Blair is on his own

Re: Re: Blair is on his own

UndercoverElephant said:


So now they weren't muslims? :rolleyes:

And I suppose George Bush isn't a Christian?

To be honest, I don't really see the point in this line of debate. Politics and religion really don't mix.

And getting back to the title of this thread......

Blair is ever more on his own. It looks right now like there isn't even going to be a vote on a second resolution. If so, Blair is in deep political doo-dah. The Americans will go without any 2nd resolution, but his own party will rebel en masse if he tries to send British troops into action without UN backing. And lame arguments about how 1441 already authorises war might work on the US public but they won't work on the European public and they won't work on the parliamentary labour party. Blair needs that second resolution.

"So now they weren't muslim"
- Don't be deliberately obtuse, the point was why millionaire playboys would have a beef with "Money, greed, idolatry, etc", which you didn't answer.


"Blair is ever more on his own"
- Actually today's paper gives a poll showing support has just gone to 3/4's in favour. The increase probably due to it now being impossible for any honest person to deny that Iraq is stalling/concealing it's WMD program from the Inspectors.

"It's the lives of thousands of Iraqi conscripts who did not choose to be in the Iraqi army"
- They should desert. Following your reasoning any Nazi's who committed war crimes in WW2 should be excused if they were 'just following orders'. I don't recall the Nuremburg Judges feeling the same way.

And before you accuse JK of being a neo-nazi take a look in the mirror and think about what you've been writing; that Americans should be killed because 'they' disagree with your political (environmental) views. Pot and kettle?
 
Originally psoted by Undercover Elephant:
Islam encourages violence. Christianity expressly forbids it, even when it is being used against you.

The Amish excepted, Christianity accepts the use of force for self defense.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
They were far closer to being true Muslims than George Bush is to being a true Christian. Islam encourages violence.

I've come to the conclusion that you are deliberately trolling. That is the only way I can explain your endless stream of complete falsehoods. This is the latest.

"Islam encourages violence." - UCE

Try these links. It seems like Muslims don't agree with you.

Does the Qur'an promote Violence?

... As can clearly be seen from the above examples, the Qur’an does not "promote"
or glorify violence. Islam is a religion that preaches peaceful co-existence ...


Does Islam promote violence?

Does Islam promote violence? ... It is clear from even a cursory study of the
Qur'an that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. ...
 
SC

Depends on which is your favourite testament of the bible, old or new.

Well if we are talking about Christianity then it must be the NT.

Drooper :

Islam encourages violence." - UCE

Try these links. It seems like Muslims don't agree with you.

Sorry Drooper, but Mohammed led over 20 military campaigns himself, and the Qu'ran is littered with instructions to kill Infidels. I don't care what some people trying to defend Islam say - ISLAM ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE. I know Tony and George keep saying its peaceful. They are LYING.

I am not going to back that up any further. I don't have to. Any person who actually has the faintest idea what they are talking about knows perfectly well that what I am saying is true.

It is in fact very sad that you, a skeptic, have been duped into promoting factually incorrect propaganda designed to misrepresent a violent religion as a peaceful one.
 
You do have to back it up further. You will find that at least one of those links addresses Mohammed's military soirees.

Any person who actually has the faintest idea what they are talking about knows perfectly well that what I am saying is true

So here you are placing knowledge of the Koran above an Immam.
 
Also UCE, if you believe Christianity is completely pacifist:

look under the Old Testiment (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)', God promotes the eneocide of the Pagans.


And here is nice one from the mouth of Christ in the New Testiment:

And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck."
`(Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1-2)`


The fact is that the Koran and the Bible were both a product of violent times and persecution. Neither "promote" violence, but its existence and inevitability is reflected in the writing of both.

