Fine i've converted to your side... Muslim fundamentalisim is fine, if not better than other cultures.
I am glad some people saw my point. I am glad to see not everyone has a closed mind with narrow views.
And to the person with the facts about musli mthat were mostly false saying that I was defending terrorists... you read with your eyes... thought you might want to know that since i stated four or more times iwas not defending them, but was defending the people who are condemed because of the small percentage who make their religious beleifs look bad. Its called an open mind. Terrorism will never be just.
P.S. I am not even american.
But i never thought all muslims are evil, and i'm offended that you people asumed that.
I know nothing about muslim fundamentalist culture or how much it's related to terror. w/e hold on...
At 10/21/05 09:30 PM, smith916 wrote: Fine i've converted to your side... Muslim fundamentalisim is fine, if not better than other cultures.
Thats a defeatist attitude = lack of conviction.
Muslim or christian or whatever, they are not 'better' than each other, they are just a way of life, way of LIVING life.
Also, I wrote a bunch of stuff on pg. 2 - I thought it was interesting at least; Just don't skip right to pg 3 without reading it!!! Thanks :D
At 10/21/05 09:37 PM, RedScorpion wrote:At 10/21/05 09:30 PM, smith916 wrote: Fine i've converted to your side... Muslim fundamentalisim is fine, if not better than other cultures.Thats a defeatist attitude = lack of conviction.
Muslim or christian or whatever, they are not 'better' than each other, they are just a way of life, way of LIVING life.
Also, I wrote a bunch of stuff on pg. 2 - I thought it was interesting at least; Just don't skip right to pg 3 without reading it!!! Thanks :D
why would someone skip it? thats just losing info...... and it was smith with the false imfo on muslims.
That was what i was told. if you wish to bring male upon me then do so now while i'm young at the unexpecting public will make a big deal of it.
male = Death with a malice of forsight, possibly including rape or sexual abuse, can only be done by a male.
like i said.. it was what i was told. But if muslim is better than i'll go with it. i become less of me every day.
At 10/21/05 09:57 PM, smith916 wrote:
like i said.. it was what i was told. But if muslim is better than i'll go with it. i become less of me every day.
Change is part of who we are. Just don't arbitrarily commit to or reject something, to make it part of you, before careful consideration.
like i said, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to be right. i cant back it up. New's channels or rumors dont county and i best be burned alive and destroyed should i ever consider those usefull.
I doubted that a muslim woman would be upset or angry about the way of life if there was no real universe or enviorment to compair it to.
You call that emphasis for effect? Sad, really.
Actually, since you want to get semantic on me, hyperbole is defined as "a deliberate exaggeration or overstatement". It's not sad, it's definitive.
Teach me, I'm studying it.
Well, where to start, really, is with Plato, all the way through Kant, including a good dose of John Stuart Mill. I don't have enough room here to explain it to you, but I'd be happy to do so via email if you'd like.
Even though your definition is incorrect, all you did was prove my point.
1.) My definition is NOT incorrect, especially in the face of your lack of response to it. And I don't prove your point, I went on to define utility for you, which is contrary to the point you're trying to make.
Japan.
I was referring to the current war in Iraq/Afghanistan, but I'll accept Japan as a response, and counter that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved more lives than it cost. If we had continued our fire-bombing campaign, millions more Japanese and Americans would have died. By shocking them into surrender, we prevented a bloodbath.
I never said it was the only form of terrorism.
1.) You said "terrorism is mass death". Your lack of inclusion of other definitions is a good reason for me to assume that is what you meant.
2.) I am _not_ confusing terrorism with assasination. If Mohammen ben Islam goes and blows himself up in the plaza, but only kills one 9 year old Jewish girl on a field trip instead of 900, that's still terrorism.
:What is terrorism? Actual definition: The unlawful use or threatened use of force...
Note: people. Nothing about methodology either.
To sum it up: a violent act in order to intimidate or coerce a government.
Oh, wow, way to define yourself into being correct. Unfortunately, that's an incredibly naive and limited definition of terrorism, because it can easily be construed to include any and all threats and/or use of force. In reality, if I threaten to beat the shit out of some dude, that's not terrorism. In your definition, it is. It fails the reality test.
Exactly.
I don't think that was ever in question. It still doesn't disprove my point.
You going to tell me exactly what most is? It is broad.
I think that it's safe to say that 99%+ of terrorist attacks are by Arabs or Muslims.
A man born with nothing to do with any religion...
No, that's the point. A man who is NOT a Muslim could NOT just as likely become a terrorist as a Muslim. While both COULD become terrorists, Mohammed is more likley than Johnny by a large factor.
My point is that it isn’t the only view...
Yes, but then you went and tried to negate my opinion by saying that I don't know how Arabs live, and I didn't grow up in that culture. Your relatavism has been exposed as fraudulent, move on.
I like how you have to resort to swearing, and images such as that....
