|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1 2
The Truth About George Bush . . .
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Ocean
i gave $100 to this, for it is a worthy cause.
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I dunno about worthy cause, but that's some good stuff 
Posted by: laborat
Liberal propaganda...these guys have been trying to stymy the Republicans for years but have failed. Why? Hell, they are also part of the establishment. I'm looking at names there of Judges who for whatever reason play the same game as the Republicans.
I wish them well, but it is going to take a lot more than 60 second spots from a concerned public to accomplish their goals. They could start with in my view, a campaign to get unvoters to vote.
Posted by: Erekose
those were surprisingly well done
Posted by: Null Actor
hahahahahaah....
"So, to sum up: TERRORIST TERRORIST TERRORIST, 9/11 9/11"
Posted by: SpecOpsHoov
Hehe, pretty good stuff.
By the way, while we're on the topic of Bush...here's his resumé: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributo.../23_resume.html
Posted by: N.W.A_Kid
 Quote:
And my mother wonders why I hate my US government
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I don't like any type of propaganda, liberal or conservative... both sides try to hide truth ...
But those videos are still cool...
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
I don't like any type of propaganda, liberal or conservative... both sides try to hide truth
|
Thats a biased statement.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
it woulda been more biased if I didn't include "try" in my statement 
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Quote:
Originally posted by laborat
Liberal propaganda...these guys have been trying to stymy the Republicans for years but have failed. Why? Hell, they are also part of the establishment. I'm looking at names there of Judges who for whatever reason play the same game as the Republicans.
I wish them well, but it is going to take a lot more than 60 second spots from a concerned public to accomplish their goals. They could start with in my view, a campaign to get unvoters to vote.
|
sense of humor is lacking.
Posted by: chaosisreality
Says you.
Posted by: Ocean
that was supposed to be funny? i thought it was a valid point. am i misreading it?
Posted by: Atlas4
I don't care who's in the office, as long as he's moderate. That's why liberals can't stand him. We're up against a wall here, and our leaders are too cowardly to stand up to the GOP. We try and try, but nothing ever happens because you are called "unpatriotic." Ever been called a "treasonous unpatriotic bastard?" I have, it's not cool. That's how bad it has gotten. Partisan my *#%, Bush. I hope they scan this forum and arrest me with their gestapo Patriot Act 2.0.
Edit: Hey mods, you should probably move this to Rants & Raves, this could get ugly.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
The link was meant to poke humor, even though it did some from a propaganda site ... if anyone plans to make this a serious political debate, please create a new topic in R&R ... otherwise, let's not derail it with unnecessary political commentary...
Posted by: taco_fox
http://www.tacofox.net/stuff/deanhulk1.jpg
Posted by: Ocean
that pic is funny.
Posted by: Bunmiadefisayo
i wish people wld stop bashing him about that speech. Its over and done with, although it was unnecessarey 
Posted by: NyGulkuk
You want truth?
Here it is:
http://www.airamericaradio.com/
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Haha, the much-hyped Air America ... they prolly won't last a year
Posted by: NyGulkuk
I think they'll make it, conservatives alone tuning in to fume will be enough.
Al Franken is hilarious and has some very interesting observations.
Have you heard his Rush imitation?
I like him, but readily admit to being Liberal as I can be, although I condemn vehemently the violent methods used by some so called Liberal organizations.
Posted by: Fury451
hey guys lemme tell ya
democracy , freedom , social welfare , human rights , employment rights and blah blah , thats like , for the decadent ya know what i mean ? belongs to the past lol
so vote Bush ! 
man if he's relected i'm gonna like , enrol in the fbi or law enforcment or sometin. thats the only way i'll be safe lol i wanna keep my freedom
duh wait a minute , i meant : recover my freedom , since we already lost our freedom :
we're all under house arrest remember ? (homeland 'security' act  )
Posted by: taco_fox
No we haven't.
Posted by: laborat
where you been taco? dropping chalupas? we have lost many of our basic rights in last decade or two under BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT administrations.
You think you got rights. If you got money you got rights. If you know somebody you got rights. other than that you ain't got nothing but luck on your side they don't come knocking on your door.
I think liberals are too conservative or better put conservatives in hollywood outfits. it's easy to be way out there in your beliefs in your fellow man if you have a few million in the bank being watched by hard corp republican bankers.
As for the statement I seem to be lacking in humor... actually I am rolling in the aisles busting my sides laughing. As an anarchist I can see the light at the end of the tunnel...the end of civilization as we know it. Who is to blame? we are. The ones who let idiots in office and winked when lobbyists started bribing them to get their way.
We seem as Americans to tolerate corruption in government as long as we get a piece of it. but those pieces have few and far between lately.
The middle class is bearing a tremendous tax burden because they actually work for a living and play by the rules.
Don't look at the rich or corporations for taxes...most of them pay little or none at all. I think the latest figures show 70% of foriegn corporations in our countypay no taxes and 61% of domestic corporations pay no taxes... how the hell did that happen. you can't blame that one on Bush. He is just on the payroll not calling the shots.
Posted by: taco_fox
Quote:
Originally posted by laborat
As an anarchist
|
Really?
Posted by: Fury451
that's it ? that's like , ALL you read in his post ? 3 words ? 
ok maybe he made 1 false step but hey check this out :
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it"
- Thomas Jefferson
get it ?
Posted by: taco_fox
You can post all the rhetoric you want, but I'm not seeing the oppression.
Posted by: Fury451
Quote:
Originally posted by taco_fox
You can post all the rhetoric you want
|
hey i didn't say it
but the last time i checked looked like TJ wuz quite popular in his time
Quote:
Originally posted by taco_fox
but I'm not seeing the oppression.
|
why , yur PART OF IT ?
Posted by: Ocean
i dont see the oppression, but i do hear about it.
appearently you are no longer allowed to protest near the president. and this law/rule comes directly from some logic of the patriot act.
speaking out against a president is really really hated in some parts of america. it has became taboo.
Posted by: redwench
if you think being detained in a secret location, without access to a lawyer or any other representative, even family, without trial or even being charged for months or years based on a secret warrant is not a loss of freedom, id like to hear your definition.
Posted by: solrac_gnik
that is a pretty cool website i am not portugues but i know that bill had not defice and bush in lesss the 4 years can make a defice of 1 trilion$
Posted by: laborat
In fairness to Bush, he tried to pump the economic slump by starting a war...it has always worked in the past. one reason it didn't work this time was that Cheney/Halburton ripped off the Pentagon big time, and most of our traditional war time industries that would hire american workers are overseas now...outsourced or moved to cheaper labor markets...the deficit alone is not the result of Bush's actions but a strong case could be made that He had a major hand in accumulating a large trillion dollar debt.