The salient point is that despite this backdrop, both raise above all else the concept of peaceful coexistance between people. This represents the true basis of both Christianity and Islam. If there are people who promote violence in the name of either religion, then they are misrepresenting the very thing they claim to uphold.
 
http://www.letusreason.org/Islam10.htm

What does it mean when Muslims say they are for peace? For the most part means that there would be no struggle or resistance to Islam. That those who are not Muslim would submit. Islam means submission, a Muslim is one who submits to Allah, and there is not peace without Allah. George Braswell, Jr. (B.D., Yale; Ph.D., U of NC) lived in Iran for seven years, defines the word “peace” from a Muslim perspective, “The world…of Islam must conquer and rule over those of ignorance and disobedience…. The peace of the world cannot be secured until the peoples come under the rule and protection of Islam.” (What You Need To Know About Islam and Muslims, p. 87)

We hear they for peace, and they have quoted their own verse to prove it; but it is out of its full context. They have said to us "anyone who kills another man it is as if he has killed all mankind." Here is the whole quote which changes it’s meaning as far as I’m concerned. "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (Sura 5:27-32) These "other words" certainly change the meaning of the verse. The question that should be asked is why they cannot quote their own verse correctly to the public. To Muslim all those who do not worship Allah are corrupted. If they misquote their own verse to the public doesn’t this show they either do not know their own religious book or it is done on purpose. The question would be why?

Personally when I hear of a religion is promoting peace as in tolerance, I think of Buddhism before Islam.

Again in Sura 17:33 “Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).” While a cursory reading of this passage can support the view of not to kill, it still has in it a qualification of “except for just cause” and “slain wrongfully.” Again this can mean something quite different than the way we interpret it here in the west. There may be Muslims that would not interpret these verses in a negative way, but what about history. How did they traditionally use these verses? This will have to be left up to those who specialty is in the area of Islamic history, mine is not.

Jihad is a necessary element in Islam. Islam turned to aggression as those refused the message and the messenger. Mohammed as general planned 65 campaigns and lead 27 invasions, certainly these would be considered Jihad.
Mohammad was sometimes diplomatic and would institute a peace. But we are not focusing on the character of Mohammad, but the history and the revelation. The sword was most often used to conquer those steeped in paganism, and at one time Islam had conquered all of Northern Africa and came close to overtaking Europe. The belief that people need to have the one God who is Allah spurred the followers to spread this religion. Islam spread its influence not by engaging in dialogue and persuading people by truth, but by the offer of submitting to Allah. Unfortunately this became a similarity in the “Christian crusades” as well.




Was Mohammed just a "two bit" 6th-7th century Terrorist?

Mohammed was in fact a terrorist, criminal and murderer whose entire life was based on victimizing innocents and indulging in mindless violence, carnage and massacre. He was a man who destroyed peace wherever he went, and in its place brought terror, carnage and death. In this day and age we would even consider Mohammed a pedophile. Even "Sahih Al-Bukhari" says Muhammad was married to a 6 year old Jewish girl, while he was 51, and he slept with his 11 wives in one night. Safiyah, the 6 year old Jewish girl whose family members were slaughtered by Mohammed, was made to undergo this legalized rape on the day her family was killed. In the first year of Mohammed's residence at Yathrib (now Medina) the "Prophet" who never prophesized, celebrated his marriage to Ayisha. Ayisha was then only a young girl (jariyah) of 9-years old per both Abu Dawud and Tabari.
When Mohammed first started screaming from the rooftops that he alone had the divine word of God, the people of Mecca ignored him. However, when he started insulting and defaming the religion of the peace loving Meccans, they couldn't take it anymore and tried persuading him to stop. Mohammed the coward was too scared of the growing hostility against him and instead of calling upon his Allah to strike down the Meccans, he crept out one night and fled for his life.

Ever since that incident, Mohammed was determined to take revenge on the Meccans. He escaped to Medinah, which had a sizeable Jewish population, and started plotting his revenge with a small gang of criminals. This was the beginning of Mohammed's trail of violence, hatred and bloodshed that would soon destroy the once flourishing culture of Arabia. The story has been documented in detail by his biographers, - surprise raids on trade caravans and tribal settlements, the use of plunder thus obtained for recruiting an ever growing army of greedy desperados, assassinations of opponents, blackmail, expulsion and massacre of the Jews of Medinah, attack and enslavement of the Jews of Khayber, rape of women and children, sale of these victims after rape, trickery, treachery and bribery employed to their fullest extent to grow the numbers of his religion Islam which ironically was supposed to mean 'Peace'! He organized no less than 86 expeditions, 26 of which he led himself.

