INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Scrapheap on March 30, 2008, 08:53:22 PM
-
Do you think there's such a thing as moderate muslims?? Take a look at this video... it's the best reductio ad absurdum argument I've ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_vIl-qH0yM
-
:zoinks:
BUT, the point is that the klan hasn't been around
for long enough to really get rid of that side as its
primary purpose. Islam is NOT about killing jews, that's
merely a recent development.
In 300 years, if the klan is still around, and serving some
good purposes, the argument may actually hold water.
Right now, we're too close to what it used to be.
-
... Islam is NOT about killing jews, that's
merely a recent development.
Read the Quran, it calls Jews, pigs and monkeys and the enemy of Allah.
-
Still, they treated jews far better than the
west did, through most of time - up until
the founding of Israel.
Guess Mohamed was a pretty prescient guy?
-
...Guess Mohamed was a pretty prescient guy?
... and a child fucker too.
-
What's not to like? :zoinks:
-
Call me weird if you must, but a 9 year old girl doesn't give me a boner.
Apparently, 9 year old girls were like viagra to 50 yr old Muhammed.
-
Before there was a Muhammad there was an Israel. The Romans, Greeks, and other societies have records of Israel existing. Islam is just Muhammad rehashing the whole Ishmael thing and reclaiming the Jewish Holy Land to go with the rest of Mesopotamia. Religion being used as a landgrab at best, that is what they all were in the first place anyways. A reason to take someone else's land. Where are the Canaananites?
-
.... Where are the Canaananites?
The Jews bred with what remained of them, and took the rest of their land. Good point.
-
The Jews bred with what remained of them, and took the rest of their land. Good point.
I am not one to trust biblical stories as history, if you read The Bible Unearthed which talks about archaeological discoveries have changed scholars view of biblical history. The Israelites emerged out of the Canaanite population during the Iron Age. The book is a great read and casts doubt on events like time of the patriarchs, Exodus and even the United Israelite kingdom under Kings David and Solomon.
-
The Jews bred with what remained of them, and took the rest of their land. Good point.
I am not one to trust biblical stories as history, if you read The Bible Unearthed which talks about archaeological discoveries have changed scholars view of biblical history. The Israelites emerged out of the Canaanite population during the Iron Age. The book is a great read and casts doubt on events like time of the patriarchs, Exodus and even the United Israelite kingdom under Kings David and Solomon.
The Jews were on the land known as Israel 400 years before Islam ever existed. There are records going back further than that... records that have nothing to do with the Bible. I am referring to Roman census data, which shows Jews being from the region for hundreds of years, and not Muslims. I would have to look up what was supposedly in the libraries in Alexandria, but most of that was destroyed by one of Muhammad's great followers (Omar, Caliph of Baghdad). The Alexandrian (Hellenistic) period data was supposed to suggest (in Greek) that Jews were in the area back then too (technically only 300 BC but whatever). Islam didn't even exist until long after the Jews started spreading themsevles out all over the damn world (their fault for abandoning their "homeland" and being nomadic idiots). Palestine existed at best for 1450 years. Basically as long as Islam has existed lol.
-
The Jews lost all right to their land, when they
rebelled against Rome, and were defeated.
Just as the Palestinians lost their rights, by running
from Israeli 'oppression'.
Might makes right. If the muslims can destroy Israel,
what they have is theirs by right. If not, too bad. Just
like the Serbs were driven from their national heritage
and most important historical sites by the might of US
air power.
-
Rome can't go back and reclaim land though. Currently there is a state of Israel. I am sick of hearing about Palestine or Israel. We should just take both groups and kill them all, no more arguing then.
-
Why bother? They're good enough at it.
-
Why bother? They're good enough at it.
If we let them go at it in their current state, one side will ultimately win. I want them all to die, neither side to win.
-
If we let them go at it,
they will both lose. Nukes
ain't gonna make the near east
any more pleasant.
-
If we let them go at it,
they will both lose. Nukes
ain't gonna make the near east
any more pleasant.
Are you retarded? Israel has better technology right now, if unchecked they would able to crush Palestine and Lebanon. France gave Israel their nuclear technology and it is impressive to say the least in how they have developed it themselves (for a small nation). They also have a ridiculous airforce that is extremely well trained. If we let them fight it out, there would be a clear victor if they actually went all out militarily.
There is no reason to use nukes. You can kill everyone in that area without them, though I wouldn't mind making it so that land is impossible to live upon for centuries. It would be fitting if neither religion/tribe/whatever could ever use that land again.
-
Are you retarded?
Not that I know of.
Israel has better technology right now, if unchecked they would able to crush Palestine and Lebanon.
Uh huh. And Pakistan, and Iran would just sit and watch?
France gave Israel their nuclear technology and it is impressive to say the least in how they have developed it themselves (for a small nation). They also have a ridiculous airforce that is extremely well trained. If we let them fight it out, there would be a clear victor if they actually went all out militarily.
You forget that Israel is a democracy. That makes them weak.
They're not about to start nuking, right off. By the time that
they do, others will be involved. Even if WE stay out, everyone
won't.
There is no reason to use nukes. You can kill everyone in that area without them, though I wouldn't mind making it so that land is impossible to live upon for centuries. It would be fitting if neither religion/tribe/whatever could ever use that land again.
