When you have a Muslim

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by sfb

I do agree about Monty Python, but my head is not in the sand. You condemn my statements and claim that real Christians speak out against the horrible things that some sects say and therefore are not liable. I ask you to prove to me that all moderate Muslims do not do the same. I know this is a ridiculous request and trying to prove truth or falsehood through the use of impossible questions will never really prove a point, but I imagine if I told you that I have spoken with many Muslims throughout my life that do condemn the extremists you will say that that is not proof enough either, regardless of the fact that it is 100% true.

I am left to answer an absurd condemnation of an entire religion with simple yet equally absurd questions (mainly because people should never have to prove their innocence from baseless charges, in fact I believe this is the basis that our system here in the states is built upon, but my guess is that is not the belief of some people in this thread).

What would it take for any of you that believe that moderate muslims are horrible people to actually believe that they are not in fact horrible people allowing the hatred and genocide to occur. Do you need to interview every single person? Do you need a lie detector test and an interrogation room?

I will provide a recent Gallup report as evidence that the statement there are no moderate muslims, and they are all violent, horrible, etc. people is a ridiculous statement. I invite anyone else to please refute these findings, or support them. I am finding this report pretty damn interesting and surprising as well. However it appears to hurt the argument condemning the religion. It represents a 3 year study that was published in 2011. There are numerous links from the site to different things. The report itself is large (8 MB) but worth downloading in my opinion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148916/mu...om-future.aspx

I'm out, but I am sure I will appreciate seeing IB attempt to rip apart an entire 3 year study that contradicts many earlier statements... though in actuality my guess is it will resemble a diatribe on how whaling isn't really murder if your harpoon is sharp enough.

Cpalmson, I ask only that you take a look at this and I would love to hear your take. Your last reponse, other than the my head in the sand part, seemed to come from someone who doesn't like what he sees across the world but is accepting of the fact that the few do not define the many.

I do not think I will ever agree with all of you on the other side of this argument, nor do I expect to find us happily sharing a scotch in the middle. I do however hope we can stop hating people based on a profile or a religion that does not define a persons actions... their actions define their actions. This of course is like the statement for the NRA that guns do not kill people, people kill people with guns. I agree that some extremists claim to kill people because of Islam, or rather their interpretation of the religion, but this does not mean that Islam supports the attacks.

Obviously there are some good Muslims. The problem is that they aren't taking action to reign in the abuses in their faith. The good Muslims may be in the majority, but if the violent minority is active and the good majority is passive, you've got a problem.

You can bend over backwards to try and pretend that Islam is a fine religion just like any other, but it isn't. Islam has no history of democracy for a reason; democracy is antithetical to Islam's core teachings. Our war on terrorism is not a war on Buddhist terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Jewish terrorism, or Christian terrorism. It's a war on Islamic terrorism because strict adherance to the Koran and Hadith encourages jihadist activities.

If most Muslims are good people they really ought to try and help us out.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by sfb

I'm out, but I am sure I will appreciate seeing IB attempt to rip apart an entire 3 year study that contradicts many earlier statements... though in actuality my guess is it will resemble a diatribe on how whaling isn't really murder if your harpoon is sharp enough.

Bravo! But just to correct you, it must be a sharp harpoon and an infidel Muslim whale as well.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Obviously there are some good Muslims. The problem is that they aren't taking action to reign in the abuses in their faith. The good Muslims may be in the majority, but if the violent minority is active and the good majority is passive, you've got a problem.

+1

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Old Faithful . . . er, ah . . . Old-goaT spews again!!!

None of what you posted is true, Old-goaT. Your two questions were answered. It’s your lame-ass reading and comprehension skills that are retarding your understanding.

At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305034&postcou nt=176
At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187.
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305483&postcou nt=188
.

