[civilian_number_two]

Spoon, JM's point about the manufacture of White Supremacists is fair. "Radical" Christian, the kind who would drag a nigger from the back of their truck, are generally not the well-fed University graduates you mention. The real radicals are generally poor and often from the South.

I do appreciate your larger point, that there are warmongers and hatemongers also among the wealthy, but generally these wealthy folks are not the ones doing the actual fighting. Like the leaders of any radical set, they are able directly or often indirectly to convince the poor radicals that there is a fight to be won with the blood of the young. In fact, that's exactly how it works with the KKK.

[Jordan]

Nobody here watched that documentary. People like your westernized friend allah akbar are not the problem. There is a problem and a historical precident for large islamic populations in countries.

Quran is messed up. You can lead a peacefull life and be with in it's rules or lead a violent one. Violent ones don't condemn the peaceful guys and the peaceful guys don't condemn the violent ones since they're both following orders from the book and neither are wrong. Draw a picture or publicly dismiss them and they freak out. yet they never protest all the violence with in their community, just blame everything on jews or heathens.

Explain the state of islam in eastern eurpoe and africa.

Nobody is asking for a war on Islam, just don't let them come over here, thats all. Unless you want another religon to deal with, one that is 500 years in the past and incapable of treating heathens with fairness. 1 muslim girl can't do any harm, multply her such that the number represents a large community, and then you start having issues.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 23 January 2008 - 05:15 PM

[Slade]

Snake: Sorry, bub, but pointing out the endless various flaws in your arguments is not a personal attack, nor is wondering how often you're deliberately ignoring and misconstruing arguments to perpetuate your own circular logic and straw-men. But yeah, I think I'll just let Civ2 continue to completely trounce your every move. And if you took your own advice, you'd have to stop posting. I hate to rain on your parade, but just being learned in all the bad debate practices there are and using them all the time does not make you one of the "big boys."

Spoon: Sure, there are crazies who aren't oppressed. I can't really try to put every type of person that may become an extremist into a profile, because that would take forever, since there would always be exceptions to the endless possibilities of people. My point was it takes a good bit more than just a religion to incite people to extremism. And yeah, I didn't have much evidence to back up my post, but I was taking a leap of faith and assuming that there were at least a small percentage of people with a decent amount of common sense and the ability to think critically in the world's population of Muslims. *shrug*

[J m HofMarN]

White man’s burden’ has nothing to do with Christianity.

You must mean a different white mans burden. Cuz I read the Rudyard Kipling poem which is about how we need to civilize and Christianize (and occasionally enslave) natives. You must have been listening to the hit Vanilla Ice song of the same name, or something. Fuck I dont know where you get your info.

stop pointing out how gay chritians and their faith are, stick to Islam. try defend all the hatefilled passages on their own merits, not "oh gee this is evil but those christians sure are fags"

Ah so the game is to tear apart one combatant group and we are forbidden to mention the other antagonist and what they might have done? Sounds fun, heres mine:

The allies totally blew up a bunch of people in 1944 for like totally no reason. They firebombed major cities! Also they deployed nuclear weapons and opened concentration camps for Japanese people. They were sure awful people and since we arent allowed to mention what their opponents did, you cant disprove that.

[J m HofMarN]

There is a problem and a historical precident for large islamic populations in countries.

Any religion with a majority in a country will want its laws imposed. Thats why my friend cant marry her girlfriend, why I cant take seven wives, and why some states dont allow gambling or the sale of alcohol, and no states allow alcohol sales on a Sunday. I could go on and on with Christian teachings leaking into law, but I wont. All Ill say is that living under a moderate Sharia state such as Iraq (was) probably wouldnt be much different than living under the current Christian law state were in.

Quran is messed up. You can lead a peacefull life and be with in it's rules or lead a violent one.