Unless one is losing. Which would happen, in your scenario.
Do you really think that there aren't any loose ones kicking
around? Or that Iran/Syria wouldn't go chemical.
-
Pakistan and Iran are going to have their own hands full. Pakistan for one is about to get into another war with India and they are harboring Bin Laden. Iran has chemical weapons and would get involved (which would of course bring the US into things).
Israel may be a democracy, but they are crazy enough to fight back with nukes unfortunately. They wouldn't lose straight up to Lebanon or Palestine, even without nukes (their airforce would win it for them). It would necessitate another Islamic state getting involved, which would eventually start WW3. France is in charge of Syria and Lebanon, per the Mandate of Mesopotamia. Good ol' Britian was responsible for Iraq and Palestine lol. I would rather kill everyone in Saudi Arabia the most, to be perfectly honest. That place needs it the worst.
We all should know by now that the USA will not stay out of the Middle East. Some seem to think that politicians will change things and make us more isolationist, which I think is naive. I wish we would just sit back and watch them all kill eachother off, but that won't happen. The second someone outside of Palestine or Lebanon get into direct conflict with Israel, the majority of the UN will be involved (not just the USA).
-
Lebanon and Palestine are non-entities, as far
as being states. The ONLY way Israel could
actually win against them is to pull a holocaust
of their own. I don't think that they can. Even
ignoring US opinion, the rest of the world HATES
them enough.
-
Lebanon and Palestine are non-entities, as far
as being states. The ONLY way Israel could
actually win against them is to pull a holocaust
of their own. I don't think that they can. Even
ignoring US opinion, the rest of the world HATES
them enough.
That is why I want to kill all of them. Problem solved if you kill off both sides.
-
Crusade!
-
The Crusades picked sides. I want to kill both sides.
-
Uh huh. Tell that to all the Christians killed after the siege of Acre. :laugh:
-
Uh huh. Tell that to all the Christians killed after the siege of Acre. :laugh:
I can't, they died over a thousand years ago. I don't give a shit about them anyways. We can't go back and kill them again anyways. What is more important is killing people now. The world could do with about 3 billion less people or more. I wouldn't mind seeing about 300 million people living on this planet, would be better than the current situation. The Middle East situation is inevitable, might as well hurry along their demise (along with ours).
-
My point was simple - you are wrong.
The crusaders didn't give squat for anyone
but their own - which didn't even extend to
other 'groups' of crusaders.
-
My point was simple - you are wrong.
The crusaders didn't give squat for anyone
but their own - which didn't even extend to
other 'groups' of crusaders.
You have no point. My point isn't religiously motivated at all, unlike the Crusades supposedly were. I am talking about now, and you bring up the Crusades, which has almost zero relevance due to the type of warfare employed back then. I want to kill everyone, regardless of religion or race, in the area. They won't be calling it the Holy Land anymore, as anyone who thinks of it in that capacity will be killed. Instead, it will be a good place to visit if you want to die.
Want to visit on a pilgrimage and you are a Christian? Too bad, you should get killed too.
-
The Crusades picked sides. I want to kill both sides.
I DO have a point, which is that your first sentence was crap.
-
The Crusades picked sides. I want to kill both sides.
I DO have a point, which is that your first sentence was crap.
People were there just for the sake of killing. It was mostly Muslim vs ancient alien or Christianity vs Islam. There were factions and mercenaries, but it isn't quite the thing I would have in mind for the Middle East and its people. The Crusades were mostly there to protect Christians on pilgrimages, not kill everyone who even comes near the area regardless of their religion or affiliation. It will be protocol.
A perfect place to battle test the world's first synthetic army. The day when there is a military comprised mostly of robots is approaching. I can't wait until that happens haha.
-
No. The people who lived there rather wanted to stay.
Those who settled did too. It wasn't all about killing.
Nor did the muslims care much about jews or christians,
until after the crusades started, and they still weren't trying
to exterminate anyone.
As to pilgrimages, it all gets kind of mixed. Certainly
protecting them WASN'T that important, since the
person who did the most towards that end (Fredrick II)
was excommunicated for his efforts. Much was actually about
the maintainence of the crusader states. But, when either side
was thwarted in their desires, they took it out on the inhabitants,
often of the same faith.
-
My views are not totally related to the Crusades, anyways. Though it is a way of doing something to the area.
Why do you keep bringing up the past? That was religious and what I am considering is counter-religious. There will be no living people in the area, regardless of their religion or race. As nice as isolation from the area entirely sounds, I do not see it as a realistic possibility, given the past investments (both political and economic) involved.
-
My views are not totally related to the Crusades, anyways. Though it is a way of doing something to the area.
Obviously. But, you attacked my statement about them.
Why do you keep bringing up the past?
Because you keep making untrue statements about it.
I can't tell you about the future, but I sure the hell can
complain when something I KNOW is wrong is said.
-
You used the word Crusade and I merely said that there were two opposing sides (overall, even though it is more complex than just that). I would like to kill off both by chopping it off at the head (by not allowing anyone to use that land, they might as well forget about ever visiting there). Everyone is welcome to go there to die. The place to settle the Ishmael vs Isaac debate might as well be there, as it is fitting. It will be settled when no humans can ever live there again and most of both factions are dead with their shitty religions of Abraham being destroyed in the process. That is where I was going and your point still is both dull and moot.