The motives of the converts to Islam was never in any doubt. As David S. Margoliouth states in his book "Mohammed and the Rise of Islam":

'Of any moralizing or demoralizing effect that Muhammad's teaching had upon his followers we cannot say with precision. When he was at the head of the Robber community, it is probable that the demoralizing influence began to be felt; it was then that men who had never broken an oath learnt that they might evade their obligations, and that men to whom the blood of their clan had been as their own, began to shed it with impunity in the 'cause of god'. And that lying and treachery in the cause of Islam received divine approval. It was then too that Moslems became distinguished by the obscenity of their language. It was then too, that the coveting of goods and wives possessed by Non-Muslims was avowed without discouragement from the
Prophet....'

The details of all his criminal onslaughts in the form of battles and assassinations are chronicled in this article in a chronological manner. One should note that every time the 'Apostle of Peace' committed one of his criminal onslaughts, he always justified the crimes by quickly claiming a 'divine revelation' which conveniently removed the blame from his bloodied hands. These convenient Suras are detailed immediately below the description of the incident.

1) Massacre of unarmed merchants during sacred month

Date: Late January(Rejeb), 623 A.D.

Place: Nakhla

Victims: 4 Merchants from Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Tribe to which Mohammed himself belonged

Four UNARMED merchants were traveling to Mecca to sell their goods consisting of raisins, honey and animal skins. It was the holy month of Rejeb which was considered sacred for trade in Arabia. It was a point of honor that any form of warfare or violence was strictly forbidden in this month. Mohammed's gang attacked the helpless men from behind and stabbed two of them to death. They plundered all the goods as booty and Mohammed got one fifths of the share.

This shows the utter lack of morals or scruples on Mohammed's part. The Prophet of Islam did not possess a shred of pity or kindness, or the slightest sense of justice. He cold-bloodedly murdered two innocent people who had never done him any harm and did not even know him! All this was done in a month that the Prophet himself declared was a sacred month in which no warfare should take place. Mohammed was obviously motivated by nothing but hatred and greed.

Conveniently divine revelations came down from Allah that absolved him of all the guilt.

Koran 2:216

'Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not.'

Here Mohammed is completely removing all blame from himself, for having started the fighting. The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that Allah is completely justifying Mohammed's murder of the innocent Meccans. Over and above this Mohammed is conveniently implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because it was ordained by Allah! What sacrifices the 'Apostle of Peace' had to make!

Koran 2:217

'They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelieve in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing'

Here Allah is clearly saying that to kill or create warfare in the sacred month of Rejeb is a very grave offence, but to justify his own violation of Allah's rules, Mohammed comes up with the idea that since the people killed were unbelievers, it was perfectly okay! The reason given for the horrific murder of the innocent Meccans, is the fact that they did not believe in Mohammed's version of God. How much more tolerant and kind could the 'Great Prophet' be!

2) Slaughter of Meccans who came to defend their caravans

Date: March (Ramadan) 17, 623 A.D

Place: The well of Badr

Victims: 70 merchants from Quraysh Tribe of Mecca, The Quraysh army which came to defend them

The merchandise being carried by this caravan was worth more than 50,000 Gold Dinars. Mohammed ganged up all the criminals of Medina and set out to raid the caravan with 300 men. The Meccans got word of the raid and sent out an army to protect the caravan. Throughout the entire battle Mohammad cowered in a hut which his men made for him. There he cried and prayed with feverish anxiety. At one point he came out of the hut and threw pebbles in the enemy's direction, screaming 'Let evil look on your faces!' and 'By him who holds my soul in his hands, anyone who fights for me today will go to paradise!' The Muslims killed over two hundred and took seventy prisoners. All seventy of the prisoners were ransomed, and any prisoner who did not fetch a ransom had his head chopped off.

