a good version.
2. Out of context with the rest of the passage.
3. Only part of the history that it documents.
4. Only says to kill certain people, not everyone who isn't a follower.

Did I miss any?

BTW, I'm waiting for this one, "yes, it does say that but it's an antiquated passage that isn't followed literally. The overall message is one of love".


But in the case of islam, it's not taken out of context, and the followers themselves seem to have interpreted the passages this way, judging from their behavior.

[Lightning Waltz]

Also see...

Exodus 22:20 -- Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Leviticus 24:16 -- Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13:5 -- The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2-3 -- For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day

[Lightning Waltz]

But in the case of islam, it's not taken out of context, and the followers themselves seem to have interpreted the passages this way, judging from their behavior.

Yes, I'm sure that's your claim.

Sorry, I don't believe it any more than I would believe the same about Christians.

[TheSage]

Yes, I'm sure that's your claim.

Sorry, I don't believe it any more than I would believe the same about Christians.

It's my claim because it's the factual reality. Go assess the predominant zealotry and intolerance which CHARACTERIZES the mideast at this point. It's quite dissimilar to the christian world at this point.

[Lightning Waltz]

It's my claim because it's the factual reality. Go assess the predominant zealotry and intolerance which CHARACTERIZES the mideast at this point. It's quite dissimilar to the christian world at this point.

And you see the Jews (Israel) and the Christians (Americans, primarily) as just innocent bystanders?

[TheSage]

And you see the Jews (Israel) and the Christians (Americans, primarily) as just innocent bystanders?

That's imperialism, not christianity.

[Lightning Waltz]

That's imperialism, not christianity.

So, when it's a group primarily made up of Muslims that is doing the fighting, Islam the religion is to blame.

But, when it's a group primarily made up of Christians that is doing the fighting, it's not necessarily the religion of Christianity that is to blame.

[TheSage]

So, when it's a group primarily made up of Muslims that is doing the fighting, Islam the religion is to blame.

But, when it's a group primarily made up of Christians that is doing the fighting, it's not necessarily the religion of Christianity that is to blame.

It depends upon the motivation for the fighting. We're not fighting to extend the christian world. We're there for oil.

They explicitly fight in the name of Allah, as commanded by their religion.

Do you think motivation matters?

[Lightning Waltz]

It depends upon the motivation for the fighting. We're not fighting to extend the christian world. We're there for oil.

They explicitly fight in the name of Allah, as commanded by their religion.

Do you think motivation matters?

So, you believe that the Crusades were all about Christians fighting in the name of Christianity. The masacre of so many indigineous peoples around the world when Europe was "settling" in various places, was all about Christians fight in the name of Christianity (see the Papal Bull decrees). Hell, even Hitler used Christian themes to motivate his troops...

I think motivation matters, but I think that Islam is far from the only religion that has motivated people to kill and die for that specific religion...

BTW, I don't believe any of the wars above were solely about the religion that did its part to motivate the people to fight...

[TheSage]

Also see...

Exodus 22:20 -- Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Leviticus 24:16 -- Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13:5 -- The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death.

Exodus 35:2-3 -- For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day

Regardless of how you interpret these passages. they are clearly not the motivating factor of the U.S. in the mideast at this point. We're on a cynical resource acquiring mission, combined with a preemptive attack on terrorists, not a jihad.

Terrorists will kill atheists as well. If you fight them, does that make you an atheist zealot?

[TheSage]

So, you believe that the Crusades were all about Christians fighting in the name of Christianity. The masacre of so many indigineous peoples around the world when Europe was "settling" in various places, was all about Christians fight in the name of Christianity (see the Papal Bull decrees). Hell, even Hitler used Christian themes to motivate his troops...

I think motivation matters, but I think that Islam is far from the only religion that has motivated people to kill and die for that specific religion...

BTW, I don't believe any of the wars above were solely about the religion that did its part to motivate the people to fight...

You have to go back hundreds of years to find a christian world like that. Get in the NOW. Muslims want to kill you for not being muslim.

[Lightning Waltz]

Regardless of how you interpret these passages. they are clearly not the motivating factor of the U.S. in the mideast at this point.

Sometimes, I'm not so sure...especially when I look at the way conservatives (like on this board, for example) vilify Islam...


We're on a cynical resource acquiring mission

That much, we agree on.


Terrorists will kill atheists as well. If you fight them, does that make you an atheist zealot?

That's a question I'd ask you... I'm not the one claiming that a religion is at fault when people of a religion fight. You are claiming that of Muslims, but seem to exclude it when it comes to Christians or Atheists (presumably).

[Lightning Waltz]

You have to go back hundreds of years to find a christian world like that. Get in the NOW. Muslims want to kill you for not being muslim.

No, go back less than 10 years... There was that whole Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War...

[TheSage]

Sometimes, I'm not so sure...especially when I look at the way conservatives (like on this board, for example) vilify Islam...


Couldn't an atheist find fault with a religion which teaches genocide against nonbelievers? Or can atheists only criticize christianity. What's up with that little disturbance in your rationality?





That much, we agree on.

I thought you might like that, uncle commie.





That's a question I'd ask you... I'm not the one claiming that a religion is at fault when people of a religion fight. You are claiming that of Muslims, but seem to exclude it when it comes to Christians or Atheists (presumably).


Again, when people are fighting based on the teachings of the religion, i'd say the religion is at fault. That's basic logic, dumbass.

[Lightning Waltz]

Couldn't an atheist find fault with a religion which teaches genocide against nonbelievers? Or can atheists only criticize christianity. What's up with that little disturbance in your rationality?

Sorry, I find fault with both religions. Your problem with me is that I don't find more problems with Islam than I do with Christianity.


I thought you might like that, uncle commie.

Now, you're just being silly. Atheism has nothing, necessarily, to do with Communism. But, nice try.