Oh, I'm sorry, do you not like being confronted with the results of your ideology? That's what goes on in the Islamic world, and you can't ignore it because it displeases you.
The point is, it doesn't matter how your society evolves, there are some rules you have to play by if you want to hang with the big boys in the world. You have to acknowledge simple facts, like the notions that rape, murder, and the abuse of women are all _wrong_, objectively. Otherwise, you haven't proven yourself civilized, and you shouldn't be treated that way. This isn't an issue of morality, it's a black and white issue of right and wrong.
And who said they aren’t? Think about the cripple the war on terror...
What? That sentence is hardly coherent. In case you forgot, Bush won an election not even a year ago with the most votes that any candidate EVER recieved. Yes, his numbers are down now, but that's hardly related to the war on terror.
The terrorists _aren't_ winning this war. We're killing more of them every day, crippling their infrastructure, cutting them off from the funds they need to kill more innocents. This might be a good point to realize that you just don't have the knowledge base for this argument, and pull out, Maverick.
He attacked Iraq... his excuse... nuclear weapons... ....
Another semi-coherent block of text. First off, it's non-responsive. I ask you what the right way is, you tell me that you don't like what Bush does.
There were MANY reasons put forward for invading Iraq. The only reason people focus on WMD's is because that's the ONE, of about a hundred, that's proven wrong. You wanted us to work with Saddam, a genocidal maniac who'd time and time again proven that he was a bastard unwilling to play nice with other nations? That's your grand solution? Ask a man who has been harboring terrorists for 10 years to suddenly turn them in and help us out in the invasion?
Solution? I don't have one, but neither does Bush. Look at London...
This, more than any other sentence you've written, proves that you just don't get it, and have such a limited view of reality, the war on terror, and politics in general that it may well be impossible to continue this.
Do you know what derived means? As in, what did Islam derive from.. at one point... the stone age.
What the fuck are you talking about? That's completely non-sensical. The birth of Islam has as much to do with the Stone Age as the Protestant Reformation. Make a fucking argument.
No it isn't, or it wouldnt exist today. It is structured for whatever time they want to follow it in.
Wow. What don't you get dude? Islam is the EXACT same today as it was 1400 years ago. While, yes, people still practice it today, they're adhering to the totality of a religion whose prnciples and edicts are stuck in the morality of the 7th century. This isn't fucking rocket science.
No, you can have views. I do too, a lot of which coincide with yours, but it doesn’t make either of us right.
If no one can be right, how do you evaluate competing views?
You are stereotyping again. Plus, I bet if I was one of those people, I could argue each point to the wazoo, I have no idea.
And I'd pwn you then just like I'm pwning you now.
It does not give you that right. That is a sadistic statement.
No, that's what comes with being advanced. Once you're the standard bearer for civilization, everyone else has to act like you or you don't acknowledge them.
yet, it still has stuff that help people out even in todays world. You have to read it to understand how much it actually covers.
Dude, people claim that SCIENTOLOGY helps them out. That's not litmus test.
This is not an act of islam! Thats like saying christians are supposed to do drugs and drink beer!
Oooo, except it is. The writings of the Muslim jurists of the 12th century condone and endorse that practice.
Women have rights just as much as men do.
No they don't. They can't own property, they can't drive, can't teach, are responsible for being raped, do I need to go on? Are you really trying to defend the proposition that Islam is tolerant of women's rights???
:We dont kill people that convert people to our religion.
1.) Huh? Right. You kill people who _don't_ convert.
:How are you better? Becuase you drink? Becuase you smoke? Because you live a complex life instead of living a simple life that is more relaxing? Your just racist, plain and simple.
No, I'm better because I don't kill women for being raped, or engage in wholescale oppression of people. That's how. It's not racist to say that Islam is a backwards, archaic religion that would best serve the world by ceasing to exist tomorrow.
I'd just like to point out that what you are asking for, is the complete drainage of all your societal goods to 'mandatory' levels,
Yes, I'd love to see the socialist aspect of the nation dissolve immediately. That's sort of the point, dude.
:for the complete destruction of a people of which forms a small percentage of the Islam religion (approx 1% or less follow the extremist form of Islam, which forms part of Wahhabism - 10% of population.
1.) ALL of Wahhabism is extremist, supports terrorism, and endorses and condones terrorist methods.
2.) Not all terrorists are Wahabbists. There are regular Sunnis and Shiites as well.
3.) It's cheaper to kill them all with a couple of bombs than it is to maintain a long ass war.
This one percent interprets the koran in a demented way...) You are saying (what I see of it), that you would sacrifice what things you pride on, in order to destroy an enemy that lurks in the shadows.
No, not really. I mean, we'd sacrifice about 10-20% of our nuclear arsenal, but I'm not worried about that.
I propose that the reason the terrorists are so against america is because they hate it, right? Why not concentrate efforts not on trying to suppress the enemy with firepower, but by attacking the very reasoning they are using against the US?
