Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/21/07 02:40 PM, TightRope wrote: Amen back, arm yourself, but do it legally and get ready because the melting pot massacre known as America is going to become one huge black on white rape fest, well it already has, and the media is going to, well they are now, depict it as A SUCCESS!

Would you mind masturbating somewhere else?

What the fuck? Is this the White Aryan Race Dominantion club or something?

At 1/21/07 02:40 PM, TightRope wrote:

At 1/21/07 02:29 PM, claim2fame wrote: Amen, my white Aryan brother.

Amen back, arm yourself, but do it legally and get ready because the melting pot massacre known as America is going to become one huge black on white rape fest, well it already has, and the media is going to, well they are now, depict it as A SUCCESS!

You have no friends, and you're ugly. You have no concept of world culture, or life, and you've probably never left your town of Bumfuck, FL. So please spare me, I could care less about what you're seven-teen year old self thinks.

I for once approve Islam as a religion. AS A RELIGION. As a philosophy of life that make you live your life happier, that make your spirituality grow higher. I don't approve it as a excuse for murder or for Religious war. I don't think we should ban it or ban the people who practice this religion. I think we should put to jail people who make hate speach, racist speach and so on. Like The USA not so long ago with the KKK. Not every religious leader. I don't want them arrested for their religion. only for their hatrous way of thinking that's it. And if you can't live with people of other culture, than please stay in your country with people of your culture.

So wait...
We're judging the entier religion based on a news report which is so brazenly one sided its not even nearly funny, and uses quotes which may or may not be connected and doctored to give a desired effect?
Meh, beats any other source of information we're gonna get though...

It would be a grave error for them to re-awaken the slumbering religious zeal of Europe's children.

For every one of US they'd so coldly murder, we would slaughter one thousand.

Good luck Osama. -Thumbs up-

I liked how the trailer for the show tried to cast them in a bad light for their hatred towards homosexuals...at the exact same time the Catholic church are jumping up and down denouncing gay rights, going so far as to threaten to withdraw their adoption service in case a gay couple may want to adopt a child.

Most Western religions aren't about peace - they can all basically be summe dup in one phrase: "My God is better than your God."

Well, one could judge a religion by how much good is accomplished through it.

I'd be willing to bet that Catholicism, despite it's limited ability to harbor change, is infinitely more altruistic in nature than the Muslim faith.

I saw the programme on TV. While I commend the reporters for doing that it was only a couple of mosques and preachers. It's not the bigger picture. None of them were advocating terrorism apart from that American convict guy , they were just too ignorant to realise that that kind of preaching leads to violence.

At 1/24/07 10:00 AM, D2KVirus wrote: I liked how the trailer for the show tried to cast them in a bad light for their hatred towards homosexuals...at the exact same time the Catholic church are jumping up and down denouncing gay rights, going so far as to threaten to withdraw their adoption service in case a gay couple may want to adopt a child.

That's a lot different than '"Throw the homosexual off a mountain."' Withdrawing adoption service is a bit less extreme than killing homosexuals in my opinion.

At 1/21/07 09:11 AM, Togukawa wrote: The Bible still is the Holy Infallible Word Of God, and that it says that killing is ok in certain cases, like worshipping someone other than God.

And how many Christians do you see actually following that statement compared to followers of the Islamic Faith these days?

Because you know, last I checked, it wasn't Pat Robertson leading a bunch of religious fundamentalists in the streets of Amsterdam to riot and burn buildings to the ground over a cartoon depicting the Lord Christ in a bad light.

At 1/24/07 11:34 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: That's a lot different than '"Throw the homosexual off a mountain."'

Stoning is more their style, but anything goes with regards to honor killing.

Missing the point, guys. The clips aren't attacking Islam the religion.

These exposes are revealing how radical Islam and the rhetoric of terrorists has infiltrated some mosques thought to be full of peaceful tolerant Muslims.

Unfortunately then, they didn't count on the majority of people to take it the way that they wanted it taken. Look how many people here thought they were talking about Islam, not the radicals. Myself included.

At 1/24/07 11:34 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:
That's a lot different than '"Throw the homosexual off a mountain."' Withdrawing adoption service is a bit less extreme than killing homosexuals in my opinion.

I should ask now, before it goes astray, how may homosexuals have been thrown off mountains in the past decades by Muslims?

