British Muslim Woman Writes Poems About Beheadings - Page 5

barrons · 11-14-2007, 10:41 PM

The world including relatively civilized countries like England and France was a very much different harsh and bloodier place as recently as 200 years ago. The difference is the modern countries and religions have made PROGRESS and don't do those things anymore while many Muslims are stuck around 1000 AD.

lealdragon · 11-14-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

You stand ready to pardon terrorists who consider their duties to kill as many infidels as possible ?

edvest, you have really crossed the line here. Who ever said ANYTHING about pardoning terrorists???

I get really annoyed whenever people assume that someone who seeks to understand rattlesnake behavior before they walk in the rattlesnake-infested desert, and points out other poisonous snakes in other areas, are accused of giving rattlesnakes to children as pets.

Terrorism is vile and evil, wherever it is found. Religious fanaticism is vile and evil, regardless of which religion it is found in. Historically, violent religious fanaticism was found predominately in the Christian religion. Today, it is concentrated in Islam.

It's vile all the same.

When pointing out the atrocities committed by Christians, it is NOT pardoning Moslems! (how do you get that anyway???) It is simply cautioning people that such atrocities have been found in other cultures as well, and that we should heed the warning signs that such atrocities COULD happen in our culture again if we're not vigilant. On a small scale, they've already happened with abortion clinic bombings. And, there are some 'christian' fanatics who seem determined to follow a path similar to that of Islam - I have heard at least 2 seemingly 'normal' evangelical 'Christians' tell me that all the Iraqis should be killed since "they are doomed to 'hell' anyway." Recently. No kidding.

There are 'Christian' fanatics who would love to round up all the gays and kill them. The only reason they aren't successful (like the Moslem terrorists) is that our country has laws and police etc. whereas chaos reigns in Iraq.

Fanaticism is scary stuff. The 'Moslem' terrorists are committing horrible atrocities. No one is excusing them, and we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't twist our words and accuse us of doing that when you know we aren't.

At the same time, it would be prudent to pay attention to what's happening and make sure it doesn't happen here. Look for the warning signs. There are fanatics who would like to bring back witch hunts.

1of42 · 11-14-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edvest1

So christians commit mayhems too, what's the big deal! That is what you and people like 1of42 is saying. You stand ready to pardon terrorists who consider their duties to kill as many infidels as possible ?

Show me where I said anything like that. Show me.

You can't, because I never, ever said that. I've never pardoned terrorists. Ever. I just don't assume innocent Muslims are about to blow me up. Do you?

Stop putting words in my mouth. Learn to distinguish between explaining a behavior in condoning it. You're making yourself look foolish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by edvest1

1of42, I maybe "simple-minded" but not confused-minded like you and other liberals. You are confused about rights and wrongs. Far from perfect but I strive toward my ideals in working toward the rights and moving away from wrongs. You move NOWHERE with your liberal precepts but stand and cheer at every misfortune our government suffers. It's us not them. Sigh.

I strive towards my ideals too. I just happen to be clear about what rights and wrongs actually are - and in my book, grouping Muslims with terrorists merely because they share the same religion is a wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by edvest1

This all goes back to how a defective liberal mind works: taking contrarian views because it's more colorful, making wrongs not appear so wrong is covertly satisfying. And making fun and denigrate rightfulness works in the same way. The rightful position always seems outdated, uninteresting, slaps one in the face. The liberal position is capricious and fun. I on the other hand believe real truths is really not that complicated. On the other thread where we exchanged heated debate, you know the one: "Maine Middle School to Offer Birth Control", I was talking about chaste is best 11 year olds and you are all for 11 year old girls to get the pill because of your twisted reasons mistaken for compassion. How does one get this kind of mindset: one way is by feeding on liberal press because by nature liberal media make more interest reads. In order to sell they have to put out that trash. And one liberal editor will try to out-liberal another by making more bizarre claims. After 30 or 40 years of brain washing by leftist liberal media, a person is so misled and ingrained with this stuff that obsecure their grip on reality.

There's this construct I like to call the paragraph. This particular paragraph is made up of several. Try to separate.

That said: Are you serious? On the Maine birth control issue, I was very clear. I think 11 year olds having sex is very unfortunate. I would rather they didn't.

But unfortunately, they don't listen to me. And they won't listen to you either. And in fact, many of them won't even listen to their parents on this issue (instead having sex behind their parents' backs). Recognizing that fact (which you either ignore or dispute, in either case being wrong), I posit that it is better to have sexually active 11 year olds who aren't getting pregnant than sexually active 11 year olds who are. Do you disagree?