1.) You can't forcibly convert people, unless you're converting htem TO Islam.
2.) While we're being all nice and peachy and sweet, they'll still be killing us.
3.) It's not logic or reason that leads you to blow up a school, it's emotionalism, which can't be dealt with.
4.) They've forfeitted the right to be treated like equal partners at the bargaining table. They want to kill us? We'll kill em back, and we've got better tools.
:This is not a war that can be won through how many bullets you have, or how many bombs you can launch. This war has to be won through morals, and destroy this extremism that
exists in their hearts.
Aww, how cute. Sesame Street global politics.
:I know, its not the conventional method, and its not the tactics that we want to take (revenge, revenge!!), but in this way that we are currently taking, some factors are coming in play to support that reasoning of theirs (such as the various scandals that have occured.)
What exactly would you do? Explain to them how, really, they should like freedom and democracy, and then hope they just pull the eject lever on terrorism? This is so naive it's laughable.
Last point I want to make - Being more advanced, either in technology, or societal development, does not make us more morally adept. We may have more resources to learn and develop from, but individuals must develop on their own - their society does and cannot refine morals for that individual (although it can influence their path). Stop considering yourself morally superior DMXRoid; it faults your judgement.
Your morals, as many people have pointed out, are developed in part due to your environment. If I was an Arab, I'd probably think it's cool to murder Jew babies too, but that wouldn't make it RIGHT. If you want to be taken seriously in the world, and the Arabs seem to want that, then they have to play by our rules. They have to treat their citizens like human beings, and respect women's rights. If they want to hole up in their caves and kill eachother, and maintain a flawed morality, fine, let them. But once they come out and play with the rest of us, they have to act like we do. And yes, we are morally superior to them. If you honestly can't see why a culture that endorses abuse, molestation, and female genital mutilation is inferior to one that produced the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then you're out of your fucking gourd, and your relativism has overwhelmed your common sense.
At 10/21/05 11:00 PM, DMXRoid wrote:
No, that's what comes with being advanced. Once you're the standard bearer for civilization, everyone else has to act like you or you don't acknowledge them.
Is this not a isolationist position you are taking, Mr. relativist? You seem to sure deal with alot of absolutes in dishing out refutements.
Is this not a isolationist position you are taking, Mr. relativist? You seem to sure deal with alot of absolutes in dishing out refutements.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm _attacking_ relatavism, not endorsing it. I think that rellativism is a morally and intellectually bankrupt worldview, and those who adopt it are fools.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. I love the absolutes.
Actually, I think you are taking this position 'my way or the highway' when you are arguing your points. I seriously bet you consider yourself morally superior to all of us, excepting those who align with your views.
At 10/21/05 11:21 PM, DMXRoid wrote: I think you misunderstand me. I'm _attacking_ relatavism, not endorsing it.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. I love the absolutes.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up :)
Can somone please explain to be in deep detail about deficites and the spending on the war.
Also, what do you think about my propaganda strategy? I'd be interested in hearing an opinion on it.
At 10/21/05 11:00 PM, DMXRoid wrote:
No, that's the point. A man who is NOT a Muslim could NOT just as likely become a terrorist as a Muslim. While both COULD become terrorists, Mohammed is more likley than Johnny by a large factor.
racist fuck
The point is, it doesn't matter how your society evolves, there are some rules you have to play by if you want to hang with the big boys in the world. You have to acknowledge simple facts, like the notions that rape, murder, and the abuse of women are all _wrong_, objectively. Otherwise, you haven't proven yourself civilized, and you shouldn't be treated that way. This isn't an issue of morality, it's a black and white issue of right and wrong.
The big boys huh? Look, those things are all against islam, ok, so stop saying stupid shit like this.
What? That sentence is hardly coherent. In case you forgot, Bush won an election not even a year ago with the most votes that any candidate EVER recieved. Yes, his numbers are down now, but that's hardly related to the war on terror.
You could have fooled me, because whenever i ask someone if there for the war, they say fuck bush.....
He attacked Iraq... his excuse... nuclear weapons... ....Another semi-coherent block of text. First off, it's non-responsive. I ask you what the right way is, you tell me that you don't like what Bush does.
There were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, so Bush got screwed there, which is one of his main reasons to go to Iraq, which is another reason why no one likes bush.
Wow. What don't you get dude? Islam is the EXACT same today as it was 1400 years ago. While, yes, people still practice it today, they're adhering to the totality of a religion whose prnciples and edicts are stuck in the morality of the 7th century. This isn't fucking rocket science.
Unless you pick up the holy quaran, and actually read it, you wont get it. It has answers for stuff that will happen in your daily life, and what whill happen in certain situations and everything, just because its from 1400 years ago, doesnt mean that is is being barbaric or something of the sort, which i have been hearing for a while now.