Also, I should point out the Bible says "man shall not lie with man" (paraphrased, alright?!?), yet there's nothing against lesbians in there. So, proof positive that girl-on-girl is perfect acceptable within the Roman Catholic Church...which is a complete lack of a surprise, frankly. So, ladies, enjoy the loophole. Guys, enjoy the ladies enjoying the loophole...

At 1/25/07 05:17 PM, D2KVirus wrote: I should ask now, before it goes astray, how may homosexuals have been thrown off mountains in the past decades by Muslims?

Your implying that Muslims have not killed any homosexuals what so ever in the past decades? The point, I assume you are trying to make, is that we do not know if they have or have not. I doubt they would document such caustic behaviour but none the less we have to always assume that they may have done it. That question, in my opinion, should not have been asked and explained because it is obviously evident that no recorded or known murders have taken place. (or atleast that we know of, thus you wouldn't have asked that question) But you did use it to prove a point and a reasonable point at that.

Also, I should point out the Bible says "man shall not lie with man" (paraphrased, alright?!?), yet there's nothing against lesbians in there. So, proof positive that girl-on-girl is perfect acceptable within the Roman Catholic Church...which is a complete lack of a surprise, frankly. So, ladies, enjoy the loophole. Guys, enjoy the ladies enjoying the loophole...

You know I have heard that alot and people think they are smart when they say that because they think that they have, indeed, found a loophole. Do you seriously believe that the passage you mentioned is specifically aimed towards the male sex and not that of women? I find it interesting that only the youth believe this. Yet, if you talk to adults, you will a more definite explanation. Yes, loophole to the dull minded. No, to the intellectual and literary smart minded.

Let me ask you something. If someone says, for instance, that they were going to destroy "man", does that refer to the male sex only or does "man" refer to the human race as a whole? Human race including men, women, and children?

At 1/25/07 05:17 PM, D2KVirus wrote:

Also, I should point out the Bible says "man shall not lie with man" (paraphrased, alright?!?), yet there's nothing against lesbians in there.

Unless you want to put it into context in which man=mankind.

At 1/25/07 08:02 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: Yes. They spread propaganda and depict the suicide bombers as heroes. They make it seem as if anyone who is willing to kill himself in the name of Allah is the best kind of Muslim there is.

Said by radical, crazy people. But that's not what Islam says.

Also, "convert or die." Ever heard that phrase?

Yes, its espoused by radicals from every religion.

And you fail to make it seem any less violent. I applaud you. You haven't tried to hide how violent your religion is or scale it down.

I never said the religion was violent. Only certain crazy people who claim they follow it.

Hahahaha. Froma site called JihadWatch.com. Nice.

Just as absurd as linking to a book written by the biggest Islamophobe next to Anne Coulter.

Its called watchjihadwatch btw, and it exposes how much of an idiot Spencer really is.
Also, those are very small errors.

Fabricating facts is not a small error. And those are from the first two chapters. I notice you haven't tried to prove any of the criticism wrong.

I don't post any "original" thoughts because that book sums them all up

But its closed information. I have to pay to find out what it says, and if I can't pay for it, I can't argue against it. So, you could provide your own argument being critical of Islam, and I'll debate that. But I can't debate something I can't see.

and in the description it tells you most of what I'd need to explain why it's not a religion of peace in any way at all.

The book description:
In this startling new book, New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer, provides a warts-and-all portrait of the Prophet of Islam and draws out what his life implies for reforming Islam and repulsing Islamic terrorists. Spencer relies solely on primary sources considered reliable by Muslims and evaluates modern biographies to show how Muhammad has been changed for Western audiences, lulling them into consoling but false conclusions.
That tells me nothing. I could refute every statement in that by saying the exact opposite.

Really funny in a book fills with so many lies and deception that the article you provided finds so few.

It only presents an argument for part of a chapter.

Have you read the book?

No, I haven't. I can argue only based on what I know of it, and from it. But beyond that...which is why I'm asking you to provide your own argument.

no, you've read a small article talking about a few errors.

Again, a few errors in part of a chapter, from an author known for consistently making these errors.

Also, he states in the introductions that there are many versions of the Koran with slightly different translations and a few verses may be off.

There's a difference between different translations and complete fabrication of facts, and making up verses. Why doesn't he use mainstream translations, used by the majority of English speaking Muslims, like Pickthall, or Yusuf Ali, or M.H. Shakir? Plus, when writing scholarly work, you don't rely on one translation, you use many and check them with each other.

At 1/24/07 10:00 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Most Western religions aren't about peace - they can all basically be summe dup in one phrase: "My God is better than your God."