-
Perhaps. But, it's rather hard to take the political
views of someone who lacks the historical background
seriously. Like with the torture issue, where once again you
show a great deal of ignorance. Now, one can be ignorant about
specifics in the period of the crusades, and still understand the
situation in the near east well enough to discuss it, BUT when
one clearly talks out their ass, it's hard to believe that they've
invested thought into any discussion.
-
You think I seriously would choose the Middle East as my backdrop for humanity to kill itself off? I just think it would work well enough to thin the herd.
As far as people in the Crusades purely fighting along religious lines, that Christians were killing each other is no secret (you learn it in fucking high school). You are nitpicking since there are plenty of instances of fighting across whatever lines (this happens in a good deal of wars). The majority of the fighting and the rallying cry to get new soldiers was mainly to fight religiously for the land and whatever imaginary thing they wanted to get from there (Ark of the Covenant is one example). What leads the masses to fight for the cause is what the issue ends up being. If there is nothing there to rally the masses around (Religion in the case of the Crusade). Then there is less reason to fight over just some random land that has very little value outside of its religious context.
-
(continuing nitpicking)
I don't know what they teach in high school these
days - in my day, the crusades were barely touched.
Certainly there was no mention of the indiscriminate
slaughter of all inhabitants of Acre - not fighting, just
slaughter - christian, jew, and muslim.
And, it wasn't just the Christians involved in interfaith
fighting - there is no chance in hell that the first crusade
would have succeeded (or come anywhere close) had
there not been wars going on between the Muslim
states. Much like Cortes later, the crusaders got
something of a free ride due to the political situation.
-
There have been infighting among factions of Islam for a long ass time. This was before the Crusades obviously with an Imam I forget the name of, where Shiites and Sunnis probably originally separated IIRC because I can't be bothered to look it up or anything. When the Crusades happened, Islam didn't stop its divisive infighting lol. Neither did the underlying distaste among Europeans fighting under a Christian flag. That is something that should be obvious, as humanity is never completely unified (the US sure is not unified).
I knew here was a total slaughter at Acre, not much more from what I remember in Highschool, but I went to probably the most liberal highschool in the state lol. It certainly was the best as indicated by the rankings over the last 20 odd years of it being in existence as an academically gifted magnet school. They didn't cover the Crusades that much, but we learned it was a massive embarrassment and that there was infighting of course. That doesn't change the overall motivating factor of the whole thing, which was the whole Ishmael versus Jacob (Israel) as rightful owners of Isaac (and Abraham's) legacy and the land formerly known as Canaan. Wooohoo for tribal infighting that still occurs to this day. Muhammad built his temple on the site where the people think the Arc of the Covenant might be lol. That also used to be Solomon's temple (redone by Herod during Roman times). So much bullshit over there its not funny, and people who still buy into it seriously to boot. Might as well kill them all.
-
I'm jealous of the level of history you got in HS.
We had maybe two pages on the crusades. MOST
of history was covered by so little. A chapter on each of
the world wars, which were so much less significant than
the prior stuff. Hell, I can't even remember the most pivotal
war in europe (the 30 years war) being covered - the peace
of Westphalia was were the real roots of the modern wars lay.
I'm not really convinced that the old jewish history was that
important as to the crusader motivations though. Jerusalem was
magical because of Jesus, not some prior matters.
I'm all for killing 'em all though.
-
Yeah they had other artifacts they wanted there of Christian significance as well. I don't remember it all, but we had to do quite a bit in our history classes. There was a reason why I dropped out of the IB (International Baccalaureate) Program, you couldn't have a life if you were going to handle that much coursework. AP History classes were enough, as I had my General Education qualification for history pretty much covered after I graduated from highschool.
-
I don't think I had a tougher college course than
my AP History course. Certainly not in the humanities.
Our teacher drove us hard. Payed off though, I guess.
-
Too bad Fakesagan's account got deleted. :-\
-
Not seeing that username in this thread.
-
Fakesagan's video was in the OP.
It was a good piece of reductio ad absurdum.
He mocked the idea of a "moderate Muslim" by saying he was a moderate Klansman.
-
Fakesagan's video was in the OP.
It was a good piece of reductio ad absurdum.
He mocked the idea of a "moderate Muslim" by saying he was a moderate Klansman.
Ah. thanks for the clarification.
"Good piece of reductio ad absurdum" it might be, but I seem to recall that somebody came up with a damned good argument against (not that i understood that argument til i got to your post)
So...maybe sombody should start a new thread on this question, beginning with a brief resume of this one? (bearing in mind that nobody reads page 3 of anything.... unless it calls itself the "Sun" )
-
Fakesagan's video was in the OP.
Okay, got it. Thought you meant a member account here.
So...maybe sombody should start a new thread on this question,
Yes, do that.
-
Fakesagan's video was in the OP.
Okay, got it. Thought you meant a member account here.
So...maybe sombody should start a new thread on this question,
Yes, do that.
Gah, I knew sombody would volunteer me, if i said that.