I see at least two other possibilities for our situation, the value of the dollar against the yen, and the FED lowering interest rates to stave off inflation. OPEC is another source of our debt now by tightening oil supplies. Whatever the case count on all those kiddies now playing on playstations to be paying mega taxes on low wages assuming they can get jobs at all.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by taco_fox
[...] but I'm not seeing the oppression.
|
Patience comrade. Soon enough, it will be seen & felt, even in the blind man's kingdom (...) http://213.246.40.109/images/smileJap.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
if you think being detained in a secret location, without access to a lawyer or any other representative, even family, without trial or even being charged for months or years based on a secret warrant is not a loss of freedom, id like to hear your definition.
|
hehe - indeed. I concur with you (yes, unbelievable as it may seem http://213.246.40.109/images/perso/zoubi.gif)
Perhaps that's what Taco_fox meant. If you can't see it, then there's no cause for concern. And the ostrich buries its head in the sand..
The Nazis used to keep things pretty secret too, if I'm not mistaken.
Seems to have become trendy these days. I recently learnt that the Chinese state began using lethal injection in 1997 for executions. A "humane" demise for the inmates, or so it seems, for it is well known that this method can be just as painful as the others..
Let's face it, the world is slipping because people are turning a blind eye on what is happening. What we may see right now is but a foreshadow of what is to come, looming far away on the horizon. Freedom and justice as we know it are bound to collapse, with only a few "strongholds" that can still pride themselves on being true democracies (I mentionned Switzerland, once ), for who knows how long. Perhaps what fury 461 suggested as a "solution" may not be so absurd after all
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
The Nazis used to keep things pretty secret too, if I'm not mistaken.
|
Are you really going to take the stance of putting the Jewish Holocaust on the same level of persecution that Arabs and Muslims are currently facing? I think they are on entirely different planes of suckatiude.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
Are you really going to take the stance of putting the Jewish Holocaust on the same level of persecution that Arabs and Muslims are currently facing?
|
ANOTHER TROLL DETECTED - Raising shields..
Preposterous.
Talk about misreading a post (that's an understatement...)
(-> btw I don't suppose you read the entire post?)
Jews? Muslims? Now who spoke of them??? 
I was talking about the fall of democracy across the globe and you brought religion into this? Nazism is a form of fascism, and probably its most notorious example, which is why I mentionned them. This has nothing to do with religious or ethnic persecution - I could well have spoken about Mussolini, Pinochet, Stalin (a defacto fascist), and so on..
All this time I spent railing against fascism & you'd suggest that I'm taking the side of the muslims?
Indeed, one of us here IS in fact - unknowingly - taking their side, and it's not me - allow me to turn the tables :
For now that you so kindly brought up the subject, FYI Islamic fundamentalism has this in common with Nazism: it is bent on the destruction of Israel.
And in case you didn't know - and apparently you don't, hence your previous post - the comparison between Islam & Fascism could go much further - let's take a closer look, shall we?
+ Both are (extreme-)right winged & ultra-conservatives
+ Both oppose social welfare
+ Both oppose democracy
+ Both oppose the doctrine of seperation of powers (esp. executive & judiciary)
+ Both oppose human rights
+ Both oppose abortion
+ both tend to function on some sort of "hierarchy of human life" principle - with civilian life at the lower end of the scale..
+ Both favour zero-tolerance law: the law if strict (if you're a mere civilian at least) and the punishment does not always befit the crime, esp. if it's a petty crime..
+ Both have a tradition of raising taxes for the poor & lowering them for the rich (or even exonerating the rich from taxes) : a throwback to the heydays of feudalism..
+ Both endorse torture & execution as forms of punishment
So being a left-winged voter - a socialist - and a (staunch) advocate of democracy & social equity, I don't have much of a reason to take the side of the muslims...
As for those who pride themselves on being conservatives, right-winged supporters, well that's an awful lot in common with the principles of islam, don't you think? In fact, one could think they'd make perfect islamists !
So you see comrade, you could not have more grossly misunderstood my previous post - I was not taking the side of the islamists, AND in a way, it was quite the contrary. Think about it: they commit wanton violence, they commit terrorist attacks & kill civilians (without a twinge of remorse at that). They wreak havoc & spread fear amongst the civilian populace. And who reaps the benefits? Who has every reason to be thankful to them? The right-winged, conservative...fascist parties who balk at nothing to maintain the people in a state of paranoia, so as to achieve their own end - remain in power. With an utter lack of concern for the security of their people (...)
The goal of islamism IS to pervade our society - as a first step, by putting an end to democracy as we know it. That is why they loathe countries like Israel more than anything else. Israel is the ONLY "haven" in the middle-east where citizens can enjoy the taste of freedom.
My point? The islamists ARE IN FAVOUR OF PEOPLE LIKE BUSH and his European right-winged counterparts: Chirac, Jose-Aznar, Berlusconi, etc...
QED 
(And it looks like they're getting just what they wanted..)
See how appearances can be deceptive?
Posted by: Fury451
lol Bush a muslm ?
Yeah come 2 think of it that would like , explain many things lol
Posted by: laborat
Everyone here seems to assume that war has rules and that all sides play by the rules...that is clearly a myth. While they talk about rules of engagement on TV...the facts are is someone is shooting at you and your buddys in a crowd of people... chances are you and your buddys will take him and the crowd of people out as well.
This is why I chuckle (in a sinister way) when people get up in arms about Israel blowing up innocent civilians while targeting whatever target they have chosen to assassinate. I happen to think that the Really Deep Fanatics are in charge over there and to them it is guilt by association. You are in the same area? you are guilty too, and too bad if you get killed.
The Palestinians on the other hand make no bones about hashing up young boys and girls and strapping bombs on them to blow up buses and outposts. It is the same thing really. They are fighting a holy war over there folks and it has been going on since before Christ. And yes, folks, the objective of both the Israelis and the Muslims is just like the Nazi's -- total extermination of the losing side.
It really is easy enough to monday nite quarterback the war over there over here in the U.S. but until you been pinned down and shot at, or had your buddys head blown off while you were talking to him, or had a round or two slice into your body -- don't bother with this righteous stuff...if you are in a war zone...you are trained to survive to kill the enemy, if that means killing civilians too, then that's what you do. Frankly that is nothing new-- has been going on since the ape found out what a club could do in 2001.