Funny, I was under the impression that a lot of US soldiers, who live violent lives, are Christian. Any religion that demands total pacifism is fucked. If they form their own government theyll be invaded. If they try to spread their religion under another government, that society will avoid them and the government will try to keep their message down because a religion preaching pacifism would mean less soldiers for said government.

Explain the state of islam in eastern eurpoe and africa.

Explain the state of South America, Southeast Asia and Sub Saharran Africa. Oh, wait, you cant because there arent Muslims there to take all the blame.

just don't let them come over here

Well they have to go somewhere after we blow up their houses.

1 muslim girl can't do any harm, multply her such that the number represents a large community, and then you start having issues.

What the fuck are you now, the Orkin Man? ``If you see one Muslim there may be thousands in your walls!`` Look if you feel that strongly, get a top hat and a sash made of a Canadian flag, and form a gang. Just watch out for Leonardo DiCaprio, he`s probably Imam Vallon`s son.

[Jordan]

Ya that is the point, tear one apart. Not skirt off the blame on another seperate religon. Point of debate was to discuss that islam is religon that begs the believer to establish it's laws into the masses, once they're in a position to do so.

You guys have pointed out that there is no world wide Islamic movement with failing to address that ever country that has a majorirty or equivalent population ends up becoming an islamic run state. You talk about nazi's, christians, etcc

Explain the state of South America, Southeast Asia and Sub Saharran Africa. Oh, wait, you cant because there arent Muslims there to take all the blame.

This is your tactic 99% of the time. Great, next time you talk about your beloved che people, I'll tell you about the Ayatollah Komenai. Fair enough? Or next time you bash a political system I'll point out what humans were like in pagan days. Or if you talk about MLB drug use, i'll skirt the blame on rock stars.

[J m HofMarN]

ever country that has a majorirty or equivalent population ends up becoming an islamic run state.

Dear god! The international conspiracy has never been made so clear to me! But I found other perhaps more shocking facts. Observe:

In countries with majority white populations, white people tend to rule.

In countries with majority Chinese populations, chinese people tend to rule.

In countries with majority Canadian populations, Canadians tend to rule the country. Oh noes!

[Spoon Poetic]

Yes, many "radicals" of any religion (or cult) are poor/oppressed or whatever, but I was just saying that Slade's statement that a religion wouldn't be the only thing that incites radicalism is wrong. I promise it's wrong, there are so many cases where someone gets all radicalized and does stupid shit because they get excited about their religion (or cult). I keep mentioning cults because that's a really good example of it. (And a cult is basically just a religion that no one has recognized - every religion has started out as a cult at some point.) I've seen it personally, I read news stories about it all the time, it's in the statistics and in the stars... I'm just saying you can't assume that every radical was oppressed in some way, and that's why they're an extremist.

stop pointing out how gay chritians and their faith are, stick to Islam. try defend all the hatefilled passages on their own merits, not "oh gee this is evil but those christians sure are fags"

Jordan. You're attacking a religion that has violent passages in its holy book. And telling us to defend those passages on their own merits.

But can you do the same for your Holy Book? Without using the argument that you won't let us use, about how "Well you don't have to follow that part because it's archaic." Any time one of us says that most Muslims choose to not follow the parts of the Koran that don't make sense (the violent, intolerant parts) you ignore it or say we can't use that argument or whatever. But then we bring up those violent, intolerant parts of the Bible, and you say "well we don't follow that because it's old" or whatever and then tell us to leave Christianity out of it?

It's the same issue, man. It relates in every way. Do you need some specific examples? Want me to pull out the verses about how you should stone your own kids to death if they talk back to you, etc? We all know Christians don't follow those rules, and we all know the reason everyone gives for it. And we all know it's in the Bible.

So why the hell can the same argument not be made for the Koran? There's some yuck in there, but the majority of the Muslim religion does not follow those bits. Unfortunately, the Muslim religion has not yet gotten to the point where they feel safe/comfortable saying, "I don't follow some parts of the Koran because I believe they're wrong for whatever reason" (the Jihadists might come after them, for instance - Christians don't usually have that problem), so they have to quietly not follow those parts.