Well, I can't. I've got ingrowing forum-noobness. Not qualified. *phew! *
-
:laugh:
-
All of that spamming between Cal and Alex179 and still no answers to the OP.
Is it possible to be a moderate Klansman??
-
There's plenty of "bad muslims", or whatever you wanna call them. Failed muslims?
As in, muslims who aren't very muslim. Drink alcohol, get tattoos, defy religious rules, and so on.
Alcohol itself is a very common "vice" in muslim countries, sold "under the counter" in many places, and also consumed more openly in higher niches, like politicians and other people of power.
-
There's plenty of "bad muslims", or whatever you wanna call them. Failed muslims?
As in, muslims who aren't very muslim. Drink alcohol, get tattoos, defy religious rules, and so on.
Alcohol itself is a very common "vice" in muslim countries, sold "under the counter" in many places, and also consumed more openly in higher niches, like politicians and other people of power.
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/54090636.jpg)
-
This video made me think of pappy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
-
This video made me think of pappy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
:LMAO:
-
This video made me think of pappy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
This video got Richard Dawkins un-invited to a science conference, when he re-tweeted it, because the organizers thought it was "offensive".
You see what damage the PC/SWJ mindset does to people??
-
I don't think Odeon knows the difference between Moderate and radicalised Muslim extremists. I do not think he understands that one is worthy of criticising and being kept out of countries and is highly dangerous. I do not think he is able to tell how we can distinguish from the surface who is or is not HOWEVER he expects that FBI can do this very thing without a good vetting system in place.
That is how it appears to me. Then again, Odeon makes fuck all sense lately.
-
Yeah, his arguments about Muslims have been off base.
I'd dispute some of the things he said, but I don't feel like typing out 10 pages of shit just for him to STILL not get the point.
-
Yeah, his arguments about Muslims have been off base.
I'd dispute some of the things he said, but I don't feel like typing out 10 pages of shit just for him to STILL not get the point.
10 pages? I am off my game.
-
Yes, more equals better. Another couple of pages won't do you any harm.
Idiot.
-
Yes, more equals better. Another couple of pages won't do you any harm.
Idiot.
You are an idiot if YOU believe more equals better. I certainly don't, I do believe though that more will go up. The quality of post will be the same. The message will be the same. It will be equal and consistent.
By the by, "idiot" may be your new go to word but it is no netter or worse than "Liar", "intellectually dishonest" or "bigot". I am completely unmoved by it.
-
I don't actually care if you are moved by it or not, I just like to use the right word. So yes, you've been all those things. Well done.
-
This shows just how bloodthirsty many muslims are.
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/the-tiny-minority-of-extremists-argument-muslim-opinion-polls/
-
Pew research is a good polling site; it's a shame the links for US and Brittish polls lead to nothing.
-
I don't actually care if you are moved by it or not, I just like to use the right word. So yes, you've been all those things. Well done.
I do not much care if you like to use right words or wrong words. You use the wrong ones and your attempts to back and justify your choice of words is idiotic. Well done for failing so very badly. Your lack of embarrassment underlies an extreme level of lack of self-awareness or a deliberate and sustained effort at dishonesty. Yes, well done, Odeon.
-
I don't actually care if you are moved by it or not, I just like to use the right word. So yes, you've been all those things. Well done.
I do not much care if you like to use right words or wrong words. You use the wrong ones and your attempts to back and justify your choice of words is idiotic. Well done for failing so very badly. Your lack of embarrassment underlies an extreme level of lack of self-awareness or a deliberate and sustained effort at dishonesty. Yes, well done, Odeon.
You'd do well to take a long hard look at yourself. You need it. But I guess that's not going to happen, is it? It's not easy when there's so much to work through.
-
I don't actually care if you are moved by it or not, I just like to use the right word. So yes, you've been all those things. Well done.
I do not much care if you like to use right words or wrong words. You use the wrong ones and your attempts to back and justify your choice of words is idiotic. Well done for failing so very badly. Your lack of embarrassment underlies an extreme level of lack of self-awareness or a deliberate and sustained effort at dishonesty. Yes, well done, Odeon.
You'd do well to take a long hard look at yourself. You need it. But I guess that's not going to happen, is it? It's not easy when there's so much to work through.
You would do well to get down off your moral high horse and examine what you say and why you say it.
There is precisely two reasons that after having explained very specifically a number of times what is and is not my positions that you would choose to try a bait and switch and substitute positions I hold for positions I don't and then try to argue against me for those positions.
The first option is that you are an idiot and the other is that after having it explained you know better but choose to be dishonest.
I don't much care which it is. Doesn't bother me. As long as you know that I know that it is one or the other. It cannot be ignorance after having it explained so many times.
Then of course is the outright lies.
So go moral pandering all you want but if anyone needs self-examination, its you. I am very self-aware. It says so much when your arguments devolve into bait and switch, lies and making arguments that have nothing to do with what I have been talking about. You can't even identify and back who I am intolerant of and how. You nominally say all Muslims but then can't show where I have said I am intolerant of all Muslims nor where I have collectively shown the disgust and intolerance that I have towards radical Muslim Extremists.