I suppose it sucks for some people that no side is completely squeaky clean in this war or maybe it is a police action who knows...what is known is that this will not be last one we fight nor the last one we fight over whether it is justified or not.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Yes, war is not cut & dry as we'd like it to be (or thought it to be as kids: good guys vs. bad guys - good old days...)
But I disagree about the Israeli though.
In my previous post I only spoke of the muslims - think about it:
Israel only defends itself and retaliates when attacked. Their last wish is to "exterminate the other side".
The islamists on the other hand, as I said in my previous post, perpetrate violence out of pure malice (and pride perhaps, although they quickly loose their pride when their own dictators order them around hehe ).
Moreover, the muslims claim the land of Palestine is entirely theirs and that they were there before the jews, BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE, it's quite the opposite (cf. "The Promised Land"), besides Jewish religion existed long before islam.
And last of all, like I said never forget that Israel is a FREE country, where all people, jew & non-jew alike, enjoy the benefits of democracy (the right to vote, etc...), and that it is surrounded by hostile, non-democratic states that treat their own civilian citizens like slaves, and have barely evolved in mentality over the centuries.
To my knowledge, no Israeli citizen ever had his hand chopped off for stealing a piece of bread, or had his eyes gouged for converting to a non-judaic religion.
But as for non-muslims living in muslim countries, on the other hand, well...I wouldn't like to be in their shoes http://213.246.40.109/images/perso/vendredi.gif
So yes, we can't depict a "black & white" picture of things BUT all I can say is this:
IF we HAD to decide who, between the Israelis & the Palestinians, were to be considered the "good guys", IMO Israel would make a much better suited candidate..
Posted by: redwench
oh please. the israeli government (religion doesnt really have much to do with this) is pulling the same stuff the german government did when the nazis were in power. its not about religion, its about LAND. the israelis and palestinians both want it all. why is this such a mystery?
the palestinians at least have a legitimate claim of ownership.
Posted by: laborat
I beg to differ. Israel is NOT anywhere near a democracy. Israel has been trying to exterminate the other migrant tribes in the area since before time began. but you have a right to your view. mine differs.
Posted by: IceBreaker
You may differ
OK, let's just say that BOTH have a legitimate claim of ownership - yes, including Israel for the aforementionned reasons (religious, historical, ...).
Bah, the Israeli state doesn't cover a vast expanse of land anyways. Israel never had plans on taking over anything near the ENTIRE land of Palestine.. Heh - look at the map - it's a tiny state! Nor does it abound in oil...
And when I said "democracy", I meant of course in comparison with the surrounding states (besides, I doubt there are many REAL democracies in today's world. One at most, perhaps..)
So OK comrades, I concede, even the Israel system may have its drawbacks & made its mistakes (haven't they all), but you will all agree that concerning democracy, of all the countries in the middle-east, Israel comes closest - that was my point in the previous post. There at least, the people may vote & select their leaders - a sine qua non condition of democracy, by definition..
=> And you know the saying - "charity begins at home". Israel at least, doesn't treat its own civilian citizens like chattel..
Come on, answer earnestly - imagine you HAD to choose between 1) living in Israel (with Israeli citizenship) and 2) living in (any) Muslim state, as a citizen of that state.
What would you choose??
Posted by: laborat
a peasant is a peasant no matter where they live.
Posted by: redwench
well, as israel is a secular state, and by definition, a muslim state is not, its a poor comparision.
oh, israel only treats non-palestinian israelis well. those citizens that are of palestinian descent are treated abominably. basically, if youre not jewish ethnically, youre ****ed.
what claim does israel have to this land that the palestinians dont? you think the palestinians just popped up out of nowhere? unlike the jewish israelis, who emigrated after ww2, theyve been living there for millenia. its land land land, all land. or israel wouldnt have held on to gaza after being told to hand it back by the UN.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Well FYI the jews have been in this land for aeons, long before there was even such a thing as islam & muslims. When & why most of them were kicked out, millenia ago, I know not, but their intent after the holocaust was to simply (re)claim the SMALL part of palestine that they deemed (and that the U.N. acknowledged as) rightfully theirs - cf. the "Promised Land": ring a bell? This notion dates back to quite some time ago, if I'm not mistaken..)
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
what claim does israel have to this land that the palestinians dont? you think the palestinians just popped up out of nowhere?
|
My Lady, please reread my posts http://forum.msi.com.tw/images/msi/smilies/sleep.gif
I NEVER questionned the muslims' rights over this land. I only said that the jews were as much entitled to dwell there AS WELL.
On the contrary, it is popular belief that Israel is the "big bad evil intruder", encroaching upon the "Holy land of Palestine" as the islamists like to call it. I am just trying to set the historical record straight.
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
well, as israel is a secular state, and by definition, a muslim state is not, its a poor comparision.
|
Right, it's a poor comparison (...)
OK, let's just say "the arab states" then...
Well Iraq was also a secular state. So is Syria. Would you rather live there?
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
oh, israel only treats non-palestinian israelis well.
those citizens that are of palestinian descent are treated abominably.
|
Maybe - though "abominably" is a tad excessive, don't you think?
And IF it's true, I certainly don't condone it.
=> Yet even they have the right to vote..
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
basically, if youre not jewish ethnically, youre ****ed.
|
(From your previous sentence, I suppose you mean "if you're palestinian ethnically" - so you'll grant it that other non-jewish ethnics groups are treated quite fairly then)
Q. How are jews treated in muslim and/or arab states (supposing they even manage to survive hehe)
A. I'll tell you. They are treated like ****. Like ****. Or even ****. Not to mention ****, **** and ****. Is that clear enough? http://forum.msi.com.tw/images/msi/icons/icon5.gif
And in this case, "abominably" would be a euphemism...
Moreover, if you think that non-muslim, non-jewish citizens fare better, think again. In Iran, a man was tortured to death - and his ordeal lasted several days as they left him tied onto a table with the ropes cutting into him - because he had converted to christianism..
In Pakistan, shortly after the Afganistan bombings began, islamists turned a church into a slaughterhouse.
No comment..
Anyways, you haven't answered my question. Actually, I'll make it 2 questions:
If forced to make a choice:
1) would you live in Israel as a jewish citizen, or in a muslim and/or arab state as a muslim citizen?
2) would you live in Israel as a muslim citizen, or in a muslim and/or arab state as a jewish citizen?
You might as well answer now, for an answer I'll wrest from you sooner or later, even if I've to copy/paste these questions in every single one of my posts
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Since this topic has turned into a political debate, I'm moving it to the appropriate forum...
