I liked how you condemned those 911 conspiracy theories.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:They have found the guy who made the movie, exposed him to mortal danger and are in the process of taking him down as I type this.[/quote]They’ve also been pressuring youtube to take down the video.[/quote] What 1st amendment? Really. If this guy gets a second term.
Like I say. There is some of the most blasphemous abhorrent and reprehensible anti Christian crap on YouTube. I expect that and it never occurred to me to demand that youtube remove it, nevermind killing somebody over it.
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
Granted, my post is only worth something if you take my word for it, but I conclude that people born outside of ‘free’ societies can’t fully grasp the concept of people having the right to express themselves whether everybody likes it or not.
[quote]“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
[/quote]
^Foreign concept to them. [/quote]
I do take your word for it, and I pretty much agree. What I said was meant to be directed toward Muslims living in the United States. They, after all, are living in this “free” society and this kind of elemental humanism–not even talking about freedom of speech here, just the decency to recognize that murder is an inappropriate response to insult and the good sense to say so in certain terms–is an essential condition of Americanism.
But, of course, I would like to see this become less of a foreign concept across as much of the world as possible. In the end it is their loss, not ours.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< In the end it is their loss, not ours.[/quote]Unless of course they succeed in their campaign to rule the world for Allah, which seems less and less outta the question all the time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What 1st amendment? Really. If this guy gets a second term.
[/quote]
Just thank your lucky stars for the 22nd then.
Yeah, I’m sure you’ve seen this one:
Obama: ‘Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus which suggests slavery is okay? Should we go with Deuteronomy which describes eating shellfish as an abomination? (Sneering)…The Sermon on the Mount is a passage so radical it’s doubtful our defence department would survive its application. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles(more sneering.)’
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I liked how you condemned those 911 conspiracy theories.[/quote]
Oh man - excellent timing.
I really do love the fact that you hate me so much.
None of it in my case is justified. I sometimes wonder if you realize this and press on - or if you genuinely just don’t know.
Yes. I truly believe it was an inside job. Over the years I’ve come to realize that the Christian conservatives are actually the primary target of it all. In the grand scheme of things I’m really just a secondary distraction.
You and I both know that you’ve run from these discussions multiple times. That you have no true purpose in bringing it up except like a little punk every once in a while you do you’re little hit and run and disappear before getting into any of the meat of it. You already know this - that’s what I just don’t get. Explain it to me please. How the hell do you keep bringing it up - and then every time you refuse to go into it?
I’d really like an answer to that. It’s up to you whether or not you want to man up and make a thread and actually discuss it for once. But dragging it into here and various other threads as you have just ain’t right. Do you even understand the huge difference it would be if you had actually discussed it once though? Then you might have some basis for your hit and runs. Maybe. But nope - you’ve got none. NONE.
(Or if anybody else wants to discuss it - make a thread. It doesn’t belong here)
I had a conversation with one of my “Persian” friends today (don’t you luv how people from Iran say they are “Persian” to deflect potential animosity because they know that 95% of Americans are too stupid to know Iran IS/WAS Persia? , but I digress). I basically called him out a little bit about why don’t other Muslims denounce or publicly reprimand the radical extremists (the crazy fuckers) who instigate and perpetuate this violence and hatred, which, according to him and what I’ve read, is NOT what the religion of Islam is about.
His reply was that he feared for his and his family’s safety if he did so. With the state of social media as it is, it’s VERY easy to figure out family members of people. He said that he still had relatives back in Iran and that they would become targets of a Jihad against HIM if he, or any of his family here, were to publicly denounce or otherwise be seen as “siding with the Americans”. In other words, “normal Muslims” are just as afraid of the crazy fuckers as the rest of us are. Except that, from what he inferred, the “punishment” for him, being a Muslim, would be far greater than the punishment of a non-Muslim person. The crazy fuckers pretty much have EVERYONE by the balls.