Its piss weak and ought to be beneath you. I think it is emotional problems. Midlife crisis perhaps. Perhaps you are just shit scared that facing these things rationally and looking at what I actually say rather than what you are freaking out about is too hard because you are IN Europe where these things are too close to home. "Rape Capital of the World"? That is something to live down. Maybe you are feeling guilty that you are feeling better about that than the troubles France is having with terrorist act after terrorist act. Perhaps that is why your mind wanders to falling furniture.
I don't really give a shit, its your issues to deal with not mine.
-
You make a convincing case for not giving a shit. :M
-
You make a convincing case for not giving a shit. :M
You on the other hand do not make a convincing case at all, which is the point precisely. You seem unable to back yourself and you are instead trying to bait and switch and outright lie instead. That speaks volumes. Why do you do this Odeon? Why is your argument so very weak that you cannot back yourself and lie and attempt to bait and switch instead?
-
Not interested in arguing anything with you, Al.
Early in this mess, I did point out--repeatedly--that I had backed up what I said but you refused to accept it. You refused to accept a difference in opinion, a standpoint also expressed by others, and it's gotten worse since, a lot worse. It's now gotten to be toxic and hateful, and while I am certainly not innocent bystander--I enjoy flaming as much the next person--I really should stop.
Do you honestly think a sensible discussion can take place between the two of us now?
-
Not interested in arguing anything with you, Al.
Early in this mess, I did point out--repeatedly--that I had backed up what I said but you refused to accept it. You refused to accept a difference in opinion, a standpoint also expressed by others, and it's gotten worse since, a lot worse. It's now gotten to be toxic and hateful, and while I am certainly not innocent bystander--I enjoy flaming as much the next person--I really should stop.
Do you honestly think a sensible discussion can take place between the two of us now?
I am not particularly concerned in what you are interested in arguing or not , Odeon.
A quick look at the first callout we had ought to disavow your notion of me refusing to ever accept a difference of opinion.
You wanted a reaction from me and called me intellectually dishonest and doubled down for all you are worth. I am not intellectually dishonest and your points were never well backed and there was plenty of bullshit during that time. Now you call me bigoted and a liar and whatever else. You can do that too. The result is the toxicity.
I would have been happy for it never to have began. I was not particularly interested in being prodded for a reaction. But prod you did and this is the reaction you have.
As for sensible conversation? I do make sensible conversation and you bait and switch and lie and then condescend to me and tell me I am illogical and irrational. It is AN option, but like the initial prodding for reaction, probably not the most constructive or helpful.
Odeon you can do whatever it is you wish to do. I have not stopped that, nor would I if I could. I will do as I choose too, as I do already.
-
/shrugs
Your choice. I have backed up everything I've said; it's your problem if you don't accept it. You still choose to misrepresent and lie about me, though, from me supposedly wanting "a reaction" to the "bait and switch and lie" mantra that you've resorted to lately. To be honest, I'm not even sure what you mean with that last bit and your, um, lengthy posts have done little to enlighten me in that respect.
You repeating the mantra ad nauseam won't make any it true, of course, but I suppose ironically it could be seen as baiting since enough of it might make me want to flame you again.
Your choice, like I said.
-
/shrugs
Your choice. I have backed up everything I've said; it's your problem if you don't accept it. You still choose to misrepresent and lie about me, though, from me supposedly wanting "a reaction" to the "bait and switch and lie" mantra that you've resorted to lately. To be honest, I'm not even sure what you mean with that last bit and your, um, lengthy posts have done little to enlighten me in that respect.
You repeating the mantra ad nauseam won't make any it true, of course, but I suppose ironically it could be seen as baiting since enough of it might make me want to flame you again.
Your choice, like I said.
"My choice?" When was it never my choice? Have you conferred some privileged position of determining my own agency? But consider you have agency too and you had a choice how you came at me and this is very much a follow on of those choices YOU made, like or not.
I have backed up everything I've said; it's your problem if you don't accept it. You still choose to misrepresent and lie about me, though, from me supposedly wanting "a reaction"
Of course I wanted a reaction, three months ago.....
"Supposedly"? Me saying this, is which one - misrepresentation or lie? Be careful how you answer because I have it in your own words? No? You are not lying about lying are you because that would make you a hypocrite as well
to the "bait and switch and lie" mantra that you've resorted to lately.
This is not the first time you broached the position that whilst I had supported in principle the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigrants whilst they upgrade the vetting system, Donald Trump had a later position about banning all US Muslims from the border and had posted something to that effect on his site or campaign book or whatever. In fact you tried telling me I was wrong (I wasn't they were two separate positions and separate ideas).
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23727.30.html
Now me pointing this out VERY clearly to you that you are incorrect and with it goes you ability to claim ignorance as to what I was arguing and what you were trying to say I was arguing for or against
A couple of things you have still to understand (hence "misguided"):
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did. Trump knows this is not a practical suggestion but it was never his point. He knows that tapping into the current Islamophobia will keep him in the news. And, just as importantly, there's always going to be people who don't know better and will believe him.
Me disagreeing with you and Trump on your bigotry does not equal an open borders policy. But you know this, don't you? You simply decided a little lie would be good for your argument.