Posted by: laborat
I would live in Israel as a jewish citizen. (but only because I like their food)
Posted by: redwench
you keep confusing palestinians with muslims. the palestinians, while indeed mostly islamic, are an ethnic group and have been there just as long as the ethnic jews. longer in fact, as they did not leave and re-emigrate.
id live in israel as a jewish citizen, of course. any other religion, and i would emigrate. i would never live in israel as a muslim, thats a death sentence. a muslim in an islamic state wouldnt be a problem, as i would then presumably hold similar views to the government 
abominably by our standards, yes. they are heavily discriminated against in education and employment, their elected representatives get banned (sound familiar?), housing is horrible. legally, they are equal, naturally. well, they cant get out of miliatary service like the jews can, but otherwise legally equal. practically is another matter. just like a black man in the south in the 60s.
the religious aspects of the land are somewhat amusing, but hardly relevant to ownership. both sides have equal nonsensical claims there. the fact is that someone owned the land post ww2, and it wasnt the jews. they mostly left centuries ago. that land wasnt the UN precursor's to give, it wasnt a part of germany, italy, or japan. the creation of a new country for religious purposes on land that was mostly owned by other people is absolutely incredible. it was also incredibly stupid because its surrounded by other countries that are hostile to that religion. but thats beside the point.
it was probably a mistake to create israel, and definitely a mistake to do it where and how they did it. the stupidest thing was of course israel's invasion back in the 60s. aint no way in hell thats their land, even the UN has said so.
the whole mess will implode sooner or later. hopefully sooner.
why do you use the most extreme examples of islam as the standard anyway? christians used to regularly torture non-christians to death. in some places, they still do. you know what they do to "witches" in parts of africa?
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Since this topic has turned into a political debate, I'm moving it to the appropriate forum...
|
like it was ever going to be anything else?
Posted by: laborat
I am not sure political debate is the right definition of what is going on here. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Posted by: Oldcrocd
Hmmmm
I had the impression that Pres Bush was well like, respected and backed up to the hilt. Maybe there is another side to thinking US citizens that I had not realised. Nice to see so many comments, good or bad. I never did hear about the outcome of how he managed to grab the oval office job anyway, only a lot of inuendoes!
I can only comiserate with you all and good luck with the new elections in future, that is unless they get banned in the meantime !!
Posted by: IceBreaker
Aaaah what a relief.
Access at last!
This thread was moved to the Forbidden Forum shortly after my last post herein -
I was thenceforth unable to post here, until now only
But no forum restriction/electronic barrier/door/transdimensionnal portal could bar my way forever..
I'M BACK - with a vengeance http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/djezee.gif
Redwench> posting in this thread, knowing i would be powerless to intervene, unable to retaliate...
...didn't you feel guilty about it?
Not a qualm? Not even the slightest twinge of remorse? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/sad.gif
Anyways, here goes:
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
you keep confusing palestinians with muslims.
|
My Lady, I am NOT, as you can see for yourself, no earlier than my previous post:
Quote:
Originally posted by Icebreaker
Q. How are jews treated in muslim and/or arab states?
|
(always wanted to quote myself )
However, you may find the following statement - from Kadhafi himself - most interesting:
"An arab who is not a muslim is not a true arab. A muslim who is not an arab is not a true muslim" - Gen. M. Kadahfi
No comment...
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
i would never live in israel as a muslim, thats a death sentence.
|
In that case, I guess there are fates worse than death - jew living in a muslim state ? (...)
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
a muslim in an islamic state wouldnt be a problem, as i would then presumably hold similar views to the government
|
Yes, perhaps you would...until they stoned you to death for refusing to marry the suitor your family chose for you http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/666%20.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
abominably by our standards, yes. [..] legally, they are equal, naturally. well, they cant get out of miliatary service like the jews can, but otherwise legally equal. practically is another matter.
|
The way jews, or any other non-muslims and non-arabs are treated in arab/muslims states is not abominable - it's unspeakable. But then again, this is nothing new...
As for military service, let me tell you one thing - in today's world, money transcends all barriers. Anyone can damn well shirk their duties regarding drafting, regardless of creed or colour - provided they have the mean$ to do so..
And yes, like you said, "legally, they are equal". That's the first and most important step, isn't it? Unfortunately, unlike laws & constitutions, mentalities don't change overnight - but incessant kamikaze attacks specifically directed against civilians don't help, either (...)
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
the fact is that someone owned the land post ww2, and it wasnt the jews. they mostly left centuries ago.
|
You said it: they may have left in the mean time, but they were there first - long before there was any such thing as islam.
Yes, perhaps I agree that claiming ownership of a land on grounds of religious conviction is preposterous - but that applies to THE PALESTINIANS AS WELL (who refer to the "Holy Land of Palestine" )
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
the creation of a new country [...] was also incredibly stupid because its surrounded by other countries that are hostile to that religion.
|
There there - hostile to judaism, even before 1948.. And WHY, may I ask? What was the excuse, at that time? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/666%20.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
the whole mess will implode sooner or later. hopefully sooner.
|
Well, I'd prefer if diplomatic relations were established between 2 states, wouldn't you? (yes, let the Palestinians have their state if that's what they want - I doubt it will be a democracy anyways. Heh, a new Syria, more like...)
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
why do you use the most extreme examples of islam as the standard anyway?
|
Well, maybe because it just so happens to be the standard?
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
christians used to regularly torture non-christians to death.
|
hehe - that reminds me of one of your previous posts, in the Hardware forum, where we were discussing CPU prices (AMD vs Intel). You told me : "Can't live in the past" (I can find the post if you don't believe me).
the Inquisition dates back to more than 5 centuries ago - and should never be forgotten (hell, it still persists, but has now changed camps and is now called "Holy War"...)
I'm talking about what's happening TODAY, in the 3rd millenium - in our so-called "civilized world". I feel more concerned about what's happening in today's world, you won't find it hard to understand why (...)
And btw, unlike the imams & mollahs, the Roman Catholic church has - officially - acknowleged its wrongdoings & apologized.
I never said I approved of each & every one of Israel's actions. All I said was, that I see them as the "lesser of 2 evils". So if it comes down to choosing between the 2 camps, well...you know my stance.
Oh and by the way, you still haven't quite answered my 2 previous questions :
1) IF FORCED TO MAKE A CHOICE, would you live in Israel as a jewish citizen, or in a muslim and/or arab state as a muslim citizen?
2) IF FORCED TO MAKE A CHOICE, would you live in Israel as a muslim citizen, or in a muslim and/or arab state as a jewish citizen?
