I don’t think the Iraq situation was handled right, but I didn’t see anyone else moving in to dispose of Saddam.
And it’s spelling “fucking” not “fscking”
And it’s a large claim to say there has never been a suicide attack pre-2003.
And I never said Americans. last I checked, Britain was part of the invasion force. I’m sure there were others, but I don’t really care.
The invasion was justified, but not handled correctly.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t think the Iraq situation was handled right, but I didn’t see anyone else moving in to dispose of Saddam. [/quote]
Heh! The man couldn’t take a leak without a hundred bodyguards surrounding him. He was persona non grata in half of the country and there were plenty of people who’d have shot him on sight.
The man didn’t have body doubles. He had body quintuples.
Work on the grammar and punctuation of that statement first.
Large? What’s size got to do with verifiability?
Last I checked, the poodle’s gone.
You’re referring to the 61 Kiwis?
A country invades another that’s on the other side of the planet and killing and maiming countless innocents and you say it’s “justified”? Screw you!
[quote]lixy wrote:
I bitch about Iraq, and I ain’t stopping anytime soon. In its entire history, the country has never had a single suicide attack pre-2003.
So don’t give me any of that “disagree with the someones methods” BS. If the Americans wanted to stop terrorism, they’d be in Waziristan or Saudi Arabia, not fscking up one of the sole secular Arab countries.
Understood?[/quote]
There were suicide bombings in many other countries besides Iraq. And most of them were the result of Muslim suicide bombers.
You never say a word about those.
P.S. The last time we attacked Wasiristan to get the Al-Qaeda bigshot # 2, you condemned it. So make up your mind. Should we interfere in other countries affairs or not?
You bitch about Iraq…and everything else America does or does not do, if we did invade or attack Waziristan, you’d be bitching about the countless dead and maimed there as well.
As far as I’m concerned you take your own advice.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
warlock wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
warlock wrote:
I completely agree with you, there was no sarcasm in my original post.
None taken.
Just felt the need to clarify my position.
The other thing I feel strange about is that as Christians, we constantly apologize for the Crusades and Inquisition. We admit it was wrong. It is PC to do so.
Have the Muslims ever admitted that their conquest of Spain, for example, was wrong? Or the conquest of Africa, or half of Europe? I do not think so.
And if you were to suggest the posibility it was, you would be regarded by some to be a bigot.[/quote]
To be honest with you I believe that there is and should not be any guilty over cruzades or inquisition (but christianism is based in guilt…) what happened happened and it si not like anyone is trying to deny a hystorical fact.
I don’t have anything against Portuguese even though they came to my ancestors land, to steal, enslave, rape and spread disease.
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.
pretty much
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
warlock wrote:
I’ll take that as a NO.
Thanks for your explanation
I’m not saying there’s absolutely no Muslims fighting against the extremism, but when you do and you are branded a non-muslim and you could in fear of retaliation and or death, the possibility of speaking out becomes smaller.
See your example of Nazi Germany for example. I wonder how many people spoke out against Nazi extremists once the ball got rolling. If they did, where did it get them?[/quote]
The gas chamber(only saying that in case someone needs it spelled out for them)
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.[/quote]
WTF are you talking about?
The catholic church has a central leadership structure. One person is responsible for what the church does. If the church does something bad, the pope has the authority to apologize for it. This doesn’t exist in Islam. There is no one responsible for any other individual’s actions, other than that individual. My opinion of what someone else does really doesn’t matter, because I have no authority to speak for the religion. Likewise, no one else has the authority to speak for me.
For what it’s worth, I would say that a large number of people who call themselves “muslim” are unable to differentiate their religion from their culture. The outcome, of course is heretical and antithetical to the religion.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.[/quote]
very broad statement.
x2 the pope contrast post above.
how many Muslim people have you asked this question to? Odds are the answer is 0. But Muslim crusades aren’t much of an everyday conversation, so the answer for me is 0 as well.
But i would bet money, that especially in North America, a large amount of the Muslim population would agree that in contrast, Muslim crusades were just as awful and shameful as Christian ones.
The US is a Christian country, likewise, a lot of world/European history courses emphasize Christian history over Muslim history. So this history is not often discussed, or known about. So it’s ignorance on all parties.
Ask a Jew/Christian/Muslim in any secular country a detailed account of their religion’s history, most won’t know shit.
And on the topic of Muslims not speaking out against radicalism, there is a good portion here in the US who do, Fareed Zakaria (sp?) from Newsweek does all the time. When was the last time a Christian spoke out against the Lebanese Front or other Christian militas in the middle east?
plus, your average Joe Muhammad in the Middle East, has virtually no access to independent media, or any channels to voice himself without knock at the door during the night.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Just don’t bitch about how others go about trying to do it. If you disagree with the someones methods then by all means, step up and do it yourself.