No, that's what comes with being advanced. Once you're the standard bearer for civilization, everyone else has to act like you or you don't acknowledge them.
What a stupid thing to say. Im sick of people like you that think you are better because you have better technology. If you think the states has the best technology, you better think again, because the Japanese has way better technology and are way smarter then people in the states.
At 10/21/05 11:28 PM, smith916 wrote: Can somone please explain to be in deep detail about deficites and the spending on the war.
Can somone please explain to me in deep detail about deficites and spending on the war
At 10/21/05 11:00 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Actually, since you want to get semantic on me, hyperbole is defined as "a deliberate exaggeration or overstatement". It's not sad, it's definitive.
...for emphasis or effect. I got my big ass websters dictionary out. I was right.
Teach me, I'm studying it.Well, where to start, really, is with Plato...
It was sarcasm, as in, I alreay know... because I am studying it.
Japan.I was referring to the current war in Iraq/Afghanistan, but I'll accept Japan as a response, and counter that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved more lives than it cost. If we had continued our fire-bombing campaign, millions more Japanese and Americans would have died. By shocking them into surrender, we prevented a bloodbath.
Easily said, this is no better than terrorism itself, and quite possibly could be considered as such an act. Though the attack was claimed to be on a military target, it is well known that little militancy was permanently oppressed by the act, but instead scared (like the goal of terrorism) to stop all means of attack. Sadly, days later, even after the attack seemingly stopped all means of aggression, another bomb is dropped.
1.) You said "terrorism is mass death". Your lack of inclusion of other definitions is a good reason for me to assume that is what you meant.
I said "Terrorism = Mass death" but it could = many other things... thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I understand your perspective as you seem to have been just as vague a few times over.
2.) I am _not_ confusing terrorism with assasination. If Mohammen ben Islam goes and blows himself up in the plaza, but only kills one 9 year old Jewish girl on a field trip instead of 900, that's still terrorism.
Not neccessarily. Why was he there? Terrorism is the why, not the how.
Oh, wow, way to define yourself into being correct. Unfortunately, that's an incredibly naive and limited definition of terrorism, because it can easily be construed to include any and all threats and/or use of force. In reality, if I threaten to beat the shit out of some dude, that's not terrorism. In your definition, it is. It fails the reality test.
If you noticed the '...' you would know there was more and it was much longer, this I summed it up... and in there I pointed out... oh... government.
I think that it's safe to say that 99%+ of terrorist attacks are by Arabs or Muslims.
You wouldn't be more wrong then. The Chinese have had many terrorist caught and captivated. And that is just a small point...
No, that's the point. A man who is NOT a Muslim could NOT just as likely become a terrorist as a Muslim. While both COULD become terrorists, Mohammed is more likley than Johnny by a large factor.
Not neccessarily, as Terrorist are a small percentage (less than 2) of muslims who read the text in a perversed way.
Yes, but then you went and tried to negate my opinion by saying that I don't know how Arabs live, and I didn't grow up in that culture. Your relatavism has been exposed as fraudulent, move on.
I never saw such a sort. And remember who started this conversation in the first place. You commented on my original post.
Oh, I'm sorry, do you not like being confronted with the results of your ideology? That's what goes on in the Islamic world, and you can't ignore it because it displeases you.
What did that have to do with you being a jerk, and swearing, and pulling out fact that are rarer than you think, especially when 90% of it is considered sin in their own religion.
What? That sentence is hardly coherent. In case you forgot, Bush won an election not even a year ago with the most votes that any candidate EVER recieved. Yes, his numbers are down now, but that's hardly related to the war on terror.
Then you are being blinded.
This, more than any other sentence you've written, proves that you just don't get it, and have such a limited view of reality, the war on terror, and politics in general that it may well be impossible to continue this.
So somehow not commenting on what I said, and beating around it by insulting me makes your views any less limited?
Wow. What don't you get dude? Islam is the EXACT same today as it was 1400 years ago. While, yes, people still practice it today, they're adhering to the totality of a religion whose prnciples and edicts are stuck in the morality of the 7th century. This isn't fucking rocket science.
I still don't understand what you are trying to prove here?
If no one can be right, how do you evaluate competing views?
Sadly, society evaluated them by normes, trends, et cetera. The majority at most.
And I'd pwn you then just like I'm pwning you now.
One of your most intelligent comments yet. And if you hadn't noticed, you still havnt proved anything over me, and have yet to convince me of anything. So, how are you 'pwning' me?
No, that's what comes with being advanced. Once you're the standard bearer for civilization, everyone else has to act like you or you don't acknowledge them.
Thats just pathetic and prejudice. Good for you. Your a true heart. Try figuring out what life means to you man. It might give you some external perspectives.
racist fuck
It doesn't make me racist to point out the statistical fact that most terrorists are Muslims or Arabs, and that a Muslim or Arab is more likely to become a terrorist than anyone else. You might not LIKE the fact, but it's hardly racist.