[J m HofMarN]

Spoon-

You make a fair point. Individuals can have different motives and such. But I think what Slade and I were saying was that you dont get a radical MOVEMENT from just religion alone. It takes social problems to bring that about. And I really dont think you can argue that point. Even Christian religious movements such as the schism in the Catholic church were brought about because of social problems such as the Churchs taxing of land and their favoring of the rich with the sale of indulgences.

[Spoon Poetic]

Ah. Agreed, then.

[Despondent]

Thank God I can buy alcohol on Sunday.

Orkin man. It's true though.

[civilian_number_two]

Seriously? You can't buy booze in the US on Sunday? What kind of prohibited Theocracy are you folks running?

[Snake Logan]

That was a trick, Snake, but an obvious one so I don't apologise. Bush and his military leaders concluded from the attack on the WTC that they should invade Afghanistan to chase down an invisible leader who was not there and is probably already dead. Why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia? The answer is immaterial; they were able to sell that invasion idea to Congress and to the American people because the Christians of the US had no trouble believing that it was a Muslim attack, not a political one, that Muslims head an international terrorist conspiracy, and that we should strike at Muslim governments wherever we see them, except not in Saudi Arabia, under the perpetual wisdom of our Lord the President of the United States, so help us God.

I agree with you. America should not be in Afghanistan. They should cut off Osama’s source of income in Saudi Arabia but unfortunately Americans are too cowardly to upset their oil masters.

No, I have to ask you to find the passage for me. All I said was that White Christian trumped up charges in order to hate and kill blacks for decades. I don't think it was their Bible that told them to do it. I don't think the Bible has much to do with Christianity; I don't think the Koran has much to do with Islam. Religions aren't about their reading materials, they are about the people of the religion and what they are willing to do.

So what your saying is that a person who does not follow the bible is a Christian? I guess that makes sense, I am sure that many of those Islamic suicide bombers were probably illiterate peasants who took the words of their Imam too literally.

The Romans have nothing to do with manufacturing the phrase "White Man's Burden. The Romans, for the record, conquered other nations so that they could bring back treasures and slaves. The generals liked the conquests because they would be rewarded with week-long parades of drinking and sex. But back to the phrase "White Man's Burden" and its counterpart "Manifest Destiny," these are distinctly Christian arguments for supporting conquest and genocide. They have nothing to do with centuries of nations warring against one another; they are entirely about selling that culture of theft and conquest (and a little genocide) to a Christian people (who ate it up with relish).

You must mean a different white mans burden. Cuz I read the Rudyard Kipling poem which is about how we need to civilize and Christianize (and occasionally enslave) natives. You must have been listening to the hit Vanilla Ice song of the same name, or something. Fuck I dont know where you get your info.

Had Christianity not existed then the most technologically advanced country would still be preaching how it is their job to civilize the savages of the world.

You can't say "Islamic governments are all about oppression and destruction of their enemies because of their religion, but Western governments that preach Christianity only attack foreign countries because that's what the Romans did." It's a double standard, and you sound like a nutter when you do it. The people are sold the idea that the Muslims are out to get them, and they support perpetual warfare on the grounds of religious superstition. The people have occasional acts of desperate terrorism to convince them that their leaders are right. For their part, the terrorists are sold the same idea, and they have their own simple physical reasons, bombings and killings and disappearances and whatnot.

Weird. I never actually stated that Islam was the cause of any crimes. I simply stated that the hands of Muslims are not clean after several people kept declaring the Christianity was evil and the crimes committed by Muslims was reactionary.