As for the rest of your paragraph: Yes, I suppose I must be brainwashed. Totally brainwashed, indeed. Leave aside the fact that I really don't hold the vast majority of "liberal" ideals (I'm libertarian, which I've told you at least 3 times now, and you keep ignoring - libertarianism is not liberalism!). Leave aside also that I rarely take what the media says at face value - if I did, I would've been cheering for the war in Iraq at its inception, among other things, and I was not.

I don't denigrate rightness. I don't make wrongs appear any less wrong than they are. You might think I do, but that's because you're misguided. (Ooh, see how well I can make points that have no substance? I think I might be just as good as you at it!)

There is real truth out there, but it's often very complicated. The fact that you are apparently unaware of how complex the real world really is is highly unfortunate, and will serve you badly.

WashDad · 11-15-2007, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lealdragon

Historically, violent religious fanaticism was found predominately in the Christian religion.

This is wrong, as it turns out. Do you know why the Crusaders were trying to conquer the Holy Land? It's because Christians had been driven out by Moslems 300 years before. Do you know why Christians drove the Moorish Moslems out of Spain? Because the Moslems had taken the Iberian Peninsula from Christians. Do you know why there has been Christian/Moslem tension in the Balkans for the last 100+ years? Because the Moslem Ottomans invaded Christian Europe.

There has been a lot of plain old political aggression under the cover of Christianity over the years, but the faith itself never called for the military conquest of others. In fact, the teachings of Jesus are pretty much exactly the opposite.

I won't comment on Islam since I haven't tried to read the Koran in about 30 years, and never made much progress even then. I will say that political leaders have committed just as much mayhem and brutality under the guise of Islam as has been done by nominal Christians. Just for one, Christians around the world abandoned slavery before Moslems did, and there is some evidence that slavery is still in place in a couple of Muslim African countries.

gnrfan · 11-15-2007, 01:21 AM

I'm a former Muslim who has studied the Koran and it says a lot of disturbing things like "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51) and "Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-). Furthermore, the Hadiths which are stories of his life that Muhammad was a ruthless warlord who looted caravans, massacred "unbelievers," and made sex slaves of their wives. Most shockingly he married one of his wives, Aisha, when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. What does this make him. A paedo.... Try as they might, Muslim fundamentalists and their liberal apologists can't sugar coat these truths. To learn more about the true nature of Islam go to Faith Freedom International and remember...
Ignorance
Savagery
Laziness
Arrogance
Misogyny

1of42 · 11-15-2007, 02:14 AM

Yeah, but the Bible says all kinds of absolutely terrible things too. Doesn't mean such things are part of the modern religion.

razorsharp · 11-15-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman -- whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms -- was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," the Arab News reported.

But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia's Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.

A court source told the English-language Arab News that the judges had decided to punish the woman further for "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."

I wonder what moderate muslims think of lashing as a form of punishment.

I wonder what moderate muslims think of 200 lashes for being in a car with an unrelated male. Did the males get lashings for being in a car with an unrelated female?

I wonder what moderate muslims think of upping the punishment because the woman complained to the media.

Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes

emeraldkity4 · 11-15-2007, 06:43 PM

I wonder what Christians are doing about

Religious News Online - "A Nun's Story": What I Know About the Priest Scandal

Southern Baptist Leaders Challenged to Get Tough on Sex Abuse by Clergy

Boston Globe / Spotlight / Abuse in the Catholic Church / Scandal and coverup

edvest1 · 11-15-2007, 07:57 PM

Typical liberal or libertarian response: Fill in the blanks

* Just because its < blanks > doesn't mean < blanks >

* Even if it is < blanks >, it's not necessary < blanks >

* When you found some damning evidence, they will argue the contrary using anything they can dig it no matter how remote.
example from post #66 "yeah, but < blanks > too."
example from post #68 Various references to Catholic priest sex
(what's the point in bringing that up ? Is it your point to say
muslim terrorists are not so bad, look we have funny priests too ?

I've studied them in depth now. It's always variation of this theme. They try to win argument everytime using above technique. With this they try to excuse the inexcusable. With this they apologize for everything.

I said it before and will say again: Real truths are really not all that complicated.

Only the liberals and the likes mucked it up.

emeraldkity4 · 11-15-2007, 09:32 PM

Have you ever heard of pot calling kettle?

Man created religion.
Man is flawed.
Religion have flaws.
Surprised?
Apparently is human nature to think your religion is better than the one next door.
Perhaps from your perspective, but not necessarily your neighbors.

However- just because something is being done in the name of fill in the blank religion/belief/nationality- how do you figure it follows that religion/belief/nationality = the named act?

yourworld · 11-16-2007, 12:14 AM

Emerald, this one religion does more than saying my religion is better than your religion. It called for destruction of infidels. I think that is an important difference.