The big boys huh? Look, those things are all against islam, ok, so stop saying stupid shit like this.
If they're against Islam, then why has no Islamic nation denoucned those practices, or pressured the nations that DO engage in them to cease? I mean, you can say they're against Islam all you want, but it's sort of a moot point when Muslims are supporting Muslims who do it. You remind me of hte people who claim that "Communism works, what you see in Russia/China/Cuba/Vietnam/Venezuela/Camboi
a/Laos isn't REAL communism".
You could have fooled me, because whenever i ask someone if there for the war, they say fuck bush.....
That's very similar to the classic story of the reporter who, after Nixon won the election, said "I don't know how Nixon could have won. Nobody I know voted for him".
There were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, so Bush got screwed there, which is one of his main reasons to go to Iraq, which is another reason why no one likes bush.
For starters, I'm not convinced that the WMD's that Saddam had didn't make their way into Syria, but, even if you're right, and there were no WMD's there, who cares? There were plenty of other good, STATED reasons to go to war in Iraq, and those haven't changed.
Unless you pick up the holy quaran, and actually read it, you wont get it. It has answers for stuff that will happen in your daily life, and what whill happen in certain situations and everything, just because its from 1400 years ago, doesnt mean that is is being barbaric or something of the sort, which i have been hearing for a while now.
I have read the Koran, thanks. And you're missing my point. The Koran has SECULAR RULES for Muslims that are 1400 years out of date, like how to run a government, and how to deal with enemy forces, and unbelievers in a _political_ sense. I'm not making a judgement about the religious aspect of Islam (although I find it to be generally backwards as well).
But, at the very least, look at the proof of history. Is there any Muslim nation that is NOT a squabbling despotism that recognizes no rights for its citizenry? Maybe Morocco, but they've been so influenced by the West that they've had an opportunity to change. If Islam is such an advanced, modernly salient religion, then why are all nations that follow it so fucking backwards?
What a stupid thing to say. Im sick of people like you that think you are better because you have better technology. If you think the states has the best technology, you better think again, because the Japanese has way better technology and are way smarter then people in the states.
Wow, I don't know how many times I can say "It's not about technology", and still have some tool like you go "Technology doesn't make you superior!". It's not that our technology is superior, although that helps, it's that our _civilization_ is superior. That's what gives us the right to judge.
It was sarcasm, as in, I alreay know... because I am studying it.
Oh, I was actually trying to be helpful. My bad.
Not neccessarily. Why was he there? Terrorism is the why, not the how.
Huh? Dude, if he's there to blow up as many Jew babies as he can, that's terrorism. If he just wanted to blow up ONE particular Jew baby, that's assasination VIA terrorism.
You wouldn't be more wrong then. The Chinese have had many terrorist caught and captivated. And that is just a small point...
Dude, the Chinese call the Tibetan monks who set themselves on fire terrorists. Come on, now.
Not neccessarily, as Terrorist are a small percentage (less than 2) of muslims who read the text in a perversed way.
Way to just make up numbers. What support do you have for that?
Additionally, it's not just terrorists themselves, it's the people who SUPPORT terrorism, and that, unfortunately, is a majority of Muslims.
What? That sentence is hardly coherent. In case you forgot, Bush won an election not even a year ago with the most votes that any candidate EVER recieved. Yes, his numbers are down now, but that's hardly related to the war on terror.Then you are being blinded.
No, I'm not. The Bush administration has had a series of HORRIBLE political events that they've just dropped the ball on. Social Security reform, this Supreme Court nominee, the hurricanes, they're all contributing more to Bush's low numbers than Iraq, especially since the news from Iraq has actually been pretty good lately. They have a Constitution now, you know.
This, more than any other sentence you've written, proves that you just don't get it, and have such a limited view of reality, the war on terror, and politics in general that it may well be impossible to continue this.So somehow not commenting on what I said, and beating around it by insulting me makes your views any less limited?
Fine. I will explain the situation to you.
No, we cannot kill every terrorist on the planet. That's a simply impossible task, but it's not our goal, either. Our goal is to cripple them as much as possible, to minimize their ability to inflict pain and suffering on the rest of the world, and we're doing a damn good job of it. It's not about winning the war, it's about making them ineffective.
I still don't understand what you are trying to prove here?
That Islam is backwards religion that has produced a backwards civilization.
Sadly, society evaluated them by normes, trends, et cetera. The majority at most.
No, that's how SOCIETY does it. How would YOU evaluate competing views?
And I'd pwn you then just like I'm pwning you now.One of your most intelligent comments yet. And if you hadn't noticed, you still havnt proved anything over me, and have yet to convince me of anything. So, how are you 'pwning' me?
I'm not trying to convince you. I don't care what you believe, or if you agree with me. The point is, my arguments are simply better than yours.
And the word pwn pwns you.