Mohammed was gratified at the sight of his murdered victims. After the battle, he sent his followers to look for the corpse of Abu Jahal, one of the Meccans who had criticized him openly. When his corpse was found they cut off the head and threw it down at Mohammed's feet. The 'Apostle of peace' cried out in delirious joy, 'Rejoice! Here lies the head of the enemy of Allah! Praise Allah, for there is no other but he!' The Prophet then ordered a great pit to be dug for the bodies of the innocents to be dumped. The Muslims then proceeded to hack the corpses limbs into pieces. As the bloodied mass of bodies was being thrown into the pit, a feverishly excited Mohammed screamed, ' O People of the Pit, have you found that what Allah threatened is true now? For I have found that what my Lord promised was true! Rejoice All Muslims!'. One of the prisoners taken was the defiant Al Nadr Ibn al Harith, who had earlier taken Mohammed's challenge of telling better stories than him. Mohammed ordered Ali to strike off Nadr's head in his presence, so he could watch and exult in the pleasure of beheading the man who had insulted him. Another prisoner Uqba ibn Abi Muait was decapitated in front of the Prophet. Before being killed the prisoner cried out pitifully 'O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?' The 'Great Prophet of the Religion of Peace' coldly spat out 'Hellfire', as the blade came down and spattered his clothes with Uqba's blood.

This time Mohammed needed a revelation that would not only absolve him of all the guilt for murdering so many innocent people, but also give him the 'divine' right to get a huge share of the plundered booty. Quite a few revelations magically appeared after the battle of Badr.

Koran 8:65

'O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence'.

This Sura clearly exposes Islam to be a religion that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muslims to kill anyone who does not believe in the Muslim version of religion. Not only is the 'All forgiving Allah' exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death!

Koran 8:67-68

'It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.'

This verse is in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle. Allah the 'Merciful' is saying that they should all have been killed! In addition, Allah is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is 'lawful and good' because it was done in service to Allah. So murder, rape, plunder and destruction are all perfectly fine with Allah as long as they are done in the name of Islam! Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could get more money from the Ransom for them. In today's world this is called 'Terrorism' of the worst kind.

3) Assassination of poets who criticized Mohammed's murderous ways

Date: Late March-April, 623 A.D

Place: Medinah (aka: Medina)

Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, who had the courage to criticize the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang....

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medinah were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticize, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, 'Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!' That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said 'You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats.

A month later the distinguished and highly respected Abu Afak, who was over a hundred years old and renowned for his sense of fairness, was killed brutally in the same manner as he slept. Once again the "Prophet" had commented that morning 'Who will avenge me on this scoundrel!'

This shows us exactly how much the tolerant and peace loving Prophet respected life. Muslims claim that Mohammed was extremely gentle and loved children. Indeed the horrifying way he had Asma Bint Marwan's five infants slaughtered certainly attests to this 'loving' side of the "Prophet".

4) The Siege of the Banu Qaynuqa

Date: April, 623 A.D

Place: Medinah

Victims: The Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa

In order to get full control of Medinah, Mohammed needed to get rid of all his opponents. The strongest of these opponents was Abdallah Ibn Ubayy, a powerful chief who was allied with the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa. This tribe was also the weakest, because they were made up of craftsmen, in particular goldsmiths. By attacking them, Mohammed knew he could plunder a huge amount of wealth and weaken Ibn Ubayy. Mohammed needed an excuse to attack them so he made a girl married to one of his followers, pretend that she had been teased by the Jews. The Muslims blockaded the fort of the Banu Qaynuqa for fifteen days until the starving Jews surrendered. Immediately, the Prophet was ready to kill them all, but Ibn Ubayy seized hold of Mohammed and protested. Mohammed's face became black with rage as he shouted 'Let go of me', but Ibn Ubayy was adamant and shouted back 'No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my allies. 400 men without armor and 300 with, who have always supported me against enemies. And you want to slay them all in one morning! By God, If I were in your place I would fear a reversal of fortune'.

At this threat, the cowardly Mohammed turned pale, as he realized that all the people of Medinah were against him. He hit Ibn Ubayy on the face and ordered that the Jews be kicked out of their own homes. All their property was seized and looted, many of the prettiest women were taken as prisoners to become sex-slaves. Mohammed kept one-fifths of the enormous booty for himself. This is the way he repaid the kindness of the Jews of Medina, who had given him shelter and a refuge, when Mohammed had run away from Mecca in fear.

