Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Dakatsu wrote:This just is not going to end...
That's a sorry attitude to take. I understand your feelings if you can see no point in the thread, but I for one do see a point, so your misgivings are just an unwelcome distraction. Like I said, the topic of Islam is not finished. There's more to be said.Dakatsu wrote:It just never ends, no matter what is said.
But everyone says the EXACT same things! It isn't as if any startling realization from anyone about anything, nor any new subjects talked about!Sergeant Thorne wrote:Like I said, the topic of Islam is not finished. There's more to be said.
I'm 42 and I'm not trying to be a jerk. I apologize if I came off that way.Sergeant Thorne wrote:Dedman, how old are you? 12? Don't be a jerk.
I admit that I will occasionally engage in fecal agitation, but I have not purposefully done so in this thread.Spidey wrote:I read on .com that Dedman just likes to stir things up on this board.
Maybe it is a cop-out, although I'm not trying to avoid losing an argument. I've been married for 19 years, I'm used to losing themSergeant Thorne wrote:I see it as a cop-out to avoid losing an argument, which is just lame.
It's just that in the 5 1/2 years I have been a regular on this board the pattern of debate hasn't really changed all that much. It starts out by someone making a statement or posing a question. Someone else will attempt to answer the question or state their opposing view. Then people start to get defensive and they dig in. Then the lobbing of names or insults frequently begins. At that point, actual dialog has ended, and people just talk at each other. That is about the time I lose interest. I believe that this thread has reached this point and I lamely used the "my work here is done" statement to bow out of the discussion. I should have just told every one to have a great day.
I see most of your intellectual excursions as a kind of rebellion against the norm. The rebellion part has been pretty well confirmed: I could list dozen of topics you've started that are designed to push the limits. You don't like limits. What you and many people like yourself don't realize is that some limits are important. But you were brought up not knowing why, or worse, were brought up under unnaturally (unhealthy) strick limits, and are rebelling against that. The norm ain't all bad, and that's where people like you get off in left field. I've been brought up to appreciate the limits that most people no longer seem to understand (don't drink too much, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't have sex until you're married, etc). Some limits are unnatural/harmful, some are safe. I'm surrounded, in my day-to-day life, by people almost absolutely devoid of the wisdom to recognize the difference between the two, and it's hurting them. The proof is definately in the pudding.Aussies can REALLY party wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc0CB6URrV0roid wrote:i can't stand this Current Affair *****, only old people watch it so they can discuss how "kids thesedays are outof control" around the nursing-home watercooler.
these sensationalist shows are specifically designed to appeal to such people, who seem to live off fingerpointing and moral-outrage.
It's just a party, gatecrashers are common.
The kid is my hero, refusing to be intimidated by that holier-than-thou ***** on national tv. His mocking apathy and completely lack of recognition or respect towards the reporter is entirely warrented, these TV shows are absolute guttertrash.
When she was asking him to take off his glasses, he should have replied by asking her to take off her shirt.
As I have BEEN SAYING in my past posts!Ferno wrote:Which is why I haven't really engaged in this topic. it's just a giant joke.
Thank you, Gren. That's where this kind of thing disturbs me.Grendel wrote:What am I supposed to do...? Always look over my shoulder for muslims ? Shoot them on sight ? Nuke their countries ? Talk to them ? What ?
Just take it as an agreement and relax man.Dakatsu wrote:As I have BEEN SAYING in my past posts!
I don't accuse you of that at all, TB. Having met you and from your posts above, I know you're not hateful or racist.ThunderBunny wrote:Please spare me the false, tiresome and typical "hate mongering" and racism accusations.
Yes, the facts do have a way of gumming up that argument.Spiegel's Fatma Aykut wrote:Wilders' accompanies these "shocking images" with quotations from the Koran, an effort to expose Islam's holiest text as a well-spring of hate. That makes it difficult for me, a totally average Muslim, to defend Islam as a peaceful religion.
Doesn't sounds like a misuse to me.Spiegel's Fatma Aykut wrote:These quotations are not made up -- they can actually be found in the Koran. Passages from the holy book that rail hatefully against Jews have, unfortunately, long been misused as propaganda.