Again, when people are fighting based on the teachings of the religion, i'd say the religion is at fault. That's basic logic, dumbass.

You're resorting to insults. You don't have much left, do you?

So, to clarify, you believe that Christianity was at fault during the crusades, the genocides of different peoples around the world, etc.

[TheSage]

Sorry, I find fault with both religions. Your problem with me is that I don't find more problems with Islam than I do with Christianity.



Now, you're just being silly. Atheism has nothing, necessarily, to do with Communism. But, nice try.



You're resorting to insults. You don't have much left, do you?

So, to clarify, you believe that Christianity was at fault during the crusades, the genocides of different peoples around the world, etc.

You warp through time in order to paint them as equally bad. That's dishonest and stupid.

[Lightning Waltz]

You warp through time in order to paint them as equally bad. That's dishonest and stupid.

You didn't answer the question. Why is that?

As for "dishonest and stupid", I would say that would be hypocrisy you use when you to vilify Islam, but ignore Christianity when it does the same thing.

[TheSage]

You didn't answer the question. Why is that?

As for "dishonest and stupid", I would say that would be hypocrisy you use when you to vilify Islam, but ignore Christianity when it does the same thing.

It's somewhat easier to ignore the crusades. You up late worrying about the crusades are ya? take a nap, psycho.

Again. warping through time to draw parallels. Dishonest and stupid.

[Lightning Waltz]

It's somewhat easier to ignore the crusades. You up late worrying about the crusades are ya? take a nap, psycho.

Again. warping through time to draw parallels. Dishonest and stupid.

And you still didn't answer the question.

Your standard is that Islam the religion is to blame for the current conflicts in the Middle East. Is Christianity the religion to blame for the Crusades? For the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War? For numerous other genocides committed in the name of "Christ"?

Again, to make myself clear, yes, I think that religion is dangerous because it can motivate people to do terrible things...but I don't think the religion itself, in any of the above, is the "cause" of the conflict.

[TheSage]

And you still didn't answer the question.

Your standard is that Islam the religion is to blame for the current conflicts in the Middle East. Is Christianity the religion to blame for the Crusades? For the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War? For numerous other genocides committed in the name of "Christ"?

Again, to make myself clear, yes, I think that religion is dangerous because it can motivate people to do terrible things...but I don't think the religion itself, in any of the above, is the "cause" of the conflict.

Yes. Christianity is partly at fault for the crusades.

Do you blame atheism for the billions killed in russian and chinese prisons?

Atheism can also motivate people to do terrible things.

You don't seem to understand that the islamic world is still in a crusades era mindset. Your obnoxious political correctness renders you an idiot, incapable of dealing with the actualities of the world.

[Lightning Waltz]

Do you blame atheism for the billions killed in russian and chinese prisons?

Atheism can also motivate people to do terrible things.

Really? Did they kill in the name of "no God"? "By no God, you don't deserve to live!" I'd say that fanaticism and a horrible government were to blame rather than Atheism.


You don't seem to understand that the islamic world is still in a crusades era mindset. Your obnoxious political correctness renders you an idiot, incapable of dealing with the actualities of the world.


Yes. Christianity is partly at fault for the crusades.

As much to blame as you claim Islam is now to blame?

[TheSage]

Really? Did they kill in the name of "no God"? "By no God, you don't deserve to live!" I'd say that fanaticism and a horrible government were to blame rather than Atheism.





As much to blame as you claim Islam is now to blame?


Oh. IIIIII see. So when atheists kill, atheism isn't to blame, but when the military of a predominantly christian nation kills for nonreligious reasons, christianity is to blame. IIIIII get it.

[Lightning Waltz]

Oh. IIIIII see. So when atheists kill, atheism isn't to blame, but when the military of a predominantly christian nation kills for nonreligious reasons, christianity is to blame. IIIIII get it.

No, you don't.

You haven't been reading what I've been saying. When I've been asking you hypothetical questions, I've been playing Devil's Advocate as if your position were reasonable.

Go back and read what I said.

But, in any event, you didn't answer the question.

[TheSage]

No, you don't.

You haven't been reading what I've been saying. When I've been asking you hypothetical questions, I've been playing Devil's Advocate as if your position were reasonable.

Go back and read what I said.

But, in any event, you didn't answer the question.


You: blah blahb blah blah

stfu, fake intellectual.

[Lightning Waltz]

You: blah blahb blah blah

stfu, fake intellectual.

Wow...you sure showed me...:lol:

[TheSage]

Wow...you sure showed me...:lol:

I'm happy with my post, yes.

[Lightning Waltz]

I'm happy with my post, yes.

Proof positive that ignorance is bliss....:laugh2:

[TheSage]

Proof positive that ignorance is bliss....:laugh2:


You're just an idiot. You make a mental portal through time so you can make an argument that "all religions are the same". You insist on this idiocy, and it keeps you from understanding the true threats and realities of the present time.

[Lightning Waltz]

You're just an idiot. You make a mental portal through time so you can make an argument that "all religions are the same". You insist on this idiocy, and it keeps you from understanding the true threats and realities of the present time.

You just want to ignore anything that doesn't conform with your pre-concieved world-view. It really doesn't matter what I, or anyone else says. You are going to believe that Islam is evil, and Christianity good, dispite the fact that your arguments are proven completely illogical. It's why you stopped answering questions and started posting insults.

Have fun! :bye1:

[TheSage]

You just want to ignore anything that doesn't conform with your pre-concieved world-view. It really doesn't matter what I, or anyone else says. You are going to believe that Islam is evil, and Christianity good, dispite the fact that your arguments are proven completely illogical. It's why you stopped answering questions and started posting insults.