The revelations in the Eighth Sura of the Koran were clearly in reference to the Banu Qaynuqa and anyone who opposed the Muslims.

(Koran 8:55-57)

'Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.'

'Those of them with whom you made a treaty and then at every opportunity they break their treaty and they keep not duty to Allah, If you come on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, so that they may
remember.'

Here Mohammed's acts of planned terrorism against the Jewish Tribe is justified by Allah, because according to the 'Merciful' Allah, Non-Muslims are the worst of BEASTS! So it is perfectly all right to murder, rape, torture and pillage the non-believers! Not only that but Allah is advising Mohammed and the Muslims that when anyone protests against the injustices committed by Muslims, the Muslims should make sure and deal with them with such violence, that it will strike fear among anyone who may think of supporting dissent. This proves that the Koran is nothing but a political manual for controlling people with terror. Not even the fascist armies of Hitler engineered such devilish ideas.

The above are just a few of the incidents that demonstrate the intolerant and merciless nature of the inhuman acts committed by Mohammed and the Muslims.

It was Mohammed that started the fighting by attacking the Meccan caravans during a time that attacks were traditional forgone between enemies in that area.

Islam works in much the same way as communism, which is by subversive means. As Islam was introduced to the native Indonesians, the people found the religion was very adaptable to their animism and pagan beliefs. Islam did not really change the beliefs but absorbed it instead, since it did not bring something that was dramatically different than indigenous pagan beliefs. For example, the beliefs in jinns (spirits and ghosts) and all the superstitious practices such as charms, amulets, susuk, mantras (using arabic language - no one really knows whether it is a koranic verse or not), witch doctors or shamans (dukun), and many others which are still widely practiced by the Indonesian moslems.

On the other hand, Christianity would try to eradicate these practices, and because of this, the people were more receptive to Islam, except in some parts of Indonesia.

Then, after Islam gained stronger influence, the maulanas did use military forces to attack the Hindu and the Buddhist kingdoms in their objective to Islamize the regions, just like they did anywhere else in the world.

I simply am citing well know facts about the Koran, the Hadiths, the pre-Islamic history of Mecca, and what is claimed by the Muslims themselves to be known concerning the life and activities of the Prophet Mohammed.

When Muslims state that 'there is no God but Allah' and 'Mohammed is the final Prophet', they are insulting every other religion.

India, and many other countries around the world, were raped, pillaged, and plundered by Islam. And today it is the Islamic nations which threaten world peace.


This is a Christian site, but if you do a bit of research I think you will find the basic facts about Islamic history are correct.
 
Drooper said:
Also UCE, if you believe Christianity is completely pacifist:

look under the Old Testiment (Deuteronomy 7:1-6)', God promotes the eneocide of the Pagans.


And here is nice one from the mouth of Christ in the New Testiment:




The fact is that the Koran and the Bible were both a product of violent times and persecution. Neither "promote" violence, but its existence and inevitability is reflected in the writing of both.

The salient point is that despite this backdrop, both raise above all else the concept of peaceful coexistance between people. This represents the true basis of both Christianity and Islam. If there are people who promote violence in the name of either religion, then they are misrepresenting the very thing they claim to uphold.


I disagree. Christianity really is about love and forgiveness, even if many modern Christians don't behave this way. Christ didn't lead any military campaigns. The NT isn't littered with instructions to kill non-believers. The concept of 'Holy War' is alien to Chistianity - but absolutely central to Islam.
 
UndercoverElephant said:
This is a Christian site, but if you do a bit of research I think you will find the basic facts about Islamic history are correct.

Oh UCE, you sell these links short. From the latter one, you should have quoted this:

Of approx 1000 prophecies in the Bible - about 500 have already come true like this - literally - some take time - for God's own good reasons - but God's Word always comes true.....

credibility factor of this effort UCE ?...errrrrr. This is just the sort of place I would go for an objective and well research view of the Koran.