Wow. The Bible (she would have to be referring to the New Testament) contains no "similar" anti-Semitic passages. The most "anti-Semitic" passage in the Bible, I believe, would be...Spiegel's Fatma Aykut wrote:That is tragic, as it is tragic that similar anti-Semitic passages are just as common in the Bible.
The New Testament speaks against non-messianic Jews as being wrong, and even devious, but it never calls for violence against them. Rather they are portrayed, contrary to the beliefs of some popular "Christianity", as the ones to whom salvation belongs to first.Romans 11 wrote:Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
(The natural olive branches it refers to are the Jews)Romans 11 wrote:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation [has come] to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall [is] riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy [those who are] my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away [is] the reconciling of the world, what [will] their acceptance [be] but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit [is] holy, the lump [is] also [holy;] and if the root [is] holy, so [are] the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, [remember that] you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well [said.] Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in [His] goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who [are] natural [branches,] be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this [is] My covenant with them, When I take away their sins." 28 Concerning the gospel [they are] enemies for your sake, but concerning the election [they are] beloved for the sake of the fathers.
If we are to believe that this man's purpose was to utterly demonize the Muslin people themselves, then why did he, at the end of the film, encourage Muslims to tears out the violent parts of the Koran?Spiegel's Fatma Aykut wrote:"Fitna" was an attempt -- a cheap, transparent attempt -- to lump together every Muslim immigrant in Europe as potential terrorists, as threats to hard-won democracies, as beasts driven by base instinct.
Simply because it's a shocking/sensational proposition.Sergeant Thorne wrote:If we are to believe that this man's purpose was to utterly demonize the Muslin people themselves, then why did he, at the end of the film, encourage Muslims to tears out the violent parts of the Koran?Spiegel's Fatma Aykut wrote:"Fitna" was an attempt -- a cheap, transparent attempt -- to lump together every Muslim immigrant in Europe as potential terrorists, as threats to hard-won democracies, as beasts driven by base instinct.
I never accused anyone here of hatred, though I've seen it far too often in people who believe they mean well.Sergeant Thorne wrote:And what is up with you guys accusing myself and some of the other people on here of hate?
Exactly, which is why I see no problem with ThunderBunny bringing it out in the open. I like the constant reminder of how backward and unloving Islam is, and of all the deaths it still causes... even in modern times.Foil wrote:Discussion about how radical Muslims interpret the Q'ran scriptures as a call to violence... it's true, and we need to be wary of this.
Discussion about how Sharia law often horribly mistreats women... it's true, and we should not just stand by and let it happen.
Agreed. These issues need to be addressed.Bet51987 wrote:Exactly, which is why I see no problem with ThunderBunny bringing it out in the open.
Agreed. So would you say it's ok to use current events like CNN articles?Foil wrote:Agreed. These issues need to be addressed.Bet51987 wrote:Exactly, which is why I see no problem with ThunderBunny bringing it out in the open.
However, if we're going to talk about the problems with Islam and/or radical Islamic violence, it needs to be done without all the sensationalist hype that comes with fear-marketing videos like "Fitna", and some of the other articles I've seen which only serve to de-legitimize their stance.
Not exactly true. Where I live (now and in the past) the nazi supremacist ideologie is more threatening to my lifestyle than islamic extremists. I agree that that will be changing in the future but not because of the islamic extremists as the main cause. The restrictions to my way of life will be imposed by the government for the sake of me being safe from those extremists, JIC. They will argue like this "Liberal thought and freedom of expression is under threat by a bigoted and supremacist movement. We will protect you from it by monitoring every move you do and other things."ThunderBunny wrote:Both have had associations with supremacist ideologies in the past...but those associations are gone and defunct- islam is alive and well as a supremacist religion/ideology/social structure and political movement.
i think the first post i ever read of yours, like many people here, was back in September 2001 when most Americans here were calling for the Middle East to be nuked.Spidey wrote:Roid, now you’re really pissin me off! Why are you lumping me in with the Islam bashers…DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ MY FIRST POST?
no kiddin. I saw a bit of Fitna and immediately turned it off because of the sensationalist and propagandistic nature.Foil wrote:However, if we're going to talk about the problems with Islam and/or radical Islamic violence, it needs to be done without all the sensationalist hype that comes with fear-marketing videos like "Fitna", and some of the other articles I've seen which only serve to de-legitimize their stance.