Which is why I say that we should use pig blood on bullets and burn Korans or <<>> against the crazy fuckers. If they are THAT fucking crazy and stupid to be so easily manipulated by the terrorists organizing this bullshit, then WE need to be just as ruthless as them and exploit the very thing that is being used to drive them against us! While some may find it distasteful, this is WAR - not some politically correct chess match with a gentlemanly handshake at the end. These savages know NOTHING of civility, so none should be given. They should be killed at every opportunity with no quarter given. They should be incited to gather in one place, then napalm the shit out of them, film it and distribute it so the world can watch them burn and die - just like OUR citizens died on 9-11-01. Wash, rinse, repeat. Again and again until there are none left. Soon we will not have any more rioting Muslims. I realize this seems harsh, but remember: THEY are attacking US over the equivalent of a South Park episode. Fuck 'em, we’ll help them along so they can be with their 77 virgins.
“To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the
opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”
- Sun Tzu
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m jumping in a bit late here, but didn’t they attack an embassy? Isn’t that American soil?
Isn’t this an act of war?[/quote]
Did anyone ever answer this?[/quote]
Not the first time AQ has committed an act of war. Pakistan/Saudi Arabia etc. use AQ as a proxy to attack foreign interests - e.g. Mumbai Attacks. The IslamoNazi regime in Iran does the same thing - acts of war against Israel, the U.S. and the west via proxy groups. Even the Red Chinese are into it:
Obama, circa 2008: ‘The Day I’m Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease.’
Huma Abedin’s State Department says Egypt is an ‘ally.’
‘…after the embassy violence, Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi seems focused only on prosecuting the makers of the movie, even as Morsi’s own Muslim Brotherhood continues protests in front of the US embassy on Friday.’
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:They have found the guy who made the movie, exposed him to mortal danger and are in the process of taking him down as I type this.[/quote]They’ve also been pressuring youtube to take down the video.[/quote] What 1st amendment? Really. If this guy gets a second term.
Like I say. There is some of the most blasphemous abhorrent and reprehensible anti Christian crap on YouTube. I expect that and it never occurred to me to demand that youtube remove it, nevermind killing somebody over it.
[/quote]
This reminds me of another point I wanted to make. Most likely one of two major reasons why you take it in stride and don’t throw a tantrum is because in Christian Europe we first had the Protestant reformation in the 16th century which began to change the Orthodoxy of the church.
An even more important event that is central to the controversy over the Mohammad film is near the end of the seventeenth century Christian Europe entered a period that is now known as the age of enlightenment. One of the legacy’s of that age is the concept of a right to freedom of speech. This came about because the more enlightened people of that time wanted to be able to challenge the precepts and dogma of the religious orthodoxy that existed without fear of reprisal for blasphemy.
Islam never had an age of enlightenment and about the eleventh century one of their more revered clerics more or less stated that islam has evolved to the point that it is perfect and we don’t need anymore change and that was the end of any more change or growth. That is why we are having all these problems now with islam.
[quote]Sifu wrote:<<< This reminds me of another point I wanted to make. Most likely one of two major reasons why you take it in stride and don’t throw a tantrum is because in Christian Europe we first had the Protestant reformation in the 16th century which began to change the Orthodoxy of the church.
An even more important event that is central to the controversy over the Mohammad film is near the end of the seventeenth century Christian Europe entered a period that is now known as the age of enlightenment. One of the legacy’s of that age is the concept of a right to freedom of speech. This came about because the more enlightened people of that time wanted to be able to challenge the precepts and dogma of the religious orthodoxy that existed without fear of reprisal for blasphemy.
Islam never had an age of enlightenment and about the eleventh century one of their more revered clerics more or less stated that islam has evolved to the point that it is perfect and we don’t need anymore change and that was the end of any more change or growth. That is why we are having all these problems now with islam. [/quote]I’m just gonna be straight up with you. There is not now nor has there ever been a BIBLICAL mandate or even justification for committing violence in the name of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Further, the BIBLICAL teaching is that His faithful disciples should EXPECT that both they and Christ Himself will be hated in this world. THAT’S the reason true Christians do not go on a rampage when unbelievers blaspheme and denigrate them and their Lord. It couldn’t be otherwise. He told us that. Even when we see people falsely claiming to be Christians bringing grievous dishonor and reproach to His name, which is all the time nowadays, we are not to respond with violence, but with verbal biblical defense of His truth.