Thats just pathetic and prejudice. Good for you. Your a true heart. Try figuring out what life means to you man. It might give you some external perspectives.
Of COURSE it's prejudiced! OK, I'll admit it RIGHT now. I'm TOTALLY prejudiced against barbarians. You got me! OMFG! OMFG! OMFG!
That's non-responsive to my point, though, that being an advanced civilization gives you the right to judge others. I'll assume that you concede my point.
At 10/22/05 12:59 PM, DMXRoid wrote: Oh, I was actually trying to be helpful. My bad.
Ya, I know. I should have specified. I was probably preoccupied with something at the time. Apologies.
Huh? Dude, if he's there to blow up as many Jew babies as he can, that's terrorism. If he just wanted to blow up ONE particular Jew baby, that's assasination VIA terrorism.
Ya, that was what I was trying to get to. Trying to mass kill jews isnt terrorism unless you are trying to make a statment to the government. Otherwise it just mass murder.
Way to just make up numbers. What support do you have for that?
I can easily find you the proof. I actually read it in a peer reviewed article.
Additionally, it's not just terrorists themselves, it's the people who SUPPORT terrorism, and that, unfortunately, is a majority of Muslims.
No where near a majority, just to note. And people who supprot it arn't terrorists themselves.
That is like saying that I am catholic because I support a lot of their views, but I am not, because I choose not be apart of what I see as hypocritical and falsafied. You know what I mean? Or was that an obscure reference (not sure)?
Then you are being blinded.
I know, but lately isn't the deciding factor. People look at track records when deciding. And I know you will fight it to the death, and really this isnt even all that relative, but I think we can both see truly that the war on terror would be the deciding factor.
That Islam is backwards religion that has produced a backwards civilization.
Well, you can say that, and you have your right to your opinion. I just disagree.
No, that's how SOCIETY does it. How would YOU evaluate competing views?
By my own mores and beleifs.
I'm not trying to convince you. I don't care what you believe, or if you agree with me. The point is, my arguments are simply better than yours.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can say that I beleive mine are better than yours. That doesnt make me right.
Of COURSE it's prejudiced! OK, I'll admit it RIGHT now. I'm TOTALLY prejudiced against barbarians. You got me! OMFG! OMFG! OMFG!
Its not like I hadnt noticed, but somehow you think that is right?
That's non-responsive to my point, though, that being an advanced civilization gives you the right to judge others. I'll assume that you concede my point.
No, I dont. Or I wouldn't have called you prejudice, since I obviosuly beleive I am not.
The terrorists _aren't_ winning this war. We're killing more of them every day, crippling their infrastructure, cutting them off from the funds they need to kill more innocents. This might be a good point to realize that you just don't have the knowledge base for this argument, and pull out, Maverick.
im sorry but i view terrorism as something that cant really be beaten. it's always been and always will be. as long as there is hate against a group, race, government, etc. there will be reason for a extremist faction to attack them. it can be cracked down on and it can even be stifled, but its a battle that cant be won, especially by just a handful of countries, but it would take a world wide effort from even the smallest countries to make an impact on it.
and there was an earlier argument as to the definition of terrorism and its definition by numbers. an act of terrorism can be anything from a simple assasination to the attacks on the world trade center. is an assasination not an attempt to strike fear into a government of group by murdering one of their leaders? it is the same as a bomber blowing up an abortion clinic to make a political statement. it is meant to intimidate people into their cause by use of violence and force. numbers or severity of the act does not matter.
He attacked Iraq... his excuse... nuclear weapons... ....
and then theres the excuse for oil, and the excuse for democracy and all this other happy horse shit. if it was your country that would be threatened by nuclear attacks from someone and you had suspicion that they had WMD's, wouldnt you want to do something about it? and whos to say these WMD's dont exist? when the UN inspectors went to search Iraq for them the iraqi government did not, i repeat DID NOT, cooperate with them for some time. then even after giving them clearance to search for the WMD's, still did not let them into certain areas for atleast 24 hour periods. it would be very easy for someone to smuggle blueprints for a WMD out of a warehouse in 24 hours. just because WMD's were not yet built doesnt mean that Iraq doesnt have the pontial to build them.
No it isn't, or it wouldnt exist today. It is structured for whatever time they want to follow it in.
Wow. What don't you get dude? Islam is the EXACT same today as it was 1400 years ago. While, yes, people still practice it today, they're adhering to the totality of a religion whose prnciples and edicts are stuck in the morality of the 7th century. This isn't fucking rocket science.
you are somewhat right...another example of this would be russia in the time period of world war 1. while the rest of the world was advancing in techonolgy, knowledge, etc, russia was still a practicing middle age type of government or what ever you might call it with serfs and vassels etc. however, the arabic people have a strong belief in thier customs and still live by their faith. if they havent changed or reformed their way of life in the past 1400 years, they are most likely going to keep on with the way things are, regardless of how much someone rants.