Have fun! :bye1:


And you will refuse to recognize that christianity is not the threat to nonchristians that islam is to nonmuslims. Your ignorance is a danger to yourself and others who may listen to your idiocy. And though you present yourself as a fair and rational person, honesty is something you don't understand.

I post insults because it's fun!

Later poseur.

[Pale Rider]

You didn't answer the question. Why is that?

As for "dishonest and stupid", I would say that would be hypocrisy you use when you to vilify Islam, but ignore Christianity when it does the same thing.

You're so quick to find fault with Christianity, and not militant islam. It paints you as having a definite bias in favor of islam.

Now where does that leave all the rest of your arguments?

[Said1]

You just want to ignore anything that doesn't conform with your pre-concieved world-view. It really doesn't matter what I, or anyone else says. You are going to believe that Islam is evil, and Christianity good, dispite the fact that your arguments are proven completely illogical. It's why you stopped answering questions and started posting insults.

Have fun! :bye1:


Ok, let me get this straight: You think all theocrcies are evil, or is it all organized religions, except for the mass killing athiests (that's if they exist)? Is is fair to say that you think present day western Christianity is just a murderous as modern Islam via biblical and koranic instruction? I haven't even mentioned women's issues, but I'll assume you support the treatment of women in Islamic theocracies given you didn't mention it as an exception.

Just answer yes, or no to each perceived question. Pls and thank you.

[Lightning Waltz]

Ok, let me get this straight: You think all theocrcies are evil, or is it all organized religions, except for the mass killing athiests (that's if they exist)? Is is fair to say that you think present day western Christianity is just a murderous as modern Islam via biblical and koranic instruction? I haven't even mentioned women's issues, but I'll assume you support the treatment of women in Islamic theocracies given you didn't mention it as an exception.

Just answer yes, or no to each perceived question. Pls and thank you.

Yeah, it really doesn't matter what I say, does it?

But, just to humor you, I'll answer your questions:


You think all theocrcies are evil, or is it all organized religions, except for the mass killing athiests (that's if they exist)?

First, I don't know of any good theocracies...perhaps some American Indian tribes? I don't know... It's possible that there were some good ones.

Second, no, organized religions aren't evil...but organized religions do seem to be extremely effective at motivating people to do evil things.

Third, atheism isn't a religion.

Fourth, I've never heard of people being motivated by athiesm to kill...or killing in the name of atheism...but if it happened, yes, that would be as evil as Christianity, Islam or any organized religion motivating people to kill.


Is is fair to say that you think present day western Christianity is just a murderous as modern Islam via biblical and koranic instruction?

Depends on how you define Islam as being murderous. If you are like TheSage and want to claim that if members of a religion kill, then the religion is at fault, then yes, Christianity is just as murderous.

If you are talking about the number of people specifically killing in the name of their "God" at this time, then probably not. Ten years ago, we might have had a different answer, however.

Do I think both religions are still just as capable of motivating people to kill in their name? Sure.

Do I think one is "evil" and the other "good"? Nope.


I haven't even mentioned women's issues, but I'll assume you support the treatment of women in Islamic theocracies given you didn't mention it as an exception.

Where was I listing "exceptions" at all? This makes no sense.

But, I really doubt that you care about Muslim women, anyway. This is the kind of thing that Laura Bush brough up before the start of the Afghanistan war and was purely propaganda. No one gave a shit about the the lack of rights before the war and it was only mentioned on the run up to the war to garner support for that war.

[Said1]

Yeah, it really doesn't matter what I say, does it?

But, just to humor you, I'll answer your questions:



First, I don't know of any good theocracies...perhaps some American Indian tribes? I don't know... It's possible that there were some good ones.

Second, no, organized religions aren't evil...but organized religions do seem to be extremely effective at motivating people to do evil things.

Sounds reasonable. Although it doesn't seem as though you know the difference between a nation that is predominently Christian and a Theocracy.


Third, atheism isn't a religion.

Yes I know. In my haste I didn't clarify. My reason for making that comment was simply due to the fact that you seem able to justify almost anything. It was thrown in there for my pleasure alone. thanks for playing.


Fourth, I've never heard of people being motivated by athiesm to kill...or killing in the name of atheism...but if it happened, yes, that would be as evil as Christianity, Islam or any organized religion motivating people to kill.

Good, it wasn't clear, to ME by your comments earlier. Again, just asking.




Depends on how you define Islam as being murderous. If you are like TheSage and want to claim that if members of a religion kill, then the religion is at fault, then yes, Christianity is just as murderous.

First of all, he doesn't claim members of Islam kill, they do kill. This is a fact. Secondly, it's not just a few bad teeth, it's thousands. If this was the case with MODERN Christianity then yes, it would be a murderous religion, predominently, but it isn't (murderous).


If you are talking about the number of people specifically killing in the name of their "God" at this time, then probably not. Ten years ago, we might have had a different answer, however.

Why would this be a differnt case ten yrs ago?




Do I think one is "evil" and the other "good"? Nope.

They're unsatisfactory or just unnessesary? I mean really, if you ever had to make up your mind........




Where was I listing "exceptions" at all? This makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. I bet it's off topic to, right?


But, I really doubt that you care about Muslim women, anyway. This is the kind of thing that Laura Bush brough up before the start of the Afghanistan war and was purely propaganda. No one gave a shit about the the lack of rights before the war and it was only mentioned on the run up to the war to garner support for that war.

The overall treatment of women in the ME is NOT propaganda. Even in the most modern ME countries, women are NOT given the proper respect western women are by society. Trust me, I've start threads thanking the feminazis for taking the heat, don't get me started on HUMAN rights for women in the ME asshole.

Anyway, I'm thinking along the lines of TheSage with resepct to you and have more or less lost interest in much of what you think or have to post. Have a nice night, I won't be putting more thought into anything else you have posted in response to me. Sorry to waste you time. I mean that. really. :)

[Lightning Waltz]

Sounds reasonable. Although it doesn't seem as though you know the difference between a nation that is predominently Christian and a Theocracy.