What about the first link (the "Let Us Reason" ministries) :

Just about anyone can claim to be God and many have, even in our modern times, but it is a whole other thing to prove it. Only one came from heaven raised from the dead, and ascended back to where He came from. This becomes the eliminating factor that makes it the Grand Canyon jump that no one can survive

That little excerpt came from the section in their web site headed "In Response to All Other Religions" - OUCH. These guys have serious issues with ANYONE who isn't a God fearing Christian.

:rolleyes:
 
Drooper,

If you wanna believe that Islam is a peaceful religion then that is up to you.

:)

Geoff.
 
UCE:

Yesterday I posted the following 'question', when you talked about how 'others' on the system remind you of why 9/11 happened:

Segnosaur said:

Am I one of the 'others'? Really, I'd like to know.

Do you have a list of the 'others' that you think have attitudes that lead to 9/11? I'd like to see your list. I'm sure the 'others' would like to know how you characterize them.
You never responded to the question. Did you miss seeing it? Or did you think the question was not worth answering? Or perhaps you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Or perhaps you just don't want to answer the hard questions, like many anti-war people.

Really, I'm sure a lot of people would like to know what you really think of them and their opinions.
 
Q-Source said:


I came to this forum and I was very honest about asking you to remove that sig. But I have seen that the tactics of people here are very low and mean. Many of them do not deserve the respect that I thought they deserved. It is quite disappointing.
You're right... People are low and mean.... Some suggest violence against America is right, others love to stereotype Americans as 'war mongerers' who get all their world information from Hollywood.

Just aweful.
 
Originally posted by Segnosaur


Really, I'm sure a lot of people would like to know what you really think of them and their opinions.

And I am not stupid enough to take a piece of bait with a hook through it.

If people want to know what I think of them personally they can PM me.
 
crackmonkey said:
They were obviously motivated by something other than religious fanaticism, since living according to the Koran wasn't that important to them, apparently.

You are correct.

They were motivated by their jealousy and hatred for the rights and freedoms American enjoy, and our regard and attitude for those rights and freedoms.
 
UndercoverElephant said:

And I am not stupid enough to take a piece of bait with a hook through it.

If people want to know what I think of them personally they can PM me.
Well, you pointed to JK as an example. Why is he a a valid target in the open forum for being a "reason" for 9/11, and others aren't? Can you at least explain your reasoning?

Or is anyone who disagrees with you considered a "reason".

Come on, stand by your convictions!
 
Well, you pointed to JK as an example.

I did. And I will leave it to people to make up their own minds why I did that.

Why is he a a valid target in the open forum for being a "reason" for 9/11, and others aren't? Can you at least explain your reasoning?

He is just the most obvious case.

Or is anyone who disagrees with you considered a "reason".

Come on, stand by your convictions!

If you want to talk about philosophy and religion I will stand by my convictions. As for politics - I am sick of talking about it, and I have no intention of being goaded into providing a list of people I think exhibit the sort of attitude that prompts people to become anti-American. To do so would be profoundly counter-productive and serve only to increase the level of acrimony in already acrid forum.

You are like a schoolkid trying to tempt another schoolkid to run out in front of a bus. Segnosaur - you are free to be outraged by my politics, free to continue quoting a statement I withdrew in every post you make - but please do not mistake me for an idiot.
 
UndercoverElephant said:


You are like a schoolkid trying to tempt another schoolkid to run out in front of a bus. Segnosaur - you are free to be outraged by my politics, free to continue quoting a statement I withdrew in every post you make - but please do not mistake me for an idiot.
Of course I don't mistake you for an idiot. Not that I don't think you're an idiot. I'm just not mistaken about it. :p

As for the 'statement you withdrew', yes you withdrew it, but it is up to the people most affected to accept or reject your apology. And the fact is, you've made many other comments (such as how america only understands violence) which to me indicate that your withdrawl and apology were not unconditional.

As for your 'schoolkid' anology... I just want straight answers to hard questions that you yourself brought up. People in the anti-war movement don't like to talk about the 'hard questions'.
 

Back
Top Bottom