No, that's what comes with being advanced. Once you're the standard bearer for civilization, everyone else has to act like you or you don't acknowledge them.
you sit here and bash people for their ignorance. yet here you are contradicting yourself. if you are truely more advanced than another race, ethnic group, etc then you have no need to flaunt it in the faces of them. and it is not YOU who are the advanced one, but it is the country YOU live in. no one gave you a higher power to judge what advanced and primitive is. It is not the choice of the arabic people to live in mud huts and caves but the opression of their regime. if they had more freedom in their government, then they might very well be as advanced, if not more advanced than america. what you are claiming is that you are a supremicist and that is wrong. just because we are more advanced does not make us better, it just makes us different.
Women have rights just as much as men do
in america yes...in the musilm controlled countries no. this is a completely ignorant statement and should be ignored. do your homework and you'll realize women have no rights. they are to do as they are told by their husbands and if he becomes incapacitated then they are to do as their eldest male relatives says.
I propose that the reason the terrorists are so against america is because they hate it, right? Why not concentrate efforts not on trying to suppress the enemy with firepower, but by attacking the very reasoning they are using against the US?
because some things just cant be changed. all i can surmise is that they hateamerica because we do not follow the koran and because of this they will always hate us unless we convert to islam.
No, that's the point. A man who is NOT a Muslim could NOT just as likely become a terrorist as a Muslim. While both COULD become terrorists, Mohammed is more likley than Johnny by a large factor.
racist fuck
as racist as it does sound, if you google terrorist attacks for the past decade, youd find most were done by muslims. its a horrible stereotype but it is unfortunately very accurate.
The point is, it doesn't matter how your society evolves, there are some rules you have to play by if you want to hang with the big boys in the world. You have to acknowledge simple facts, like the notions that rape, murder, and the abuse of women are all _wrong_, objectively. Otherwise, you haven't proven yourself civilized, and you shouldn't be treated that way. This isn't an issue of morality, it's a black and white issue of right and wrong.
what you view as wrong and what someone else veiws as wrong are completely different things. i.e. : during the revoltionary war george washington was heralded as a national hero for fighting the british and standing up for the rights of the colonists. in britain he was viewed as a terrorist and a rebel insurgent leader. just like you find lack of womens rights in muslim wrong (i do as well) doesnt mean they do. from the arabic perspective it's right because its all they know. you said yourself that environment effects one's morals and you also said that islam has not changed for 1400 years. it's all they kno and its what they view as right.
At 10/20/05 11:44 PM, Myst_Williams wrote: Not your place to say, as its a different sect of muslim. And I never said smart, I said intelligent. Two different things. They are stupid and neurotic... insane... fo the things they do, but intelligent to pull it off, which makes calling them barbaric incorrect is all.
I cant say they are barbaric?
They do not follow the tenets if Islam. None of them. They prevert the Quran and kill in Allahs name.
That is barbaric. Period. They are not Muslims. They are savage, brutal murderers. Its like saying a murderer is ok because he is living a different lifestyle. Hell, Tim McVeigh is ok because he just likes to blow stuff up. Its ok, I understand, hes just different. I accept him for that.
L A U G H
That is also a false statement... for the close minded I suppose. And I am not even Christian.
False? My ASS. The Catholic Church told the people they would instantly go to heaven if they died in battle killing those evil heathens, despite the fact nothing in the Bible supports that assertion. The even stirred up so much religious fervor they started the CHILDRENS CRUSADE. How sick, they basically murdered those children.
More evidence of corruption? Where to start? How about even the self serving Church structure. Look how the rich Bishops and stuff lived and how their people and poor priets lived. Horrendus corruption. Look at their selling of Indulgences. Nothing in the Bible suggests this. The Catholic Church just made it up. And Purgatory. Where did that come from? If anything, it sounds more like a pagan belief than a Christian belief. Also, look at the Bishop of Milan, Ambrose. He almost single handedly eroded the Emperors power and destroyed the Empire. And how is it possible there were so many Borgias that somehow entered the Church's structure, even reaching as high as Pope? Why did the Church keep the literate in the Church's structure and opress the masses?
HORRIBLE. Self serving. Corrupt. All traits to describe the Medieval Catholic Church.
Ya, that was what I was trying to get to. Trying to mass kill jews isnt terrorism unless you are trying to make a statment to the government. Otherwise it just mass murder.
Actually, I'd disagree. I'd argue that blowing yourself up is an act of terrorism regardless of your motives, simply because that's the best common, functional definition. When we make motives a factor in determining what something is, then we justify all kinds of things, like hate crime legislation, and many other laws that would force the state to read the minds of offenders.
Why don't we just agree on a _functional_ definition instead of a motives definition? That way, we can easily identify something as either terrorism or not-terrorism.
I can easily find you the proof. I actually read it in a peer reviewed article.
URL?
No where near a majority, just to note. And people who supprot it arn't terrorists themselves.