Two hypothetical situations, of course. But I'm more determined than ever to wrench an answer
Posted by: Yumaddar
I would just like to point out that while it may seem to some that taking land on the grounds of religion is silly, it does not sound so to to the people where the land acctually is. I think you miss the fact that these people (and myself, as a Christian, also beleives that they are intitled to some land somewhere. 0o) really beleive in their right to hold that they are willing to die for it....
Then again, this is how wars start.
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
Well, maybe because it just so happens to be the standard?
|
I call bs on that. I know lots of Muslims who have no problems with Jews/Christians. The “standard” Muslim is as peaceful as the “standard” Christian. When you talk in extremes you can make anything look bad. Or should we look at all Christians as abortion bombers?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
I call bs on that. I know lots of Muslims who have no problems with Jews/Christians.
|
So do I - well, one at least. A good friend. A lebanese. A former muslim (yes, I said former: he disavowed his religion - which he now loathes more than anything else - and is now "cured" ).
To his friends, he told what everyday life as a muslim was like. A religion his parents (whom he fled, along with his homeland when he emigrated to Europe) tried to force upon him.
He told us how he was nearly engulfed in the vortex of fundamentalism (almost joined the Hezbollah, for that matter) - nearly, but not quite.
But most importantly:
HE READ THE KORAN from beginning to end. More than once.
So believe me, he knows what "standard" Islam is like
And he despises it.
=> The following is an excerpt from the koran itself - you may find it very...enlightening:
"From time to time, beat your wife. You may not know why, but she will know"
Now this might make you laugh (I admit, I did when I first heard it ), but this is just to give you a glimpse into the real nature of this...religion.
I could delve further, but I'll leave it there - don't want to give you any (more) nightmares
So you see comrade, you may think that those known as 'fundamentalists' are simply an "overclocked" version of the average muslim, the latter being as peaceful as his christian & jewish counterparts. Yet the fact is, those you refer to as "standard muslims" - sometimes called 'moderates' - may be decent people, but they are NOT "standard" muslims, according to koranic law (which is the only thing that counts, right?)
It is the koran that allows a Muslim to KILL a non-believer.
It is the koran that states that a man must have his hand cut off if he commits a theft - even if he only stole a piece of bread (...)
It is the koran that allows a muslim to beat his kids TO DEATH if they refuse to do their prayers or read the koran
It is the koran that allows a muslim to beat his wife (ok, maybe not to death ) if she refuses to wear the veil - even in stifling heat.
It is the koran that denies a woman the right to an abortion - even if her life is in danger (even the Roman Catholic Church's stance in this matter is slightly less draconian, and has been so since 1945, when surgery to save the mother's life was considered acceptable (cf. the doctrine of "double effect")
And finally:
It is the koran that decrees that a woman be stoned to death if she commits adultery (but a man can have 4 wives if I'm not mistaken).
And that is the pure, un-adulterated truth (pun intended)
=> PS. IMO, and in the light of what was said - inc. my earlier posts in this thread - G.W.Bush Jr would make a perfect muslim (and I mean a true muslim, not a moderate heh). I don't know if you would agree with that point of view, but then again that is probably another debate..
..er no wait a min, actually I'm plump on topic
Posted by: Xoncide
Damn it, you’re making me defend a religion that isn’t even my own…
There are two things wrong with your previous post.
1)You take things out of context
2)You are pointing out extremes again.
Posted by: AOTY2KB
For once I'll agree with Xon, I haven't read all the posts but I know your post is biased in favour of extremists, Ice. The ideals of the Koran you show are ones taught by the House of Wahib/Saud and the Deobandi Movement (better known as the Taliban). They are the extremist groups of Sunni and Shi'a Islam.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
The ironic thing is that majority of mass murderers here in America read the Holy Bible...
By saying that another religion's beliefs are wrong, you are no different from them saying that "your" religion is wrong ... just a case of the pot calling the kettle black... calling someone "cured" for switching religions has to be the most ignorant thing I ever heard
p.s. truth is subjective, fact is not ... don't say something is a "fact" unless you can back it up with hard evidence, otherwise it's just heresay passed off as fact in order to convince people that you actually believe what you're saying
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
I did when I first heard it
|
Well now, aren't you the fact master!
Listening to a person who ran away from the religion he tells you about is not the most unbiased standpoint you can hear from.
Quote:
|
And that is the pure, un-adulterated truth (pun intended)
|
what a miserable failure
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
It is the koran that decrees that a woman be stoned to death if she commits adultery (but a man can have 4 wives if I'm not mistaken).
|
some of the other ones are very similar to whats in the bible. but that one definitely is in the christian bible. the koran, like the bible, is a rather large book that is full of inconsistencies. if you were to take everything literally, youd lose your mind.
id like to see the passage that explicitly forbids abortion, btw. not an interpretation of a prohibition on murder, but an explicit statement.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Xoncide & AOTY2KB>
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
1)You take things out of context
2)You are pointing out extremes again.
|
Quote:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AOTY2KB
The ideals of the Koran you show are ones taught by the House of Wahib/Saud and the Deobandi Movement (better known as the Taliban). They are the extremist groups of Sunni and Shi'a Islam.
|
http://www.opentechsupport.net/foru...icons/icon5.gif I'd like to know how I could possibly be taking things "out of context"..
Anyways, as far as I know there is but one koran, therefore only ONE islam This fact ALONE proves that you are both wrong.
You claim I am referring to “extremes”. Likewise, you make out the "ideals" of the koran I denounced are only upheld by an “extremist group”.
But then, since
1) I cited the koran - a.k.a the..."holy" book of islam
BUT on the other hand, according to both of you
2) I am pointing to “extremes”
but then, that implies that these so-called “extremes” ARE islam. Those we know as the fundamentalists ARE the “real” muslims, and not mere followers of an extremist, offshoot branch of islam.
V.E.D
And AOTY2KB>
Quote:
Originally posted by AOTY2KB
I haven't read all the posts but I know your post is biased in favour of extremists, Ice
|
I take it you meant “against” extremists – otherwise, I would strongly suggest you re-read ALL my posts
Oh, and Xoncide>
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
Damn it, you’re making me defend a religion that isn’t even my own…
|
Well that’s a good one http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/666%20.gif
You don’t HAVE to disagree with me just for the sake of it you know…
…unless the Powers that Be, or God knows who, vested you with that mission http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/ddr555.gif
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
some of the other ones are very similar to whats in the bible.
|
Specify pls...
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
but that one definitely is in the christian bible. the koran, like the bible, is a rather large book that is full of inconsistencies.
|
First of all, I'd like to know where I ever spoke up FOR christian religion (or jewish religion, or any other religion for that matter) ...