I suspect stopping Muslims at the borders is against a number of treaties signed by the US. It could well be unconstitutional, too, and I've seen arguments to this effect by lawyers.
Trump wants to stop ALL Muslims from entering, not just immigrants. Not sure how you got this so wrong but you did.
As I have mentioned this in several posts that this IS a position of his "to ban all Muslims" and is on his website as you pointed out HOWEVER (pay attention this time) his initial position before the reclarification (that he gave in speeches) was that he wished to place a freeze on Muslim Immigrants. I agreed in principle with the initial position. I have not vouched an opinion for this new position (as a result of him reclarifying an older position) but you seem to want me to agree or disavow it.
This is NOT "getting it wrong" is it? Only an idiot would suggest that, right?
Okay so you know the position I had and the one I did not and was not interested in supporting or defending. There is no inconsistency and it is spelled out so only an idiot would not "get it".
So....look at the date and look at the arguments.
More of Odeon falling over himself to try and build a case after having overreacted on emotional grounds.
Having no real grounds to call anything I said bigoted, he tries fabricating my position by trying a series of switch and baits.
Fucking pathetic and sad. If he "could" have backed himself, he would have but he relied on switch and baits and outright lying.
I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.
I don't blame Muslims though and YOU know I don't blame Muslims. I told you already, I am not playing bait and switch with you Odeon. I blame radicalised Muslim Extremists. That is NOT Muslims.
It is people with a completely different mentality. In the same way a moderate weekly church going Christian is hardly the same as Westboro Baptists. But you know that already, right? :dunce:
Its weak to keep trying for this bait and switch isn't it , Odeon? Yup, I thought so too.
In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.
Do I have to present proof of a ban to work? I do not think I suggested a ban? I thought I simply supported in principle a temporary freeze whilst vetting procedures are improved?
What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.
I do not give a damn about that position. I never suggested nor argued that position and I do not care to start.
Oh I know this is another bait and switch tactic. :dunce:
Banning Muslims at the US borders is the Trump suggestion or policy on his website or campaign book that he made (that I vouched no opinion on) after suggesting his idea (that I happened to agree in principle with) about placing a temporary freeze on US Muslim immigrants whilst he fixes the subpar vetting systems used to vet radicalised Muslim extremists from Moderate Muslim immigrants.
I also know that YOU know which is and is not my position. You are both being an idiot and dishonest. Why? :dunce:
Might have been easier just to admit he was being emotional than double down and look like an idiot
So is THIS lie or misrepresentation?
Now you see the reason why some of these boring and repeated arguments hold water. Because they are genuine, truthful and consistent. I don't have to scramble, nor ignore hard arguments nor try to bait and switch more compelling positions.
That pretty much torpedoes this effort of you to play hard and fast with the concept of me misrepresenting or lying about yo bait and switching or fishing for a reaction.
So were YOU lying about what I was doing? I have all the evidence and in your own words from positions YOU have contradicted
This is also part of the reason you replying is NOT backing things up. The fact that you have gone to the effort of a reply does not equal you have backed yourself. Especially when you say something like you have hear which is provably untrue. In fact that is about as far from backing yourself as you can get.
The reason this does not "enlighten" you is that you are stewing in your emotional righteousness. You "feel" right. You feel morally and intellectually superior. Facts and logic have become secondary to your arguments. You:
* ignore the inconvenient
* lie to cover lies
* try to swap out or substitute hard to defend arguments that I support with easier arguments that I have not vouched for
* throw buzzwords like bigot without backing it
* try to sound like the "more reasonable person after having argued some unreasoned things
* even degrade yourself to try to condescend and patronise me after having no logical position to figure you had the higher ground in the argument.
You have not backed yourself. I do not care about your feelings or your emotional investment.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5FfJ89rGPc
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5FfJ89rGPc
Fuck you! That's why. :zoinks:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5FfJ89rGPc
Fuck you! That's why. :zoinks:
Correct
-
I *am* morally and intellectually superior. :M
-
I *am* morally and intellectually superior. :M
There is part of your problem.
IF you were you would not make these mistakes and you would be able to back yourself. You have made a lot of pretty embarrassing mistakes (including lying and bait and switch tactics) and are not able to back yourself.
It is a conundrum. I suspect that part of the reason this is a problem is that you have misjudged your moral and intellectual superiority and are too ready to dismiss what you ought to be taking notice of to avoid appearing like an idiot and a liar.
I am all for confidence but blind faith....not so much
-
:spitscreen:
-
:spitscreen:
Ignorance is bliss, and you seem happy.
-
Baiting again, Al?
-
Baiting again, Al?
Not amused then? I thought that was a happy emoticon? Baiting maybe, but that is far better than bait and switching, am I right?
-
Baiting again, Al?
Not amused then? I thought that was a happy emoticon? Baiting maybe, but that is far better than bait and switching, am I right?
Ah, there's that vague accusation of *something* again.
-
Baiting again, Al?
Not amused then? I thought that was a happy emoticon? Baiting maybe, but that is far better than bait and switching, am I right?
Ah, there's that vague accusation of *something* again.
Nothing vague about it. I spelled it out pretty clearly and evidenced it with your own quotes.
That you act like it is a big enigma is on you entirely.