Where did I call the US a Theocracy?


First of all, he doesn't claim members of Islam kill, they do kill. This is a fact. Secondly, it's not just a few bad teeth, it's thousands. If this was the case with MODERN Christianity then yes, it would be a murderous religion, predominently, but it isn't (murderous).

Thousands of Christians kill, as well. Is that your standard? If so, then MODERN Christianity is a murderous religion.


Why would this be a differnt case ten yrs ago?

Again, see the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War.


They're unsatisfactory or just unnessesary? I mean really, if you ever had to make up your mind........

I've already made up my mind and found that I have no reason to believe either (but, I'm always open to discussion). Where is it set in stone that I must choose one to be "better" than the other based on an extremely limited view of the history of those religions?


Of course it doesn't make sense. I bet it's off topic to, right?

Say what? Again, you make no sense.


The overall treatment of women in the ME is NOT propaganda. Even in the most modern ME countries, women are NOT given the proper respect western women are by society. Trust me, I've start threads thanking the feminazis for taking the heat, don't get me started on HUMAN rights for women in the ME asshole.

Of course it's propaganda. Do you think women are only "NOT given the proper respect" in the ME? Have you ever started threads about those women that aren't Muslim that don't get the proper respect? Or, are you just highlighting the plight of Muslim women because that backs up what you want to believe about Muslims from the start?


Anyway, I'm thinking along the lines of TheSage with resepct to you and have more or less lost interest in much of what you think or have to post. Have a nice night, I won't be putting more thought into anything else you have posted in response to me. Sorry to waste you time. I mean that. really. :)

Heh...you were never interested in discussion, critical thought or examination of your preconceived beliefs. I said as much in my first reply to you and you have now just confirmed it.

[TheSage]

Third, atheism isn't a religion.

.

But it's an ideology, which has cause people to do almost exclusively bad things. It doesn't even have the upside of religions which generally contribute SOME amount of stability, cohesion, and constructive morality to a society.

Why do you let atheism off the hook? Because it's your belief? Is that ethnocentric?

[Lightning Waltz]

But it's an ideology, which has cause people to do almost exclusively bad things.

Prove it. Prove that not believing in any "God" or set of gods has CAUSED people to do almost exclusively bad things.


It doesn't even have the upside of religions which generally contribute SOME amount of stability, cohesion, and constructive morality to a society.

Considering all the different moralities that even Christians of THIS time period and of the US alone, hold, I find the above ridiculous.

Christians regularly disagree on such basic moral arguments as abortion, women's rights, gay rights, the enviornment, the war, etc...

And you claim that religion gives people a "constructive morality", let along stability or cohesion? I think not....

I think it much more likely that people get their morals from society and justify them based on religion.


Why do you let atheism off the hook? Because it's your belief? Is that ethnocentric?

How have I "let it off the hook"? Atheism is simply the denial or disbelief in any "God" or set of gods. That doesn't say anything about morality, period.

[Said1]

Where did I call the US a Theocracy?

I didn't say you did.




Thousands of Christians kill, as well. Is that your standard? If so, then MODERN Christianity is a murderous religion.

How is it MODERN Christianity predominently murderous?




Again, see the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War.

A summation from you will do fine.


I've already made up my mind and found that I have no reason to believe either (but, I'm always open to discussion). Where is it set in stone that I must choose one to be "better" than the other based on an extremely limited view of the history of those religions?

I didn't say you had to chose, it was sarcasm.




Say what? Again, you make no sense.

Don't worry about it.




Of course it's propaganda. Do you think women are only "NOT given the proper respect" in the ME? Have you ever started threads about those women that aren't Muslim that don't get the proper respect? Or, are you just highlighting the plight of Muslim women because that backs up what you want to believe about Muslims from the start?

No, the treatment of women in the middle east is not propaganda and yes I have started threads about those women. I highlight the plight of women everywhere, although Muslims women are treated exceptionally bad. Do a little independent research why don't you.




Heh...you were never interested in discussion, critical thought or examination of your preconceived beliefs. I said as much in my first reply to you and you have now just confirmed it.

I was, but I knew I was setting myself up to be let down. No critial thought coming from toi. No offense.

[Lightning Waltz]

I didn't say you did.

Ah, I'm just supposed to ignore irrelevant parts of your post. Thanks for the warning.


How is it MODERN Christianity predominently murderous?

Go back up and read. I was using YOUR standard.


A summation from you will do fine.

www.google.com


I didn't say you had to chose, it was sarcasm.

More stuff to ignore. Gotcha.


Don't worry about it.

And more. I'm starting to see a trend.


No, the treatment of women in the middle east is not propaganda and yes I have started threads about those women. I highlight the plight of women everywhere, although Muslims women are treated exceptionally bad. Do a little independent research why don't you.

So, you think the treatment of women has gotten better in Iraq? http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/10/damon.iraqprison/index.html

And show me 3 previous threads you've posted about the plight of non-Muslim women, then I'll believe you.


I was, but I knew I was setting myself up to be let down. No critial thought coming from toi. No offense.

:uhoh:

[TheSage]

Prove it. Prove that not believing in any "God" or set of gods has CAUSED people to do almost exclusively bad things.



Considering all the different moralities that even Christians of THIS time period and of the US alone, hold, I find the above ridiculous.

Christians regularly disagree on such basic moral arguments as abortion, women's rights, gay rights, the enviornment, the war, etc...

And you claim that religion gives people a "constructive morality", let along stability or cohesion? I think not....

I think it much more likely that people get their morals from society and justify them based on religion.



How have I "let it off the hook"? Atheism is simply the denial or disbelief in any "God" or set of gods. That doesn't say anything about morality, period.