There's no moral distinction between someone who supports and aids a terrorist and someone who IS a terrorist.
That is like saying that I am catholic because I support a lot of their views, but I am not, because I choose not be apart of what I see as hypocritical and falsafied. You know what I mean? Or was that an obscure reference (not sure)?
No, no, no, it's not the same thing at all. When the Muslim population of the world is supporting not only the goals, but the METHODS of terrorists, then they're morally equivalent. What you're talking about draws the line at the implementation of an ideology. That's why you're not the same, and that's why Muslims who support terrorists are just as bad as the terrorists themselves.
I know, but lately isn't the deciding factor. People look at track records when deciding. And I know you will fight it to the death, and really this isnt even all that relative, but I think we can both see truly that the war on terror would be the deciding factor.
Dude, honestly, I should probably reply to this, but I don't even remember what the original point was. Sorry.
Well, you can say that, and you have your right to your opinion. I just disagree.
Sure, but you'd be wrong. Can you give me an example where Islam produced a forward thinking society that behaved peacefully toward her neighbors?
By my own mores and beleifs.
But you can't ever come to a conclusion, because you give equal weight to other people's mores and beliefs as you do to your own.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can say that I beleive mine are better than yours. That doesnt make me right.
I mean, sure, you could say that, but you could say up is down, or the sky is green, or we live on the planet Glaphlack in the Andromeda galaxy, but you'd be wrong then too. The way I come to that conclusion is via logic and reason. I evaluate my arguments, I evaluate yours, and where I see that one argument is stronger than the other, I put a little "WIN" checkbox next to it. But, you reject logic and reason, so you have no effective method for dong this.
Its not like I hadnt noticed, but somehow you think that is right?
That I'm prejudiced against savages? Yes, of course it's right.
Look, everyone has prejudices. That's how we form our opinions and actions. Having a prejudice towards murderers, or rapists, for example, is perfectly fine. Now, being prejudiced towards blacks, or Asians, or whites, that's wrong. That's not what I'm doing here. I'm not prejudiced against Arabs or Muslims, I'm prejudiced against fucking savages. It's just that many Arabs or Muslims tend to behave like savages, so there may be some confusion.
ya it is true the USA will soon run out of money from the war in Iraq, the hurricanes, and from the other hurricanes that are coming also there are many rumors that the USA will as have war on Iran (im Iranian so i should no) i have a feeling we may have another Great Depression O_O
At 10/23/05 01:37 PM, Amir72 wrote: ya it is true the USA will soon run out of money from the war in Iraq, the hurricanes, and from the other hurricanes that are coming also there are many rumors that the USA will as have war on Iran (im Iranian so i should no) i have a feeling we may have another Great Depression O_O
Wow, you're Iranian? That OBVIOUSLY makes you an expert on whether or not the United States will invade Iran, right? I mean, you're from there, so you're OBVIOUSLY in tune with the geopolitics of the world, and can make predictions like that.
*sigh*
The bad thing about internet message boards is that people who are obviously idiots have the right to post.
At 10/23/05 01:37 PM, Amir72 wrote: ya it is true the USA will soon run out of money from the war in Iraq, the hurricanes, and from the other hurricanes that are coming also there are many rumors that the USA will as have war on Iran (im Iranian so i should no) i have a feeling we may have another Great Depression O_O
america isnt going to run out of money because its too deeply tied into the world economy. to make this a short one, countries invest in the u.s. and recieve bonds. ove time, the bonds mature and can be taken at face value and sometimes with a little bit of interest. the american dollar is backed up by what a person would do for it, not by gold. what a sinlger oerson would do for a dollar is what makes it vaulable. so while the country may experience incredible inflation, it will not go broke because it would mean bad things for the rest of the world. when FDR and hoover managed the great depression, they created a system that would allow the u.s. to bypass the depression part of the economic spectrum. so when we experience periods of inflation, like now, we can still manage and climb back to a stage of prosperity. this is nothing like the great depression and things will never be that bad in america again thaks to FDR and hoover and their socialistic ideals of the time.
At 10/21/05 11:03 PM, DMXRoid wrote:
No they don't. They can't own property, they can't drive, can't teach, are responsible for being raped, do I need to go on? Are you really trying to defend the proposition that Islam is tolerant of women's rights???
im a muslim you retard, are you going to tell me what is in the quaran? Only stupid countries like saudi arabia dont allow women such rights, and thats because there stupid.
1.) Huh? Right. You kill people who _don't_ convert.
A more precise example would be helpful.
No, I'm better because I don't kill women for being raped, or engage in wholescale oppression of people. That's how. It's not racist to say that Islam is a backwards, archaic religion that would best serve the world by ceasing to exist tomorrow.
OMG, you really dont know what the fuck your talking about, do you? Just stfu and get out of here, before you make a bigger fool of yourself, because you just said one of the stupidest things ive ever heard!ever!
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