You can choose pretend to be ignorant after having it explained to you. That is an option.
You can pretend to be trolling me.
Perhaps you will feign being able to comprehend me, with all the conviction of a primary school kid with his fingers in his ears saying "Lalala can't hear you"
Don't really care dishonesty is dishonesty. Don't much care for your intentions
-
Well, you'd certainly know about dishonesty, wouldn't you, having spent months taking the easy way out. You still do.
:yawn:
-
Well, you'd certainly know about dishonesty, wouldn't you, having spent months taking the easy way out. You still do.
:yawn:quite
The easy way out being lying, playing bait and switch, ignoring anything too close to home, dismissing, condensing and misrepresenting BUT never actually backing oneself........but that describes you and your efforts.
Can't see why I should feel bad about that
-
I'm not Alt-Right, I'm a "Liberal Klansman"!!! LOL :autism:
-
Moderate Muslims are the ones who stand around and watch while the nutty ones throw people off buildings.
-
Is it true that the Koran calls Jews apes and pigs?
Answer
8
Follow
Request
More
11 ANSWERS
JJ Cohn
JJ Cohn, A Jew
Answered Mar 11, 2015
*Some* Jews, not all. Namely those Jews who violated the Sabbath, and or "worshiped the powers of evil", and or, "disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do..." (per the Koranic translation in English). Koran 5:59-60 also says "most of you (meaning Jews) are iniquitous", but does not actually say "all" of you are, in fairness.
Does the Qur’an Say Jews Are “Apes and Pigs”?
from the link:
" [self-proclaimed Islam expert, anti-Muslim writer Robert] Spencer claims the Qur’an says Jews are apes and pigs in three places, implying “all Jews” are referred to this way. This is a lie. Let’s examine Spencer’s claims in detail. Here are the verses he cites:
AND LO! We accepted your solemn pledge, raising Mount Sinai high above you, [and saying;] “Hold fast with [all your] strength unto what We have vouchsafed you, and bear in mind all that is therein, so that you might remain conscious of God!” And you turned away after that-! And had it not been for God’s favour upon you and His grace, you would surely have found yourselves among the lost. For you are well aware of those from among you who profaned the Sabbath, whereupon We said unto them, “Be as apes despicable!” and set them up as a warning example for their time and for all times to come, as well as an admonition to all who are conscious of God. (2:63-66)
Say: “O followers of earlier revelation! Do you find fault with us for no other reason than that we believe in God [alone], and in that which He has bestowed from on high upon us as well as that which He has bestowed aforetime? – or [is it only] because most of you are iniquitous?”
Say: “Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? They whom God rejected and whom He condemned, and whom He turned into apes and swine because they worshipped the powers of evil: these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers].” (5:59-60)
...And then, when they disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do, We said unto them: “Be as apes despicable!” (7:166)
"The verses in question reference a specific story in which a community of Jews who lived by the sea — which according to several early Islamic exegeses is the town of Eilat — had people who fished on the Sabbath and deliberately broke the law, for according to Jewish law, all work was forbidden on the Sabbath. In punishment for this breach of the law, God transformed the Sabbath-breakers into apes; only 5:60 speaks of God transforming some of the sabbath-breaking Jews into swine.
" Yet, note that the verses in question do not say, “All Jews are apes and pigs.” Do some Muslims say so? Absolutely. Do they cite the above verses as “evidence” for their claims? Absolutely. Does that mean that the verses in question say so? Absolutely not.
In fact, Robert Spencer himself has admitted in the past that these verses do not apply to all Jews. Spencer in 2010:
In traditional Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir, whose commentary is widely distributed and respected among Muslims today, quotes earlier authorities saying that “those who violated the sanctity of the Sabbath were turned into monkeys, then they perished without offspring,” and that they “only lived on the earth for three days, for no transformed person ever lives more than three days.”
But such interpretations, of which Spencer is clearly aware does not prevent him from projecting the antisemitic statements of some Muslims, such as Morsi’s upon the entire religion of Islam itself when it is convenient for him to do so–as if he suffers from amnesia about what he has written in the past!
Our response is: How do the antisemitic views of some Muslims constitute “proof” of Quranic or Islamic antisemitism? Is the fact that some Catholics hold Jews to be “enemies of the Church,” “Christ killers,” etc., “proof” of inherent New Testament or Christian antisemitism? Does the fact that some Jews hold the view that “racism” is a value that “originated in the Torah,” or that “non-Jews exist to serve Jews” proof of Judaism’s racism and xenophobia against non-Jews? No, of course not! Then, how can that same logic apply to Islam? ... "
7.1k Views · View Upvoters
Your feedback is private.
Is this answer still relevant and up to date?
Upvote
·
17
18
Jane ChurchComment...
RecommendedAll
Chris Day
Chris Day, 30+ years as an international management consultant
Answered Jun 1
Continue Reading
Muslim apologists will say, ‘no, not at all’.
Others will write, ‘yes, but only some Jews were called this’.
Others will write ‘it’s because the interpretation was not clear, but in fact the Muslims respect the Jews, whom are called in question he Qur’ran, The People of the Book’.
Please friends, read the Qur’an; don’t listen to Islamic apologists or Bovine Scatology (BS) on the subject.