But your proof to condemn christianity is that christians have done bad things. Atheists have done bad things, like created two nations based on totalitarianism and oppression. You have a double standard, that makes you an intellectual fraud.

[Lightning Waltz]

But your proof to condemn christianity is that christians have done bad things. Atheists have done bad things, like created two nations based on totalitarianism and oppression. You have a double standard, that makes you an intellectual fraud.

So you're saying that because blacks have done bad things, being black is bad. Whoops...that doesn't work.... They didn't do it in the name of being black, or because they were black.

Because short people have done things, being short is bad. Ack...doesn't work again. They didn't do it in the name of being short, or because they were short.

There is no causal connection between not believing in any "God" or set of gods, and the bad things that those people may have done. They didn't do them in the name of no "God" or set of gods or because there isn't a "God" or set of gods.

However, Christians and Muslims and people of other religions HAVE done bad things IN THE NAME OF "God", Allah or whatever, or because their "God" or set of gods directed them to do it...

Nice try. Got another straw man you want me to burn?

[avatar4321]

So you're saying that because blacks have done bad things, being black is bad. Whoops...that doesn't work.... They didn't do it in the name of being black, or because they were black.

Because short people have done things, being short is bad. Ack...doesn't work again. They didn't do it in the name of being short, or because they were short.

There is no causal connection between not believing in any "God" or set of gods, and the bad things that those people may have done. They didn't do them in the name of no "God" or set of gods or because there isn't a "God" or set of gods.

However, Christians and Muslims and people of other religions HAVE done bad things IN THE NAME OF "God", Allah or whatever, or because their "God" or set of gods directed them to do it...

Nice try. Got another straw man you want me to burn?

That is the dumbest argument ive ever heard. youve just essentially argued against your own points.

[Pale Rider]

Bottom line... in "todays" world, radical islam is the cause of more death and mayhem than all the other religons put together.

[Lightning Waltz]

That is the dumbest argument ive ever heard. youve just essentially argued against your own points.

You need to be able to tell when someone is playing devil's advocate and arguing along the rules that someone else sets up, and when they are advocating their own position...

[Lightning Waltz]

Bottom line... in "todays" world, radical islam is the cause of more death and mayhem than all the other religons put together.

Maybe (debateable). But, I don't see why I should judge religions only on the actions of "today's" world.

[TheSage]

You need to be able to tell when someone is playing devil's advocate and arguing along the rules that someone else sets up, and when they are advocating their own position...


wow. Your brain is total mush.

[Abbey Marie]

That is the dumbest argument ive ever heard. youve just essentially argued against your own points.

I noticed that, too. :dunno:

[TheSage]

Maybe (debateable). But, I don't see why I should judge religions only on the actions of "today's" world.

It's not about "judging religions". it's about assessing relevant threats in the present time, so we can ensure our safety. Of course, you probably hate america, chrsitians, the west, capitalism, so you want distort reality, and remove actual threats from public consciousness, because you're a vicious little ignorant psueodintellectual, fully indoctrinated by anti western propaganda.

[Lightning Waltz]

It's not about "judging religions". it's about assessing relevant threats in the present time

/rollseyesoutofsockets...

[Lightning Waltz]

Of course, you probably hate america, chrsitians, the west, capitalism, so you want distort reality, and remove actual threats from public consciousness, because you're a vicious little ignorant psueodintellectual, fully indoctrinated by anti western propaganda.

You really do have nothing left... So sad.

[TheSage]

You really do have nothing left... So sad.



No. There is nothing left. I've destroyed your argument and revealed the true you.

[TheSage]

/rollseyesoutofsockets...

Is this supposed to be an argument?

[Lightning Waltz]

Is this supposed to be an argument?

No, it's supposed to be a reaction to your non-argument.

[TheSage]

No, it's supposed to be a reaction to your non-argument.


So explain to us the value of constantly going back hundreds of years to criticize christianity when we're trying to identify CURRENT threats?

[Lightning Waltz]

So explain to us the value of constantly going back hundreds of years to criticize christianity when we're trying to identify CURRENT threats?

Where exactly were we talking about CURRENT threats? The discussion was on religion, in general. Care to try again?

[TheSage]

Where exactly were we talking about CURRENT threats? The discussion was on religion, in general. Care to try again?


This thread is about the currently threatening aspects of islam. You repeatedly go back hundreds of years to make your idiotic comparison. Why are you doing that?

[Lightning Waltz]

This thread is about the currently threatening aspects of islam. You repeatedly go back hundreds of years to make your idiotic comparison. Why are you doing that?

So you're claiming that Christianity, at times, has been much more evil than Islam, right?

[TheSage]

So you're claiming that Christianity, at times, has been much more evil than Islam, right?

No.

That's what you're saying. And you seem to be unable to focus on anything else. Get your head out of your ass.

[TheSage]

So the knowledge level is too high, but they are too stupid to see what's coming?

It's fairly low, but the global elite wish it to be even lower. You're a good example.

[loosecannon]

So explain to us the value of constantly going back hundreds of years to criticize christianity when we're trying to identify CURRENT threats?

One reason to do it is because Islam has at least a long enough memory to remember the crusades and the colonization by the brits and they equate our current "threat" to them as more of the same.

Zbigniew Brzezinski Calls Iraq War a Historic, Strategic and Moral Calamity & Says Stop the Trappings of Colonial Tutelage

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated, that a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy that profound reservations regarding the Administration's policy have been voiced by a number of leading Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith among others.

The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict. Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but both goals will take time and require a genuinely serious U.S. commitment.

The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should involve four steps:

1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time.

Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders -- including those who do not reside within "the Green Zone" -- in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond "the Green Zone" can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as "representative of the Iraqi people," defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as "the Green Zone."

3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.