I don't know why, but for some unexplained reason I have decided to be kind to the logic-impaired so I'll explain one last time:

ME: "Where did I say atheism is not a religion?"
IB: "At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions"
WHAT WAS POST 176?: "Once a body is dead, what is it's value rotting in a casket? If it is burried without a casket, is it not going to be fertilizer one way or another? And in that case, why not where it will be useful to keep the living alive?

I do not concur with the Great Leap Forward and the other abominations of the Maoists, but in the context of their system, this was a very benign practice when compaired to many others.

Which is the greater evil:
--Desecrating a dead body that almost certainly doesn't care that it's being desecrated (in which case can you actually desecrate it?)
--Or letting people starve

So, since I am clearly intellectually inferior to you, show your mercy and point out for all of us WHERE DOES THIS SAY ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGEON? I don't mention religeon. I don't mention atheism.

Now on to your second lie:

ME: "Where did I say Papa Joe, Pol Pot, etc., were good guys?"
IB: "At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187."
WHAT WAS POST 188?: "You "reply" to a direct question, or direct statement, with a non sequitor and declair victory for yourself. You are the brother with the beam in your eye, blinded by your hate, blinded by your midnless devotion to a religeon you do not understand.

If you were not such a loud empty gong spewing falsehoods about so many things, you would almost be pitiful. It is very hard to pity someone who acts as you do.

Your description of Chineese conditions is not necessarily wrong, it just has nothing at all to do with anything you were supposedly responding to. Have you worked in a field, harvesting? Have you watched your family go to bed hungry night after night? Simple "yes" or "no" will do, but that is beyond your level of self control. You feel psycoticly compelled to go on and on about drivel."

A second time I beseach you, where in here did I say any of these mass murderers were good people? Where did I support CBJ's post? Where did I even mention him?

You are a psycopathic liar. You have no concern for honesty, you have no concern for facts, you lie to your adverasaries on here at the same time you decry that trait in Muslims. You blatantly and publicly disregard multiple commandments that are central to the religeon you profess to support. You use the same distorted propaganda tactics all those Communists used.

But somehow I bet you will justify all this to yourself.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't know why, but for some unexplained reason I have decided to be kind to the logic-impaired so I'll explain one last time:

ME: "Where did I say atheism is not a religion?"
IB: "At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions"
WHAT WAS POST 176?: "Once a body is dead, what is it's value rotting in a casket? If it is burried without a casket, is it not going to be fertilizer one way or another? And in that case, why not where it will be useful to keep the living alive?

I do not concur with the Great Leap Forward and the other abominations of the Maoists, but in the context of their system, this was a very benign practice when compaired to many others.

Which is the greater evil:
--Desecrating a dead body that almost certainly doesn't care that it's being desecrated (in which case can you actually desecrate it?)
--Or letting people starve

So, since I am clearly intellectually inferior to you, show your mercy and point out for all of us WHERE DOES THIS SAY ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGEON? I don't mention religeon. I don't mention atheism.

Now on to your second lie:

ME: "Where did I say Papa Joe, Pol Pot, etc., were good guys?"
IB: "At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187."
WHAT WAS POST 188?: "You "reply" to a direct question, or direct statement, with a non sequitor and declair victory for yourself. You are the brother with the beam in your eye, blinded by your hate, blinded by your midnless devotion to a religeon you do not understand.

If you were not such a loud empty gong spewing falsehoods about so many things, you would almost be pitiful. It is very hard to pity someone who acts as you do.

Your description of Chineese conditions is not necessarily wrong, it just has nothing at all to do with anything you were supposedly responding to. Have you worked in a field, harvesting? Have you watched your family go to bed hungry night after night? Simple "yes" or "no" will do, but that is beyond your level of self control. You feel psycoticly compelled to go on and on about drivel."

A second time I beseach you, where in here did I say any of these mass murderers were good people? Where did I support CBJ's post? Where did I even mention him?

You are a psycopathic liar. You have no concern for honesty, you have no concern for facts, you lie to your adverasaries on here at the same time you decry that trait in Muslims. You blatantly and publicly disregard multiple commandments that are central to the religeon you profess to support. You use the same distorted propaganda tactics all those Communists used.