Go and read the Qur’ran for yourself, simple as that. Then listen to imams, Muslim religious preachers, who quote the Qur’an incessantly when delivering sermons,
And although the Qur’an says that Christians received the same punishment - not factually true, throughout history the term “apes and swine” has largely been reserved for Jews, in both Shi’ite and Sunni traditions, from the founding of Islam nearly fourteen hundred years ago to today ( “Muslim Clerics - Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals,” Jewish Virtual Library, November 2002.)
The Saudi sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca (Masjid al-Haram) called Jews pigs and monkeys. He also preached “that Jews, based on our Holy Qur’ran, are the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs (Charles Moore, “Where is the Gandhi of Islam?” The Telegraph, 9 July 2005.)
Al-Sudais is just one among many Muslim preachers promoting the same message. Many other leading Muslim clerics in the Middle East have also been preaching that Jews are swine and monkeys.
The Salafist Jordanian Sheikh Ali Halabi had issued a fatwa against the killing of Jews in February 2015. He changed his opinions after facing intense backlash. In a video released in November 2015 he announced that it is acceptable to kill someone who attacks you, “all the more so when the aggressor is an evil Jew, from among the brothers of apes and pigs.”
Taking the Qu’ranic text literally means considering Jews as animals. that’s clear. The Nazis held similar views, asserting that Jews were subhuman.
Even the highest religious Muslim authority in pre-war Palestine, the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al Husseini (and close confidante of Hitler’s, listed the points of similarity and overlap between Islam and Nazism in detail. He did so in a lecture to the imams of the Bosnian SS unit, which he had helped to set up (Matthias Küntzel, Djihad und Judenhass (Freiburg: ça ira-Verlag, 2003), 39.).
And a quote directly from the Quran in Sura (chapter) Al Ma’idaj states very clearly;
Say, “Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs (swine) and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way.”
And look into the Qur’an and read sura (chapter) 5, verse 60 (Qur’an 5:60).
For more details on this sordid Jew-hate name-calling by the Qur’an and by Islamic leaders worldwide, I refer the scholarly to an academic paper; “Qur’ranic Muslim Demonization of Jews as ‘Pigs and Apes:’ Theological Roots and Contemporary Implications by Dr. Neil Kressel (Ph.D).
1.5k Views · View Upvoters
Upvote
·
9
10
Jane ChurchComment...
RecommendedAll
Raud
Raud
Answered Feb 18
It says that allah turned some of the people of sabbath into apes, as an ex muslim from the middle east they teach us quran and one of the topics they taught us is (the people of sabbath) read the story and you will find a verse says that allah turned them into apes and of course you will find a lot of hatred towards jews in islamic scriptures and tbh there is no need to find verses or hadiths that is filled with hatred to prove that islam hates jews, just look at the majority of muslims and you will find the true face of the religion of peace, and its really funny seeing all the muslims here trying to defend their peaceful religion!!
Islam and the People of the Book
262 Views · View Upvoters
Upvote
·
3
4
Jane ChurchComment...
Bala Bafoofkit
Bala Bafoofkit, Missionary of the High Moistness at Saint Shlemiel's Chapel of the Valley
Answered Mar 3, 2015
Continue Reading
Quran in three different verses: 7:166, 2:65, and 5:60.
Koran then recounts a legend—not found in the Talmud —about Jews fishing or working on the Sabbath in a town that tradition says was located on the Red Sea . God made fish appear on the surface only on the Sabbath, never on weekdays. This tempted some Jewish fishermen to break their holy day of rest, ignoring their teachers’ warnings.
7:166 But when even after this they disdainfully persisted in that from which they were forbidden, We said to them, "Become apes—despised and disgraced!"
Thus, the literary context of Sura 2:65, having as its background the fishermen’s legend in Sura 7:163-166, another one of those silly repeats
2:65 And you know well the story of those among you who broke Sabbath. We said to them: "Be apes—despised and hated by all." 66 Thus We made their end a warning to the people of their time and succeeding generation, and an admonition for God-fearing people.
Sura 5:60, having as its background the fishermen’s legend in Sura 7:163-166,
Then say: "Should I inform you [People of the Book] of those, who will have even worse recompense from Allah than the transgressors? They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under His wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine; who worshipped taghut [the devil or idols]; those are the people who are in a far worse plight and who have turned farthest away from the Right Way."
1.5k Views · View Upvoters
Upvote
·
10
11
Josh Bob
Josh Bob
Is this generally taken to refer to the individuals, or extrapolated to all Jews?
Mehran Janghorbani
Mehran Janghorbani, Have studied Islam as much as I could, am a practicing Muslim and know something about it
Answered Mar 4, 2015
No, the verse says that in the time of Moses there were some Jews who desecrated the Sabbath and they were turned into pigs as an example.
It never says that Jews are pigs, in fact Jews appear many times in the Quran and in Islamic tradition both as examples of holy men and good behavior that Muslims need to emulate and at times as examples of people who have strayed from the path. However, nowhere does the Quran insult the entire Jewish community.
Second, the punishment was a one time thing to make an example of the transgressors, it does not even say that Jews that desecrate the Sabbath will be turned into pigs.
Where did you get that idea from?