The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive -- and mainly sloganeering -- U.S. diplomacy.

A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region's stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel's enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of soberly deterring aggression without initiating hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated arrangements. Today, America's global leadership is being tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.

It is also time for the Congress to assert itself.


The President of the United States and Secretary of State would restore some of their lost luster by making some combination of James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent Scowcroft co-Middle East Envoys to help take this penultimate quagmire we are in a direction that might start a virtuous cycle of possibilities rather than the disaster that is unfolding.

It is worth noting that Mr. Brzesinsi's foreign affairs expertise/credentials are of the highest caliber by any standards proffessional, partisan or otherwise.

[TheSage]

So are you saying Jihadi islam is no threat?

The past doesn't mean they won't behead you, you stupid ass.

[loosecannon]

So are you saying Jihadi islam is no threat?

The past doesn't mean they won't behead you, you stupid ass.

exactly whom are you addressing?

[TheSage]

exactly whom are you addressing?

You.

[loosecannon]

You.


In that case, no, I said no such thing nor did I say anything that even remotely resembled your idiotic scrawl. Asshole.

[TheSage]

In that case, no, I said no such thing nor did I say anything that even remotely resembled your idiotic scrawl. Asshole.

Well your cohort seems to be unable to focus on present day islam. You seemed to be supporting him with your irrelevant post. As enlightened as you are, and as pro muslim as you are, that religion is in such a current state of barbarity they would love to saw your head off on tv.

[Dilloduck]

One reason to do it is because Islam has at least a long enough memory to remember the crusades and the colonization by the brits and they equate our current "threat" to them as more of the same.

Zbigniew Brzezinski Calls Iraq War a Historic, Strategic and Moral Calamity & Says Stop the Trappings of Colonial Tutelage

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

It is obvious by now that the American national interest calls for a significant change of direction. There is in fact a dominant consensus in favor of a change: American public opinion now holds that the war was a mistake; that it should not be escalated, that a regional political process should be explored; and that an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation is an essential element of the needed policy alteration and should be actively pursued. It is noteworthy that profound reservations regarding the Administration's policy have been voiced by a number of leading Republicans. One need only invoke here the expressed views of the much admired President Gerald Ford, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and several leading Republican senators, John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith among others.

The urgent need today is for a strategy that seeks to create a political framework for a resolution of the problems posed both by the US occupation of Iraq and by the ensuing civil and sectarian conflict. Ending the occupation and shaping a regional security dialogue should be the mutually reinforcing goals of such a strategy, but both goals will take time and require a genuinely serious U.S. commitment.

The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should involve four steps:

1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time.

Ambiguity regarding the duration of the occupation in fact encourages unwillingness to compromise and intensifies the on-going civil strife. Moreover, such a public declaration is needed to allay fears in the Middle East of a new and enduring American imperial hegemony. Right or wrong, many view the establishment of such a hegemony as the primary reason for the American intervention in a region only recently free of colonial domination. That perception should be discredited from the highest U.S. level. Perhaps the U.S. Congress could do so by a joint resolution.

2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation.

It is necessary to engage all Iraqi leaders -- including those who do not reside within "the Green Zone" -- in a serious discussion regarding the proposed and jointly defined date for U.S. military disengagement because the very dialogue itself will help identify the authentic Iraqi leaders with the self-confidence and capacity to stand on their own legs without U.S. military protection. Only Iraqi leaders who can exercise real power beyond "the Green Zone" can eventually reach a genuine Iraqi accommodation. The painful reality is that much of the current Iraqi regime, characterized by the Bush administration as "representative of the Iraqi people," defines itself largely by its physical location: the 4 sq. miles-large U.S. fortress within Baghdad, protected by a wall in places 15 feet thick, manned by heavily armed U.S. military, popularly known as "the Green Zone."

3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability.

The United States and the Iraqi leadership need to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, but such discussions cannot be undertaken while the U.S. is perceived as an occupier for an indefinite duration. Iran and Syria have no reason to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive -- and mainly sloganeering -- U.S. diplomacy.

A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the U.S., could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region's stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India, and Russia. Members of this Committee might consider exploring informally with the states mentioned their potential interest in such a wider dialogue.

4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve.

The United States needs to convince the region that the U.S. is committed both to Israel's enduring security and to fairness for the Palestinians who have waited for more than forty years now for their own separate state. Only an external and activist intervention can promote the long-delayed settlement for the record shows that the Israelis and the Palestinians will never do so on their own. Without such a settlement, both nationalist and fundamentalist passions in the region will in the longer run doom any Arab regime which is perceived as supportive of U.S. regional hegemony.

After World War II, the United States prevailed in the defense of democracy in Europe because it successfully pursued a long-term political strategy of uniting its friends and dividing its enemies, of soberly deterring aggression without initiating hostilities, all the while also exploring the possibility of negotiated arrangements. Today, America's global leadership is being tested in the Middle East. A similarly wise strategy of genuinely constructive political engagement is now urgently needed.

It is also time for the Congress to assert itself.


The President of the United States and Secretary of State would restore some of their lost luster by making some combination of James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent Scowcroft co-Middle East Envoys to help take this penultimate quagmire we are in a direction that might start a virtuous cycle of possibilities rather than the disaster that is unfolding.

It is worth noting that Mr. Brzesinsi's foreign affairs expertise/credentials are of the highest caliber by any standards proffessional, partisan or otherwise.

Engaging in dialogue? And say what. Will bin laden show up for it ? Sadr ?

[loosecannon]

Well your cohort seems to be unable to focus on present day islam. You seemed to be supporting him with your irrelevant post. As enlightened as you are, and as pro muslim as you are, that religion is in such a current state of barbarity they would love to saw your head off on tv.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem moron?