I bitch about Iraq, and I ain’t stopping anytime soon. In its entire history, the country has never had a single suicide attack pre-2003.
So don’t give me any of that “disagree with the someones methods” BS. If the Americans wanted to stop terrorism, they’d be in Waziristan or Saudi Arabia, not fscking up one of the sole secular Arab countries.
Understood?[/quote]
So why don’t ypu bitch about the terrorists instead of those trying to stop the terrorists?
[quote]warlock wrote:
I was having dinner last night and at the end for some reason I stated that I had no respect for a certain group of people.
That they are used to kill in name of their religion an that the rest of people that belong to that religion are used to say that they have nothing to do with that…
My rationale is quite simple: it is much easier to say that I have nothing to do with that and be a “partner” in all that killing that trying to do something about it, to be responsible and gutsy
That if someone started killing people and using the fact that they are Brazilian; I’d be the first one to do something to stop them, instead of just saying that I have nothing to do with that and that has nothing to do with being Brazilian…
My whole point is that if you are all part of the same group, you have the responsibility to police your own group and that if in case someone start some sort of rogue activities you have the right/power to do something to stop those activities in name of the group, instead of just trying to excuse yourself and try to dissociate of those people because after all you still are part of the same group to start with.
I’d love to hear you questions/responses.
[/quote]
Maybe. Maybe not. But you do need to open your eyes and take a look at history. Whatever their status today, almost every religious group used to kill in the name of their religion. And members did little to nothing to stop it. Wrongly or rightly. It’s somewhat disingenuous to expect those subsisting in abject poverty to hold religious and political leaders to the same level of accountability as modern Americans do. Americans who complain about the high price of gas but have two cars, 2.5 kids, and a dog and go to the beach for vacation every summer.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.[/quote]
Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.
People who don’t agree with you will call you a bigot, those who do will not. In the end, who gives a shit?
If you cannot have a conversation and speak your mind then you are not a free person but bound by the opinion of others. In the practical sense of a conversation where it may sound bigoted to others, those who know you, know what you mean. If you had to grant exception every time you spoke in a sociological sense, conversations would be endless as you are saying “…well I don’t me this and that, and not that either, blah, blah blah…” By the time you get to what your trying to say, the listener would have forgotten what you were talking about.
QAs for your said converation, you can look at it this way, most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims; and an unfortunately high number of muslims support the activities of the terrorists. These are just facts and they are not in dispute. If you get called a bigot for pointing out facts, so be it. Who cares…
Just don’t be PC, Politically Correctness is the great Satan, evil incarnate. It forces you to tell lies, to not say the way things actually are. That’s worse than bigotry.
[quote]pat wrote:
QAs for your said converation, you can look at it this way, most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims; and an unfortunately high number of muslims support the activities of the terrorists. These are just facts and they are not in dispute. If you get called a bigot for pointing out facts, so be it. Who cares… [/quote]
Can you people please read the OP’s statement before commenting?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.
Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.[/quote]
Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.
Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.
Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
QAs for your said converation, you can look at it this way, most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims; and an unfortunately high number of muslims support the activities of the terrorists. These are just facts and they are not in dispute. If you get called a bigot for pointing out facts, so be it. Who cares…
Can you people please read the OP’s statement before commenting?[/quote]
Oh, you want us to stay on topic?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.
Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.
Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.
Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.
Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves. [/quote]
What you’re saying is absurd. Even though you are wrong regarding what is appropriate treatment of non-believers (the importance of peace is emphasized, whether you like to believe it or not), JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE BELIEVERS.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.
Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.
Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.
Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.
Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves. [/quote]
I’m hardly an Islamic lacky. I find the actions of these people deplorable. I’m just not blinded enough to falsely think Christianity has been any better for most of its existence. The Crusades were bullshit. You sir, are a moron.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.
Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.
Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.
Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.
Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves.
What you’re saying is absurd. Even though you are wrong regarding what is appropriate treatment of non-believers (the importance of peace is emphasized, whether you like to believe it or not), JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE BELIEVERS.[/quote]
No we’re not. We’re considered kaafiroon. Christians, specifically, don’t believe in the “Oneness of Allah” according to the Qur’an. We’re therefore guilty of shirk.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”
But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.
It is a step the Muslims never will make.
Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.
Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.
Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.
Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves.
I’m hardly an Islamic lacky. I find the actions of these people deplorable. I’m just not blinded enough to falsely think Christianity has been any better for most of its existence. The Crusades were bullshit. You sir, are a moron.[/quote]
How silly of me. I read this:
and thought the worst of you. Who’s unwilling to open their eyes and take a look at history, me or you?