Anyways, a christian who wants to abstain from violence has at least one thing to go on - the 6th commandment.
To my knowledge, there is no such statement in the koran..
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
id like to see the passage that explicitly forbids abortion, btw. not an interpretation of a prohibition on murder, but an explicit statement.
|
I'd gladly - if I had a copy of the koran and could speak arab, heh..
And anyways, you still haven't answered my 2 previous questions (cf. 3 posts ago) http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/ripeer.gif
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by 9:35
Well now, aren't you the fact master!
Listening to a person who ran away from the religion he tells you about is not the most unbiased standpoint you can hear from.
|
You are absolutely right, enlightened one (...)
A man who, from his childhood, was coerced into practicing a religion through and through, yet later saw the dark side of it and decided to flee it, thus having seen BOTH SIDES of the coin, that is not a reliable source…
…no, MUCH better suited is the unbiased viewpoint of a Taliban follower..
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/halalala.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by 9:35
what a miserable failure
|
Of course…if you didn’t get it;
yes, what a miserable failure – on your behalf..
Posted by: Canis Lupus
You're still bunching up all extremists as representative of the Muslim religion as a whole ... no amount of arguing will change the fact that you don't understand Islam at all, and just plugging up that lack of understanding with opinions which you try so hard to pass off as a semblance of the "truth"
The fact that you yourself admitted as not having read the Koran (for the lack of an english copy of it, correct me if I'm wrong), yet quote your "understanding" of it as if you actually read it, clearly IMPLIES that there's something inconsistent with your whole argument, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
A man who, from his childhood, was coerced into practicing a religion through and through, yet later saw the dark side of it and decided to flee it, thus having seen BOTH SIDES of the coin, that is not a reliable source…
…no, MUCH better suited is the unbiased viewpoint of a Taliban follower..
|
This post in informative not because of it's content, but because it reveals just how skewed your ideas are.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by 9:35
This post in informative not because of it's content, but because it reveals just how skewed your ideas are.
|
This post is informative not because of its content, but because of its lack of it http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/666%20.gif
Canis Lupus>
Read my prev. posts
Like I told Xoncide, AOTY2KB, Redwench & 9:35
- I cited the koran. Now if you're passing off what is said in the koran as a "semblance of truth", if the source of islam itself cannot be taken seriously, well yes how can anyone be expected to know anything about islam...
- I also said my friend was a (former) muslim. Who read the koran. More than once. So I don't know about you, but I think he knows what he's talking about...
But perhaps you are right - I understand little of islam, if anything. After the glimpse I caught of it, I simply don't wish to 
Take it as you wish, but this I say:
Siding with the Muslims/Islamists (still see a difference?) is akin to siding with people like Bush.
Oh and by the way:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolf
calling someone "cured" for switching religions has to be the most ignorant thing I ever heard
|
Another who just browsed through the thread, I see - shame on you!
Where did I ever defend chritianism or even any other religion for that matter?
=> And where did i say he "switched" religions? He forsook his religion and never took to another one - he's an atheist, just like me (yes I'm 99% sure there is no such thing as God. And if there is, well given the world we live in, we would be forced to believe in a Devil as well - and admit that the Devil may well be more powerful  )
Damnit, this is not a fair fight anyways. You're a mod & I'm not;
Grant me your powers, that we may battle on equal grounds
http://www.wtv-zone.com/fantome/smileys/jedi-smiley.gif
Posted by: AltronHGX
What does him being a mod have to do with having the discussion at hand--what advantage does he have over you at the level of a debate?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by AltronHGX
What does him being a mod have to do with having the discussion at hand--what advantage does he have over you at the level of a debate?
|
Aesop's fables - the Wolf & the Lamb (Speaking of the 'wolf'.. )
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
I understand little of islam, if anything.
Siding with the Muslims/Islamists (still see a difference?) is akin to siding with people like Bush.
|
These two statements alone show that you know absolutely nothing.
For your convenience, I have compressed all your posts into one sentence that you can use from now on:
"I'm ****ing clueless about Islam, but that wont stop me from degrading it!"
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
Originally posted by 9:35
For your convenience, I have compressed all your posts into one sentence that you can use from now on:
"I'm ****ing clueless about Islam, but that wont stop me from degrading it!"
|
Thank you. But the archive is corrupt. Let me rectify:
"I'm nearly clueless about islam, but with the little I DO know about it, I can afford to degrade it!"
Posted by: 9:35
Posted by: AltronHGX
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
Aesop's fables - the Wolf & the Lamb (Speaking of the 'wolf'.. )
|
I have no idea what that means. Can you stop using metaphors and tell me flat out why he has an advantage if you aren't breaking the forum's rules
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
Damnit, this is not a fair fight anyways. You're a mod & I'm not;
Grant me your powers, that we may battle on equal grounds
|
I don't understand this line of argument either. Is it because you want to insult me instead of my argument and want to get away scot-free? You think moderator powers give you that? Is it because I prsent a valid point of discussion and you're just finding an acceptable scapegoat in order to avoid the question?
And what equal powers are you talking about? What power? Power to ban people? Power to reprimand people who are breaking rules? The power to have to put up with daily squabbling between members and try to reach a compromise? If so, how will that help your argument? You want the power to ban me if you can't answer my questions? What "equal grounds" are you talking about? I am attacking your argument, and you are free to attack mine.
The common retort in your arguments is that we should re-read what you wrote. Well, I DID re-read what you wrote. Want a quote?
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
A good friend. A lebanese. A former muslim (yes, I said former: he disavowed his religion - which he now loathes more than anything else - and is now "cured" ).
|
Was that "his" opinion or yours? Which part do I need to re-read?
I'm questioning the argument because 75% of your points are heresay, and most of the pseudo-truths you have spread were based on implications, assumptions and unreliable sources. Your "authority" on Islam is a disgruntled convert, and you speak of "unadulerated" truths that are based on second-hand information.
I didn't even imply you were defending Christianity (can you specify which part of my posts "assume" that?). And I'm no bible-toting Christian or koran-waving Muslim myself, so I don't have biases in this case. Nor am I an atheist, either.
If you can't defend your argument, just say so. Don't make me or any of the moderators a scapegoat for any lack of a valid debunking on your part. If you're not flaming anyone, or doing anything against the forum rules, what are you so afraid of?
You can debate all you want, just don't claim to be an expert in things you don't fully understand. It makes the natives restless.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
As for Bush, hey, I don't mind if you call him Satan himself (which you probably won't since you're an atheist), as long as you prove your point and debate it properly. Metaphors are used to draw a point, not to prove it...