You made and I quoted a comment in which you attested that there was no point in rehashing the history of Christianity over the last few hundred years when addressing the Salafist threat.

You were dead wrong, at least according to the BIG BRAINS with actual experience in the great chess games of geopolitics.

In fact there are outstanding reasons to maintain an awareness of the Christian and empirical domination of Muslims.

So instead of understanding or acknowledging your error you resort to inane babble, wild accusation and hyperbole.

You are posting like a complete idiot. Thanks for the introduction.

[TheSage]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem moron?

You made and I quoted a comment in which you attested that there was no point in rehashing the history of Christianity over the last few hundred years when addressing the Salafist threat.

You were dead wrong, at least according to the BIG BRAINS with actual experience in the great chess games of geopolitics.

In fact there are outstanding reasons to maintain an awareness of the Christian and empirical domination of Muslims.

So instead of understanding or acknowledging your error you resort to inane babble, wild accusation and hyperbole.

You are posting like a complete idiot. Thanks for the introduction.

But their perception of it as a christian threat is a misunderstanding on the part of muslims. It's not a christian threat. Their miscomprehension of it as a christian threat doesn't make islam any less dangerous to nonmuslims around the world.

Jihadis were insane, theocratic and murderous before the iraqi invasion. ANd the "big brains" whose dictates you accept unquestionably, can be idiotic sometimes.

[loosecannon]

But their perception of it as a christian threat is a misunderstanding on the part of muslims.

Really? How would you know?

Maybe if we count the number of Muslim nations we have invaded recently, or labeled as axis' of evil, or threatened to invade, or stood by watching Israel invade, or the number of dead Muslim bodies we have spit out bringing the sweet gift of christian democracy to a region that doesn't want Christian democracy necessarily.

Maybe some of that will help convince them Mus limbs how they don't understand but YOU do.



ANd the "big brains" whose dictates you accept unquestionably, can be idiotic sometimes.

True enough, but again you prove your incorrigible dishonesty by assuming to know what I accept unquestionably.

If you can't argue or debate an issue with even a scintilla of intellectual honesty don't expect me to believe that you represent anything moral.

[TheSage]

Really? How would you know?


Because I know we're not in iraq in the name of jesus christ.


Maybe if we count the number of Muslim nations we have invaded recently, or labeled as axis' of evil, or threatened to invade, or stood by watching Israel invade, or the number of dead Muslim bodies we have spit out bringing the sweet gift of christian democracy to a region that doesn't want Christian democracy necessarily.

Maybe some of that will help convince them Mus limbs how they don't understand but YOU do.

Christian democracy? There's nothing innately christian about democracy. ANd it was muslims voting. You've disingenuously synthesized this new term to make your weak case. Shame on you and your dishonesty.





True enough, but again you prove your incorrigible dishonesty by assuming to know what I accept unquestionably.

If you can't argue or debate an issue with even a scintilla of intellectual honesty don't expect me to believe that you represent anything moral.

You seem to think everyone else should accept the opinions of the "big brains" unquestioningly. I assumed you did. Why did you post it if you don't accept it?

[Said1]

Ah, I'm just supposed to ignore irrelevant parts of your post. Thanks for the warning.



Go back up and read. I was using YOUR standard.



www.google.com



More stuff to ignore. Gotcha.



And more. I'm starting to see a trend.



So, you think the treatment of women has gotten better in Iraq? http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/10/damon.iraqprison/index.html

And show me 3 previous threads you've posted about the plight of non-Muslim women, then I'll believe you.



:uhoh:

Search here and at USMB, you'll find posts I've started about the treatment of women in either the middle east or other Islamic nations. I'm not arguing that point cause YOU don't believe me. Do I think women have it better in Iraq now? No. I've started a thread about that at USMB as well.

I think you are having trouble keeping up with what you are posting. Instead of insulting you, I'll let you go on posting in circles, and whatever it is youseem to be doing best. And no, I won't be quoting your back tracking and poorly played out semantics. It's there for all to see.

Also, I wouldn't be ardently arguing about a subject I admittingly know little about. At least try to pretend you took a class or something. :laugh2:

[TheSage]

Search here and at USMB, you'll find posts I've started about the treatment of women in either the middle east or other Islamic nations. I'm not arguing that point cause YOU don't believe me. Do I think women have it better in Iraq now? No. I've started a thread about that at USMB as well.

I think you are having trouble keeping up with what you are posting. Instead of insulting you, I'll let you go on posting in circles, and whatever it is youseem to be doing best. And no, I won't be quoting your back tracking and poorly played out semantics. It's there for all to see.

Also, I wouldn't be ardently arguing about a subject I admittingly know little about. At least try to pretend you took a class or something. :laugh2:

Your brain is so damn sexy!:clap:

[loosecannon]

Because I know we're not in iraq in the name of jesus christ.

Some of us indisputably are


Christian democracy? There's nothing innately christian about democracy. ANd it was muslims voting. You've disingenuously synthesized this new term to make your weak case. Shame on you and your dishonesty.

Bite me. In the eyes of Muslims our stuffing democracy down their throat is gonna look exactly like christian democracy.

Which is the point Zbigniew Brzezinski was making, so nothing disingenuous about coining that term.



You seem to think everyone else should accept the opinions of the "big brains" unquestioningly. I assumed you did. Why did you post it if you don't accept it?

Why do you make dummy assumptions like what I "seem" to think when what you really mean is you are just jumping to wild assed conclusions in the dark?

I accept what Zbigniew Brzezinski said because I happen to agree. And I don't expect everybody elose to agree.

But I would hope that the unqualified (the faux Sages) would defer to his expertise above their own.

There simply is no chance we can win the WOT on acceptable terms if we do what you do persistently: make assumptions that others are as we are and ignore everything that they really are.