ANY act of violence alleging to be for the purpose of preaching or defending Christianity IS A LIE. PERIOD. Write it down. Every time you see a news story saying “Right wing Christian guns down abortion clinic workers” or something like that? It is BY DEFINITION an anti-Christian act.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:<<< This reminds me of another point I wanted to make. Most likely one of two major reasons why you take it in stride and don’t throw a tantrum is because in Christian Europe we first had the Protestant reformation in the 16th century which began to change the Orthodoxy of the church.
An even more important event that is central to the controversy over the Mohammad film is near the end of the seventeenth century Christian Europe entered a period that is now known as the age of enlightenment. One of the legacy’s of that age is the concept of a right to freedom of speech. This came about because the more enlightened people of that time wanted to be able to challenge the precepts and dogma of the religious orthodoxy that existed without fear of reprisal for blasphemy.
Islam never had an age of enlightenment and about the eleventh century one of their more revered clerics more or less stated that islam has evolved to the point that it is perfect and we don’t need anymore change and that was the end of any more change or growth. That is why we are having all these problems now with islam. [/quote]I’m just gonna be straight up with you. There is not now nor has there ever been a BIBLICAL mandate or even justification for committing violence in the name of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Further, the BIBLICAL teaching is that His faithful disciples should EXPECT that both they and Christ Himself will be hated in this world. THAT’S the reason true Christians do not go on a rampage when unbelievers blaspheme and denigrate them and their Lord. It couldn’t be otherwise. He told us that. Even when we see people falsely claiming to be Christians bringing grievous dishonor and reproach to His name, which is all the time nowadays, we are not to respond with violence, but with verbal biblical defense of His truth.
ANY act of violence alleging to be for the purpose of preaching or defending Christianity IS A LIE. PERIOD. Write it down. Every time you see a news story saying “Right wing Christian guns down abortion clinic workers” or something like that? It is BY DEFINITION an anti-Christian act.[/quote]
This I’d agree with. Islam is sorta old testament though. There are however plenty of people that would self identify as Christians that hang on pretty hard to the old rules instead of the new covenant. Now its fine you disavow them. You don’t ever see Muslims do that though. You’d never see a Muslim say something like well crazy fucker ambassador killer achmed here isn’t really a Muslim.
As well clearly in practice the biblical mandate of Christianity as you call it is rarely if ever seen.
I think maybe its that some Christians take the long view. I dated a Southern Baptist girl once way back in the day. One day she told me something like “I really like you its a shame that you are going to suffer eternally. Maybe it won’t be so bad I had a dream where some people only had a nail being driven through their skull for eternity and that doesn’t seem too terrible for you.” So maybe the Christians figure god will sort it out while the Muslims are much more hands on.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:<<< This reminds me of another point I wanted to make. Most likely one of two major reasons why you take it in stride and don’t throw a tantrum is because in Christian Europe we first had the Protestant reformation in the 16th century which began to change the Orthodoxy of the church.
An even more important event that is central to the controversy over the Mohammad film is near the end of the seventeenth century Christian Europe entered a period that is now known as the age of enlightenment. One of the legacy’s of that age is the concept of a right to freedom of speech. This came about because the more enlightened people of that time wanted to be able to challenge the precepts and dogma of the religious orthodoxy that existed without fear of reprisal for blasphemy.
Islam never had an age of enlightenment and about the eleventh century one of their more revered clerics more or less stated that islam has evolved to the point that it is perfect and we don’t need anymore change and that was the end of any more change or growth. That is why we are having all these problems now with islam. [/quote]I’m just gonna be straight up with you. There is not now nor has there ever been a BIBLICAL mandate or even justification for committing violence in the name of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Further, the BIBLICAL teaching is that His faithful disciples should EXPECT that both they and Christ Himself will be hated in this world. THAT’S the reason true Christians do not go on a rampage when unbelievers blaspheme and denigrate them and their Lord. It couldn’t be otherwise. He told us that. Even when we see people falsely claiming to be Christians bringing grievous dishonor and reproach to His name, which is all the time nowadays, we are not to respond with violence, but with verbal biblical defense of His truth.