So we have in one case, religous elitism and in the other case, religous groups that are basicaly breeding discontent and terror into thier followers.

Know, which one is more dangerous.

At 1/25/07 07:53 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: You are forgetting most of Islam IS radical Islam.

Well that's an important topic to debate, one which we don't know the answer to, isn't it? Are the moderate Muslims a silent majority or a silent minority?

At 1/25/07 10:22 PM, seventy-one wrote:

At 1/25/07 08:02 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: Yes. They spread propaganda and depict the suicide bombers as heroes. They make it seem as if anyone who is willing to kill himself in the name of Allah is the best kind of Muslim there is.

Said by radical, crazy people. But that's not what Islam says.

The point is that regardless of what Islam says a lot of Muslims are radical and crazy and say that.

Also, "convert or die." Ever heard that phrase?

Yes, its espoused by radicals from every religion.

Actually I only recall, in all of history that comes to mind, Christianity and Islam trying to convert people forcefully. Certainly not "every religion."

The book

The best thing to do is stop arguing over summaries of the book and just borrow it from the library. (But, in reading the summary, it is true that many terrorists' groups messages are changed for Western audiences. Like Hamas' admitted goal to destroy Israel and all the Jews is changed into the goal of pursuit of a Palestinian state for Western ears.)

At 1/20/07 04:51 AM, drah wrote:

That's like if i judged your entire country to be full of stereotyping fools based on your post!

That tends to happen a lot these days

At 1/25/07 10:47 PM, Dragon-Smaug wrote: The point is that regardless of what Islam says a lot of Muslims are radical and crazy and say that.

Not a lot if you count how many Muslims there are, and how many terrorists there are.

Actually I only recall, in all of history that comes to mind, Christianity and Islam trying to convert people forcefully. Certainly not "every religion."

Let me revise that:
At different points in history there have been calls for "convert or die" from radicals from many religions.

The best thing to do is stop arguing over summaries of the book and just borrow it from the library.

That'd just turn into another book countering everything in that book. The best thing, would to have our own arguments and debate, like you and I are doing right now.

(But, in reading the summary, it is true that many terrorists' groups messages are changed for Western audiences. Like Hamas' admitted goal to destroy Israel and all the Jews is changed into the goal of pursuit of a Palestinian state for Western ears.)

Actually, I think Hamas' call to destroy Israel is well known in the States. Considering that it is considered a terrorist organization, and after they were elected into power there was a huge uproar from Washington. Including a bill to stop financial aid and support to the Palestinian Territories.

As for the statement that terrorists' group messages are changed. I disagree, we pretty much all know the whole "Death to America" thing, not much fabrication in that.

At 1/26/07 06:23 PM, seventy-one wrote:

At 1/25/07 10:47 PM, Dragon-Smaug wrote: The point is that regardless of what Islam says a lot of Muslims are radical and crazy and say that.

Not a lot if you count how many Muslims there are, and how many terrorists there are.

No, I'm not talking percentage wise when I say "a lot", I'm talking raw numbers.

Actually I only recall, in all of history that comes to mind, Christianity and Islam trying to convert people forcefully. Certainly not "every religion."

At different points in history there have been calls for "convert or die" from radicals from many religions.

Okay.

The best thing to do is stop arguing over summaries of the book and just borrow it from the library.

That'd just turn into another book countering everything in that book. The best thing, would to have our own arguments and debate, like you and I are doing right now.

Yeah, everyone should make their own opinions. But books are very usefull, and I would hope that people would be able to form their own opinions after reading a book, even if that book forwarded a specific position.

(But, in reading the summary, it is true that many terrorists' groups messages are changed for Western audiences. Like Hamas' admitted goal to destroy Israel and all the Jews is changed into the goal of pursuit of a Palestinian state for Western ears.)

Actually, I think Hamas' call to destroy Israel is well known in the States. Considering that it is considered a terrorist organization, and after they were elected into power there was a huge uproar from Washington. Including a bill to stop financial aid and support to the Palestinian Territories.

I guess it means that at least our leaders aren't taken in by propaganda (excluding the WMDs in Iraq, of course).

As for the statement that terrorists' group messages are changed. I disagree, we pretty much all know the whole "Death to America" thing, not much fabrication in that.