That is a part of what Brzezinski was saying; we are creating a terror threat by making the mistake of making ourselves look taste and sound like we are challenging them to Jijad on their soil.

[TheSage]

Bite me. In the eyes of Muslims our stuffing democracy down their throat is gonna look exactly like christian democracy.




their misperceptions aren't the truth.

One thing we should do in the war on terror is stop all muslim immigration into our countries. I actually think that's more important than our overseas adventures, but america haters have been implanted at the highest levels of our society, to guarantee we fall to the brown totalitarian horde.

[loosecannon]

their misperceptions aren't the truth.

neither are yours


, but america haters have been implanted at the highest levels of our society, to guarantee we fall to the brown totalitarian horde.


And thus we must conclude that you are in fact a raving lunatic bent on world war and predisposed to nothing less than absolute paranoia

[TheSage]

neither are yours


What am I misperceiving, dumbass?





And thus we must conclude that you are in fact a raving lunatic bent on world war and predisposed to nothing less than absolute paranoia

That's a bit of a leap there, corky.

[loosecannon]

What am I misperceiving, dumbass?

Well pigfucker you seem to make an unfounded assumption in every sentence you post. You finger it out.



That's a bit of a leap there, corky.

Not when you say that brownies are placed at the highest levels within the US poised to ensure that they overthrow us.

The shoe fits you, wear it.

[TheSage]

Well pigfucker you seem to make an unfounded assumption in every sentence you post. You finger it out.




Not when you say that brownies are placed at the highest levels within the US poised to ensure that they overthrow us.

The shoe fits you, wear it.

No. You tell me mr. intellectual. You agreed it wasn't a christian thing, but seem to place merit on the misperceptions of others.

And I said anti-americans are placed at the highest levels. Can you even read?

[loosecannon]

No. You tell me mr. intellectual. You agreed it wasn't a christian thing, but seem to place merit on the misperceptions of others.[quote]

I do not believe that it is a misperception from their position or perspective.

Things not only look different from diff stations in life, they really ARE diff. You keep making the same mistake in assuming that everything that is true for you is also true for others.

That mistake is part of why we are making enemies instead of friends in the world.


[quote]And I said anti-americans are placed at the highest levels. ...to assist the brownskins in defeating us......

Yes, I decided you were stark raving mad. I meant it.

Yes I can read. If I am misreading you time will clarify my early diagnosis.

And BTW, there actually have been at least a half dozen highly publicized real world examples of US forces "witnessing" that they are attacking Iraqis in the name of Jesus Christ. One very famous series of such episodes before the second invasion of Falujah.

And even a cursory examionation of US newspapers, chatrooms and radio is rife with prochristian/antiIslam rhetoric that is definitely intended to convey a religious aspect to the conflict.

We are not a strictly secular nation.

GWB for example has linked christianity to our mission in Iraq a few times. They may seem like meaningless little statements to you, but then again you fail to recognize that we are the aggressors who are invading Islamic nations and fomenting a holy war and a Jihad.

[TheSage]

[QUOTE=TheSage;57372]No. You tell me mr. intellectual. You agreed it wasn't a christian thing, but seem to place merit on the misperceptions of others.[quote]

I do not believe that it is a misperception from their position or perspective.

Things not only look different from diff stations in life, they really ARE diff. You keep making the same mistake in assuming that everything that is true for you is also true for others.

That mistake is part of why we are making enemies instead of friends in the world.


...to assist the brownskins in defeating us......

Yes, I decided you were stark raving mad. I meant it.

Yes I can read. If I am misreading you time will clarify my early diagnosis.

And BTW, there actually have been at least a half dozen highly publicized real world examples of US forces "witnessing" that they are attacking Iraqis in the name of Jesus Christ. One very famous series of such episodes before the second invasion of Falujah.

And even a cursory examionation of US newspapers, chatrooms and radio is rife with prochristian/antiIslam rhetoric that is definitely intended to convey a religious aspect to the conflict.

We are not a strictly secular nation.

GWB for example has linked christianity to our mission in Iraq a few times. They may seem like meaningless little statements to you, but then again you fail to recognize that we are the aggressors who are invading Islamic nations and fomenting a holy war and a Jihad.


The jihad existed before the iraqi invasion, dipnose.

[loosecannon]

[QUOTE=loosecannon;57386][QUOTE=TheSage;57372]No. You tell me mr. intellectual. You agreed it wasn't a christian thing, but seem to place merit on the misperceptions of others.


The jihad existed before the iraqi invasion, dipnose.

shithead, WHAT Jihad?

A hundred or 1000 disgruntleds?

(Note the subtle distinction between all of Islam and 1000 rogues)

I dunno if you have noticed but the "jihad" has grown exponentially since the invasion of Iraq's oil.

So tell me madman, what is your screed? What is your message about mean scary Islam? Wanna share it with the rest of the class, just you up in front and all of us listening at our desks? We will promise to listen quietly and not laugh if you stutter or forget your lines.

We are all ears.

[TheSage]

[QUOTE=TheSage;57387][QUOTE=loosecannon;57386]

shithead, WHAT Jihad?

A hundred or 1000 disgruntleds?

(Note the subtle distinction between all of Islam and 1000 rogues)

I dunno if you have noticed but the "jihad" has grown exponentially since the invasion of Iraq's oil.

So tell me madman, what is your screed? What is your message about mean scary Islam? Wanna share it with the rest of the class, just you up in front and all of us listening at our desks? We will promise to listen quietly and not laugh if you stutter or forget your lines.

We are all ears.

What jihad? You should listen to the MAINSTREAM discourse in islamic nations.

My screed?

Islam is a barbaric ideology with violence and intolerance as part of it's core identity. We should bar immigration of all muslims. what's your screed on islam? You wanna pretend it's the religion of peace? This is why people of your ideological ilk should be kept far from the reigns of power and policy creation.