But somehow I bet you will justify all this to yourself.

Old-goaT, your two questions were answered. It’s your lame-ass reading and comprehension skills that are retarding your understanding.

At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305034&postcou nt=176
At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187.
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305483&postcou nt=188

.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

your two questions were answered. It’s your lame-ass reading and comprehension skills that are retarding your understanding..

Amazing. That's all I can say.

As Asimov said, "The gods themselves...."

0 for 20.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Amazing. That's all I can say.

As Asimov said, "The gods themselves...."

0 for 20.

Old-goaT, your two questions were answered. It’s your lame-ass reading and comprehension skills that are retarding your understanding.

At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305034&postcou nt=176
At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187.
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305483&postcou nt=188

.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Old-goaT, your two questions were answered. It’s your lame-ass reading and comprehension skills that are retarding your understanding.
.

Post #244.

You lie.

0 for 20.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Post #244.

You lie. Old-goaT, it is you who is lying.

0 for 20.

Old-goaT, your two questions were answered. Have your little sister assist you with your lame-ass reading and comprehension skills that are retarding your understanding.

At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305034&postcou nt=176
At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187.
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305483&postcou nt=188

.

[Old-T]

Post #244.

You lie.

0 for 22.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Post #244.

You lie. Old-goaT, it is you who is lying.

0 for 22.


Old-goaT, your two questions were answered. Have your little sister assist you with your lame-ass reading and comprehension skills that are retarding your understanding.

At post 176 you attempt to defend Mao’s cadre’s actions:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305034&postcou nt=176
At post 188 your remarks were an endorsement of CBJ7’s post at 185 & 187.
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2305483&postcou nt=188

.

[Don't Be Daft!]

As the Dalek's say this thread should be--EXTERMINATED!

[LovingKayla]

I KNEW the Dalek's were behind all this shit. The borg too. No really, the actress that played 7 of 9 in Voyager opened her mouth and screwed up the guy that was running against obama for the senate. So obam won the senate. It's all the borgs fault. hahaha

[CuteOldGuy]

Could be the Daleks, but it reminds me more of the Klingons around Uranus.

[sfb]

DA: Your Honor the defense rests

Judge: But sir, you have not offered a defense for your client

DA: Yes I have, I went into great detail about the whaling industry and the harpoon size and throw angle necessary to properly kill the mammal. (chuckle under his breath) I think I thoroughly stated my point

Judge: Well, that's all well and good, but your client is accused of murder... the human kind, and this is Iowa, not much whaling going on around here...

DA: Your Honor I clearly stated my defense here, you really must learn to read/listen better

Judge: No, you did not. In fact you have not addressed a single question raised to you, and for some reason you are only wearing one shoe.

DA: Your Honor I clearly stated my defense here, you really must learn to read/listen better

Judge: NO YOU DID NOT! In fact you have me very close to holding you in contempt of court

DA: Your Honor, please go and get your glasses because my argument is very obvious.

Judge: If I say it is not, and I am the one you are trying to win over, then well... it's not... You do realize that you will probably be sued by your client and I will have to declare a mistrial

DA: Your Honor, I clearly stated my defense here, you really must learn to read/listen better, and besides I used a different color every time. Geesh what else do you want from me???

Judge: Color? What the F*&^? What does color have to do... holy crapsicles batman...

DA: Would it help if I read a Shel Silverstein poem as well? In pink perhaps?

"I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues!"

Judge: Silverstein... What the F#$#??? You're quoting the freaking Lorax by Dr. Suess, that's not S.S. and how in the hell is it supposed to help your case... S#@$ man, this is a murder trial; drug deal gone wrong, pretty damn obvious, and your client has an alibi, though you never mentioned it... Holy F*#$, I give up... Bailiff get him the F*#$ out of here... OJ you are free to go yet again, but no more damn books ok?