ANY act of violence alleging to be for the purpose of preaching or defending Christianity IS A LIE. PERIOD. Write it down. Every time you see a news story saying “Right wing Christian guns down abortion clinic workers” or something like that? It is BY DEFINITION an anti-Christian act.[/quote]
You are really missing my point. There was a time in Europe when the religious authorities operated their own version of a sharia state. ie The inquisition, burning witches at the state, killing heretics blasphemy laws etc… I get your point that it wasn’t something that was supposed to be part of Christianity but none the less it did occur.
The age of enlightenment changed all that. It is why we have the freedom to post videos on to youtube without fear of being arrested of lynched by a mob of religious fanatics. This is what is at stake for the west if we don’t face reality and get a grip on how to deal with muslims.
I don’t hate you at all. Paranoid much? I notice you read a lot into Chushin’s quotation marks too.
Press on with what?
I guess that would make you Shia then.
Not sure what you mean, but…
Absolutely. Who in their right mind would want to discuss that sort of shit?..Oh.
That’s right, I don’t want to go into it. Did you see the last post in that thread from someone called ‘rankin’ or something? He wants to know why the WTC appeared in lots of films in the 1990’s and interprets that as evidence of an inside job. I don’t have time for mental patients.
No, I don’t want to discuss it and I will continue to point out(where appropriate) that your endorsement of 911 conspiracy theories is a concern and reflects badly on your sanity, intelligence or honesty.
[quote]Sifu wrote:<<< You are really missing my point. There was a time in Europe when the religious authorities operated their own version of a sharia state. ie The inquisition, burning witches at the state, killing heretics blasphemy laws etc… I get your point that it wasn’t something that was supposed to be part of Christianity but none the less it did occur.
The age of enlightenment changed all that. It is why we have the freedom to post videos on to youtube without fear of being arrested of lynched by a mob of religious fanatics. This is what is at stake for the west if we don’t face reality and get a grip on how to deal with muslims.[/quote]I understand what you’re saying, but the reason for the change is a more faithful adherence to what’s always been in the bible. Even people I revere, who demonstrated by their astonishing grasp of biblical teaching elsewhere, went astray when it came to wielding civil power. The church should NEVER be the state and in that sense the attack on the gospel of Christ so charmingly named “the enlightenment”, which resulted in the stripping of the church of civil powers she never should have had in the first place, was definitely so ordered by God as to move his body along to a more faithful representation of Himself in the earth. The TRUE church will NEVER change essentially because society changes. That’s what lovers of the world, false disciples posing as followers of Christ do. Adjust their doctrine and practice based upon what the sinful world does. That is plainly and soundly condemned in the scriptures.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t have time for mental patients. [/quote]Then quit bringing it up.
You can try with the first angle. But the other two simply don’t fly.
Yup. But that’s probably my best evidence that I’m in perfect mental health.
And you know it reflects very badly on you to be following people around with stuff and then refuse to discuss it with them. It even calls into question your sanity and honesty.
In fact, to pretend it reflects anything without ever discussing it is a lie. I just haven’t yet picked up on whether you lie to me, lie to others, or lie to yourself.
My healthy paranoia tells me to guess that the correct answer is “all of the above” - but I can’t tell for sure [i]without discussing it[/i]
I’ve gotta sleep - I’ll try to get you an answer tomorrow Chushin
9/11 was a conspiracy.
19 Islamic terrorists, funded by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, conspired to fly planes into predetermined targets.
Not really that complicated.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m jumping in a bit late here, but didn’t they attack an embassy? Isn’t that American soil?
Isn’t this an act of war?[/quote]
Did anyone ever answer this?[/quote]
No its obviously not.
If the Egyptian government had done this, then yes, or if lets say a government attacked another nations vessel on the high seas, that is an act of war.
As a hard and fast rule, wars need at least two governments and a howling mob is not a government.