The government and the people who elected them were Christian. So some people who disagreed with them were also Christian; big deal. There was no organised Christian resistance (caution: this may be a trap). It's not exactly the first time that Christians have disagred with one another, or that a Christian government has used Christian soldiers to round up rival Christians and to charge them with dissention. Besides, I didn't bring up Germany. You did when you said that minorities had it great there in 50s. Don't cry foul when I mention that in the 40s the army executed minorities from time to time. You can read about it. The status of minorities there in the 50s was NOT giggles and suncream.

I was talking about the 1960s, when white people had to fight other white people to allow black people the right to vote for government in the country they were born in. The Christian attutude that blacks were inferior was a carryover from the Civil War, a war in which armies of both sides sang hyms while they marched. It took some arguing to convince some of the Christians that the other Christians might have had a point.

Indeed. What about England, France, Canada and the rest? Taking a hand full of examples like America and South Africa is pretty weak.

Now I'm sure you're joking. You say that the friend I was mentioning, if she isn't all "Allah Akbar" is Westernised. I ask you what that means and you say that she is Westernised if she is self-loathig and a petty follower of contemporary trends. Ok. She isn't. She is a very happy person with no apparent trendiness and no self-loathing. So I supose she isn't "Westernised." Now, can you explain to me how she is Muslim and she's not all crazy to kill the infidels? Because you're having a hard time selling that to me, and now you can't even justify it by saying she's "Westernised." What you're selling rather easily is that you are yourself a Christian and that you have bought the propaganda that wars in the Middle East are religious, not political, that there is an International Jewish Communist Muslim conspiracy of terror and that we need to get them before they get us.

Westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend.

She has to be a least two of the things above to be westernized. I made myself pretty clear before and I believe this is fairly accurate representation of western mentality.

Snake: Sorry, bub, but pointing out the endless various flaws in your arguments is not a personal attack, nor is wondering how often you're deliberately ignoring and misconstruing arguments to perpetuate your own circular logic and straw-men. But yeah, I think I'll just let Civ2 continue to completely trounce your every move. And if you took your own advice, you'd have to stop posting. I hate to rain on your parade, but just being learned in all the bad debate practices there are and using them all the time does not make you one of the "big boys."

You didn’t point out any ‘endless various flaws’ in my argument.

Snake: How much work on your part does it take to deliberately misinterpret or ignore every point and its context in your every post? It seems to me that it's much more difficult and futile than just admitting that all of your arguments are fallicious at best, or taking the time to actually know what you're talking about.

See? That is nothing but a general attack on me. You simply said that all my arguments were ‘fallacious at best’ and didn’t dispute any of my opinions. And don’t worry, I don’t expect anything to happen against you, seeing as how you’re the big moderator and all.

My point is even if it is 500 years younger than Christianity its still 1500 years old! Is that not enough time to make some reform? It only takes one generation to come to their senses. But the point is they may well never change because as the article you posted points out Islam is even more resistant to change than other religions, questioning the Koran is a complete no-no.

I think it also has a lot to do with the social, political and technological change Europe went through during the last thousand years. I mean, Western Asia is not going to see the number of bloodshed Europe did, ever.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 24 January 2008 - 01:19 AM

[Jordan]

n countries with majority white populations, white people tend to rule.

In countries with majority Chinese populations, chinese people tend to rule.

In countries with majority Canadian populations, Canadians tend to rule the country. Oh noes!

Oh come on, seriously. Islam = oppressive religon. Everything you just mentioned has nothing to do with it.

But can you do the same for your Holy Book? Without using the argument that you won't let us use, about how "Well you don't have to follow that part because it's archaic." Any time one of us says that most Muslims choose to not follow the parts of the Koran that don't make sense (the violent, intolerant parts) you ignore it or say we can't use that argument or whatever. But then we bring up those violent, intolerant parts of the Bible, and you say "well we don't follow that because it's old" or whatever and then tell us to leave Christianity out of it?

Show me every quote in New Testament that calls for killing, taxing, expelling or otherwise just supressing heathens? No Christian lives under mosaic law. Mosaic law is dead.