It just seems to me that everyone is always saying, "Well you know one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter..." on these forums. I always say, "Perhaps, but what is [insert terrorist group under discussion] to you?" Ahh, maybe people do understand, but then are they really arguing that terrorists are less wrong because they feel they are right? It just seems to me that many people think that, for example, Hamas would stop attacking Israel if it withdrew from the territories, or that, for example, Hezbollah would stop if Israel chopped Shebaa farms off of itself. Maybe it's another case of crazy extremists (terrorist supporters) voices being the loudest on the forum.

I feel like I'm ranting.

At 1/25/07 07:14 PM, TheBlueBullet wrote:
Your implying that Muslims have not killed any homosexuals what so ever in the past decades? The point, I assume you are trying to make, is that we do not know if they have or have not. I doubt they would document such caustic behaviour but none the less we have to always assume that they may have done it. That question, in my opinion, should not have been asked and explained because it is obviously evident that no recorded or known murders have taken place. (or atleast that we know of, thus you wouldn't have asked that question) But you did use it to prove a point and a reasonable point at that.

No, I'm asking how many have followed the word precisely and thrown homosexuals from a mountain, as that seems to be the general implication here.

Of course, now is a good time to point out homosexuals have been beaten, kicked, stabbed and shot to death by Christians, Jews, Hindus...actually, just about every religion in the world has a history of violence towards homosexuals. But it's easiest to demonise Islam these days to get some shock headlines and, therefore, viewers/readers/money.

As I say each and every time, Islam is a fine target - it's foreign enough to be hated by your average Brit (we're mostly close-minded bigots over here), and isn't protected by Race Hate Laws like Judaisim and Sikhism are, so your average journalist (Christian or Anglican) can enjoy that loophole to preach their usual hatred. After all, I don't recall reading any anti-Catholic hatred being spewed forth durung the IRA's bombing campaign on English shores.

At 1/27/07 10:34 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Of course, now is a good time to point out homosexuals have been beaten, kicked, stabbed and shot to death by Christians, Jews, Hindus...actually, just about every religion in the world has a history of violence towards homosexuals. But it's easiest to demonise Islam these days to get some shock headlines and, therefore, viewers/readers/money.

True. Homosexuals have always gone against the creation myths of everyone religiong. In what religion does the creator create only two males? It does against against religious teaching and would further persecution.

The only reason why Islam is so easy demonize is because of the current situation that the members of the Muslim community have put themselves in. Islam is the story. Islam is considered to alot of people as a threat to their homes/countries. Half of it is probably for money but yet it is their job. The other half is because its news. Shock value may play some part in it but not all of it. Over here, we really don't hear about Muslims. We hear about how many soldiers died today.

:isn't protected by Race Hate Laws like Judaisim and Sikhism are, so your average journalist (Christian or Anglican) can enjoy that loophole to preach their usual hatred.

I really do not care. Are you trying to make me feel bad that the Muslims are getting their hatred preached back to them?

There are no bad Muslims.

At 1/28/07 02:05 AM, SilentProtagonist wrote: There are no bad Muslims.

Oh, that was good for a laugh.

remember boys and girls; obey the cartoons.

i believe Richard Dawkins has a solution.

At 1/27/07 10:34 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

After all, I don't recall reading any anti-Catholic hatred being spewed forth durung the IRA's bombing campaign on English shores.

But it was a completely different thing. Islamic extremism is internationalist and something that occurs among muslims from all different countries and cultures. While the IRA did fight for the catholics of Northern Ireland, but they didn't use Catholic theology to justify their actions and never intended to create a Catholic theocracy. And unlike islamic extremism, Irish Republican terrorism only occured among Catholics from Northern Ireland, you didn't find Catholics from other European countries getting involved.

Anyway with regard to the case in hand, these extremists only spout what they like because the government is too gutless to stand up to them. They should deport all foreign extremists back to their home countries, ragardless of wether they face a little rough treatment by the authorities back home. For the ones who are born here, there are other ways you can shut them up.

At 1/27/07 09:46 AM, Dragon-Smaug wrote: No, I'm not talking percentage wise when I say "a lot", I'm talking raw numbers.

Although there may be a lot, that is not to say that Islam has some sort of inherent violence to it.

I would hope that people would be able to form their own opinions after reading a book,

That's all I'm asking. I don't care if you share the same opinions from a book, but at least be to present your own argument every once in a while.

It just seems to me that many people think that, for example, Hamas would stop attacking Israel if it withdrew from the territories, or that, for example, Hezbollah would stop if Israel chopped Shebaa farms off of itself.

The problem is with that, is that there haven't been much oppurtunities to see if that would happen. But the fact remains, that after 9/11 Americans as a whole are very aware of what terrorists want to do.