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Just so you wouldn't think I wasn't re-reading your posts
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
- I cited the koran. Now if you're passing off what is said in the koran as a "semblance of truth", if the source of islam itself cannot be taken seriously, well yes how can anyone be expected to know anything about islam...
|
You just admitted not having read it, how can you cite it, much less interpret what it means?
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
- I also said my friend was a (former) muslim. Who read the koran. More than once. So I don't know about you, but I think he knows what he's talking about...
|
But the problem here is that you get a biased interpretation of what the Koran is. Do you think you will get an equal interpretation from someone who is not a disgruntled Muslim? How do you know which point is more valid - the one for or the one against? And in order to prove what he's saying, did you do your own unbiased research?
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
Take it as you wish, but this I say:
Siding with the Muslims/Islamists (still see a difference?) is akin to siding with people like Bush.
|
I have no love for Bush, but I still ask you to prove that point. Or do I need to re-read something?
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
=> And where did i say he "switched" religions? He forsook his religion and never took to another one - he's an atheist, just like me (yes I'm 99% sure there is no such thing as God. And if there is, well given the world we live in, we would be forced to believe in a Devil as well - and admit that the Devil may well be more powerful )
|
If you're only 99% sure there is no God, you're not an atheist, you're still a skeptic.
Atheism is a doctrine - a doctrine in the belief that there is "no" belief, and maybe I was wrong to consider it a religion, altho I personally still consider any belief (or disbelief) in something a religion of sorts. Still, I reiterate - how can someone be "cured" if they did away with their belief? This coming from someone who has not experienced Islam, or been a practicing Muslim. How can the free world claim to know how bad Communism was from the get-go if they haven't experienced a society under Communism - but only base their dislike for it due to the fact that their old enemies were Communists? Oh wait, my apologies, that was a metaphor
Here I am engaging in a friendly debate with you. Wanna bite?
Posted by: Xoncide
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Atheism is a doctrine - a doctrine in the belief that there is "no" belief, and maybe I was wrong to consider it a religion, altho I personally still consider any belief (or disbelief) in something a religion of sorts.
|
Atheism is a religion by definition of religion. As an atheist your God are the laws that govern the universe. They are your creator and your absolute authority.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
Originally posted by Xoncide
As an atheist your God are the laws that govern the universe.
|
If, by saying this you mean physical laws like gravity and motion, then what makes these laws different to Christian compared to an Athiest?
Posted by: Xoncide
They hold them as the creator of existence.
Posted by: 9:35
You're thinking of people that believe in science as their beginning. I could be an Athiest while simply not giving a **** about a God or science, much less how I got here in the first place.
Posted by: armystud0911
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
It is the koran that decrees that a woman be stoned to death if she commits adultery (but a man can have 4 wives if I'm not mistaken).
|
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
some of the other ones are very similar to whats in the bible. but that one definitely is in the christian bible. the koran, like the bible, is a rather large book that is full of inconsistencies. if you were to take everything literally, youd lose your mind.
id like to see the passage that explicitly forbids abortion, btw. not an interpretation of a prohibition on murder, but an explicit statement.
|
The Bible DOES NOT state the a man can have 4 wives ANYWHERE, only the Morman Bible states that, also in leviticus 10:20 the bible reads...
And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
The Bible does not support this biased opinion that only the woman shall ve punished, also in the new testament, Jesus brought the church under grace and not (merely) the law, and therefore this is not in any supported by the christian church.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
In the Old Testament, Abraham had 2 wives and 2 concubines (maybe more, I can't remember my Bible forcefeeding, hehe). King David himself had several wives, but of course the argument would be that he was a big sinner in the latter part of his life. In fact, prior to Moses, the Bible was swarmed with polygamy among the major "characters."
Let's also consider that adultery as it was defined in the Old Testament meant that you cannot have sex with someone else's wife or someone who was not married (maybe), but this does not mean that the commandments explicitly mention that you can only have ONE wife - it merely says you cannot cheat on your wife by using someone else's wife or someone who was unmarried.
The Old Testament is ripe with biases against women. Of course, most preachers and fundamentalists conveniently ignore the Old Testament and base everything that a Bible is supposed to be on the New Testament... to them, the New Testament "is" the Bible, not merely a part of it.
Posted by: armystud0911
Yes Abraham did have 4 sexual partners but I asked for where the Bible said that a man can have as many as 4 wives and no more like in the morman Bible.
Posted by: armystud0911
God has never approved, nor made lawful, more than one living wife for any man. Quite the contrary, He FORBADE IT, even to the kings of Israel, and that by written STATUTE!
Abraham was not a polygamist. While Sarah, his wife, lived, he never married any other woman.
Abraham had an illegitimate son by Hagar. But that was an adulterous SIN. Although it renders it nonetheless a SIN, I think we can recognize extenuating circumstances.
Sarah was barren. For a wife in ancient times to go childless was felt to be a disgrace. It was Sarah, Abraham's own wife, who brought to Abraham her servant handmaid, asking him to produce a child for Sarah by this servant woman. We can imagine Hagar to have been attractive, and not necessarily lacking in voluptuous charms simply because she was a servant. That temptation, under these circumstances, at Sarah's instigation, might have been great. Certainly the very invitation coming from Sarah would have made it harder to resist.
Abraham was a strong man. But this temptation appears to have been stronger. All humans have sinned. Abraham was human. Abraham lied when he twice claimed Sarah was his sister, fearing for his own life.
Abraham was not without sin. But neither this adultery, nor the two lies, were sins of the nature that springs from a wrong attitude of mind or heart. Abraham, in his heart, was always OBEDIENT to GOD. There was no spirit of hostility or rebellion. These sins were of the FLESH, under temptation -- not malicious or rebellious sins of the heart. But they were SINS! God forgave Abraham's sins of spiritual weakness, committed under heavy temptation.
Nevertheless, we all must REAP what we sow -- even though God forgives our sins upon repentance. God refused to approve this adulterous act of Abraham. He rejected the illegitimate son, Ishmael, from the birthright. This transgression produced jealousy between the women. It resulted in trouble, controversy, suffering.
In Genesis 21:8-21 is the record of Hagar's departure from Sarah and Abraham. God ordered Abraham to send away the concubine Hagar and her son, and Abraham obeyed. This was at the time Isaac was weaned. Abraham had, after this, no more relations with Hagar, or his other concubine, Susanna, who is mentioned in the ancient Austrian Chronicle -- see Genesis 25:6 where you will read that Abraham's concubines' sons were sent away.