If you quote old testament, a book that even Jews don't live by or any one else for that matter, then I won't bother reply cause I'm sick of defending it.

Muhammad, a war lord who killed people, is the messanger of God, the Koran through him is what the Muslims live by.

It's the same issue, man.

YOu guys keep spitting this PC crap. It's not the same at all. Christianity is not Islam. According to you, Islam is a peaceful religon that has a few bad apples. You failed to explain why islamic run states are supressive, you failed to explain why all the war torn countries in eastern europe and africa have islamic militants on one side, you failed to explain the situation of afghanistan, pakistan, and all those other countries. Islam, when it's able, does a power grab. Plain and simple. Yet you choose to ignore this and just say "meeeh christians have the same amount of baddies and old testament "" JM will show us how evil white people are because he thinks religons, race, and box cars are all the same thing.

Bill Maher said it best, Islam gets off the hook by many westerners because it calls itself a religon. Therefore it can't be bad. But this religion demands from it's followers, that if able, they should institute shia law in the land they reside in. It's now political and could effect you. But not in the annoying " i love jesus vote for me and i'll stop baby deaths" kind of way, but in the more supressive manner that pushes you into a second class citizen.

IF you think christians are bad and if they can try play with politics, even though the bible says they shouldn't "hail unto caesers what is caesers" then how much worse are muslims when their very religion TELLS THEM TO.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=EKOw7VoRiog small segment, very good though, bill maher so garunteed laughs. Talks about a somalia girl, who was raised in a muslim country. SHe still is a muslim. Doesn't matter though, she's a liberal freak in the eyes of her muslim brethern and has a death threat on her.

The last few minutes sum up that religon. SOme pc liberal wishy washy guy gets shot down with the points i've been trying to make, better yet it CAME FROM A MUSLIM. She rules.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 24 January 2008 - 01:51 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Westernized means a self loathing, radically secularized capitalist that only is looking to be apart of the current trend.

She has to be a least two of the things above to be westernized. I made myself pretty clear before and I believe this is fairly accurate representation of western mentality.

Well there we are then. Civs friend isnt westernized, so she must be an ``Islamo fascist`` I expect Civ to be exploded by her at any moment and will take steps to carry the entire (sane) side of the debate myself in light of his imminent immolation.

On The Slade Question: A lot of your arguments rely on taking an opposite stand to the sensible one just to get a reaction, and then when forced to back them up you go to some pretty iffy tactics or misconstrue your opponents argument. As for him not needing to worry, Im glad. He seemed terrified when last I spoke to him but now that he has no need to fear you perhaps he wont call me in to check for Snake Logans under his bed so often when its bed time.

Oh come on, seriously. Islam = oppressive religon.

All religions impose laws on people. The reason for this is that some of us are sheep like enough to require a bearded old man in the sky to tell us that raping people is bad and to threaten preternatural spanking when we die. The nature of religion is oppressive if you want to look at it like that. Of course, you could also accuse the government and your parents of oppression. Or Slade.

God damned oppressor.

As for the book controversy, people pick and choose. Idiots choose to ``live`` by the old testament so far as fags are concerned, and previously when they felt like having slaves they went straight to the parts of the bible about that.

You failed to explain why islamic run states are supressive

-le sigh- I already said its because of imperialism. A lot of these countries have only just gained independence after years of open or de facto western rule. If you want Islamic nations to sprout Western democracies instantaneously your thinking is as flawed as the idiot in the white house. Look at Iraq. Thats what happens when you force democracy on a population that isnt ready for it, and on a country thats barely a country.

As for Muslims criticizing Islam, I can get you shit like that for any religion ever. Catholicism? I have a nun who says she was used as a fuck whore in a nunnery by priests or some such nonsense. I can find you branch davidians who felt David Kareshs fire control systems could have been better. Maybe find some folks in Guyana who thought the kool aid tasted funny. Masons who fled from masonry and got killed for it, maybe. Etc etc.