Sarah's death is recorded in Genesis 23:1-2. It was after that (Gen. 25), that Abraham married Keturah. This, of course, was a perfectly legal marriage. There was no polygamy -- no divorce.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are termed, in both Old and New Testaments, "the Fathers." Jesus Christ came to confirm the PROMISES made to "the Fathers." The unconditional promises God made to Abraham were repeated to both Isaac and Jacob.
Herbert W. Armstrong
Posted by: redwench
the mormons are not christians? or thier bible is not a bible? which is it?
Posted by: armystud0911
I do not believe in the morman Bible. The two religions are actually COMPLETELY different at least the way I see it.
Posted by: redwench
thats nice, and certainly your perogative. i dont believe in the koran, that does not make it any thing other than a holy book, or "bible" of islam. i dont believe in the mormon bible either. that doesnt keep it from being one. and as far as i know, they meet the most basic definition of christians.
Posted by: armystud0911
ok, than yeah I see what you meant by "Bible" in the previous message.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
I'd gladly - if I had a copy of the koran and could speak arab, heh..
|
how the hell can you cite the koran if youve never cracked the book open? perhaps youre citing what someone said was in it?
Posted by: IceBreaker
So much has been said
So much remains to be said
CURSE THIS TIMESHIFT
I'll be back in 5 hours
Be prepared! http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...es/devilish.gif
Posted by: AOTY2KB
14 hours later and I see such controversy.
Don't worry Ice, I shall answer your above questions in a little while. Firstly, FYI the Qu'ran does not dictate 4 wives, but the idea of polygamy as acceptable. It is the House of Saud (Ruling Saudi Arabian government) with the religious dictation of the House of Wahib to mandate a maximum of 4 wives. My beliefs of how the Qu'ran allows polygamy is if the male is able to support multiple wives. Remember this culture developed in a very harsh climate, a sandy desert. Of course I may be wrong; there is only one unaltered version of the Qu'ran yet many clerics with their own spin. This is also an answer to Post #60 Ice. One Qu'ran, many Clerics who translate it for the people while massaging it to fit their needs. The need of power! When you have mass poverty, few literate, what does one turn too? Religion, hope etc. (Prime example known as the late Mother Theresa did a great job of helping the poor and make converts.) These clerics are more than happy to provide hope, provide a way of life, provide learning. Very few people are willing to speak out and become a heretic for fear of persecution and few have actually learned much else of the sciences. Think of it of Christianity in the Middle Ages.
 
PS When I said favoured, I spoke of what you wrote as the standards of Islam.
PPS As for the loss of hands for stealing according to Islamic Law works quite well. I have yet to find missing/stolen luggage when I fly on a Middle Eastern airline to Southeast Asia. 
Posted by: IceBreaker
OK comrades, this could be a very long post…
…but what must be done…
…must be done, heh.
Alea Jecta Est
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
I don't understand this line of argument either. Is it because you want to insult me instead of my argument and want to get away scot-free?
|
NO! You didn't get it. I do not wish to arouse anyone's ire. I simply wish to carry out a normal discussion. But when the mods are involved, obviously that is impossible - or damn close to it. But that is only my opinion.
However, there is a solution – that I will put forth towards the end of the post (to make sure you don’t overlook it, heh)
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
You think moderator powers give you that?
|
Well…yes actually ‘tis sad, but that’s the way things work. Those who wield the power play by their own rules – “abuse of power”, ring a bell? Come now, having your own dictator in the White House, I’m sure you’ll know what I mean (…)
=> But then again, that is NOT my intent. Debates are much more enjoyable when carried out in a civilized manner - and if it comes down to bandying words, I prefer murdering my opponents with intellect rather than crude verbal abuse
At least when possible
(ain't easy )
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
And what equal powers are you talking about? What power? Power to ban people? Power to reprimand people who are breaking rules? The power to have to put up with daily squabbling between members and try to reach a compromise? If so, how will that help your argument? You want the power to ban me if you can't answer my questions? What "equal grounds" are you talking about
|
A bit of all that, actually (…)
No seriously, that part about my asking to be granted mod superpowers…that was humour, mostly.
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
The common retort in your arguments is that we should re-read what you wrote.
|
yes – and ALL of it, if you please; I hate having to repeat myself; so this “common retort” comes in handy, thank Microsoft for cut & paste..
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Is it because I prsent a valid point of discussion and you're just finding an acceptable scapegoat in order to avoid the question?
[…]
If you can't defend your argument, just say so. Don't make me or any of the moderators a scapegoat for any lack of a valid debunking on your part.
[…]
I'm questioning the argument because 75% of your points are heresay, and most of the pseudo-truths you have spread were based on implications, assumptions and unreliable sources. Your "authority" on Islam is a disgruntled convert, and you speak of "unadulerated" truths that are based on second-hand information.
[…]
Was that "his" opinion or yours?
|
Well up to now your “valid points of discussion” were confined to disputing mine – without any arguments of substance to back you up. You’re referring to my friend – pejoratively - as a “disgruntled convert”. But isn’t that statement somewhat biased? Leaving aside the fact that you don’t even know him, let me add that “disgruntled” is more than inappropriate – “enlightened” might be more befitting, for he at least was strong-willed enough to see through the hypocrisy & illusions his own family brought him up in. Like I said, he has seen both sides of the coin – he has read the koran and knows the religion for what it is.
Yes, he’s a friend. And hey, he’s a grown up now - and when he speaks up against his former religion, I don’t think he does so just for the pleasure of it. Don’t you ever trust any of your friends?
And yes, I admit I readily believe him, for his opinions were mine LONG before I even got to know him. Remember that where I live, 15% of the population is of muslim confession – with the percentage soaring way beyond that figure in the suburbs. I’ve had my own dealings with the riff-raff that lives here, even my own share of street fights when returning home from college for example, heh.
They boast about their religion – which they even put into practice btw, following the ramadan ritual & so on - yet whenever you hear of an outbreak of crime, violence or simple civil misconduct ,for example spitting in the subway, smoking in crowded non-smoking areas, wreaking havoc in the neighbourhood, smashing car windows, setting synagogues on fire, bicycle theft, banding together in groups of 12 to rob one person (how brave) defiling jewish graveyards, unearthing the corpses & marking them with nazi symbols, stabbing a person just because the victim was unfortunate enough to criticize their way of life (yes believe me, such behaviour is endemic where I live) you will almost always see them in the foreground.
And when all this occurs on such a regular basis, it is hard to ascribe it to mere coincidence (…)
Quote:
Originally posted by Canis Lupus
If you're not flaming anyone, or doing anything against the forum rules, what are you so afraid of?
|
< | |
