Q: Can't we all just get along?
A: Nope
A: Nope
I do not read the quran. I have seen quotes from videos, and I have heard this.
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)tahadar wrote:
you read the Quraan when?stef10 wrote:
They hate Jews and Christians because in the quran it says that they are the enemies of muslims.
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah's curse be on them; how they are turned away!" (Koran 9:29-30)
And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)
when he was in school rolftahadar wrote:
you read the Quraan when?stef10 wrote:
They hate Jews and Christians because in the quran it says that they are the enemies of muslims.
The only thing I am gonna read is the Bible/Torah.
Ha!Spark wrote:
Thankyou! A decent source, that's all I wanted.lowing wrote:
Spark, your defense is exactly what I expected. Since there really isn't anything else you CAN say in about it.
I wanna hear again how All the Muslims want is their land back and once Israel is eliminated there will be peace in the middle east, and the middle east violence stems from the creation of Israel.
I think these articles clearly show intolerance and persecution by the Muslims toward the Jews, and Israel has nothing to do with it.
Also, if all of these sources are inaccurate, wrong, lying, whatever, surely you can show some links challenging these claims.
I find it interesting that the only argument you mount toward the OP is the sources. I am left to assume if given a source you can't deny, you would be forced to agree with the OP.
If ya can't trust your Wikipedia, who can ya trust?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
It's very interesting, but you can't generalise. You can find anti-Semites on every continent (I'm sure there's one on Antarctica, if you looked hard enough), so...
I didn't list wikipedi because its usually dissmissed as a biased source!
I can't be bothered to argue the points, i seldom do...i prefer to read/bash ming once in a while. However, my point stands Wikipedia is NOT a credible source it never has been.lowing wrote:
By nature of being polarized on this or ANY issue, bias towards one view point is inescapable. So, how about you argue against the points of the OP instead? Provide your "biased" sources as proof this did not happen if you wish.m3thod wrote:
if you trust wikipedia you deserve to be shot.lowing wrote:
Spark, your defense is exactly what I expected. Since there really isn't anything else you CAN say in about it.
I wanna hear again how All the Muslims want is their land back and once Israel is eliminated there will be peace in the middle east, and the middle east violence stems from the creation of Israel.
I think these articles clearly show intolerance and persecution by the Muslims toward the Jews, and Israel has nothing to do with it.
Also, if all of these sources are inaccurate, wrong, lying, whatever, surely you can show some links challenging these claims.
I find it interesting that the only argument you mount toward the OP is the sources. I am left to assume if given a source you can't deny, you would be forced to agree with the OP.
If ya can't trust your Wikipedia, who can ya trust?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You didn't...lowing did....ATG wrote:
Ha!Spark wrote:
Thankyou! A decent source, that's all I wanted.lowing wrote:
Spark, your defense is exactly what I expected. Since there really isn't anything else you CAN say in about it.
I wanna hear again how All the Muslims want is their land back and once Israel is eliminated there will be peace in the middle east, and the middle east violence stems from the creation of Israel.
I think these articles clearly show intolerance and persecution by the Muslims toward the Jews, and Israel has nothing to do with it.
Also, if all of these sources are inaccurate, wrong, lying, whatever, surely you can show some links challenging these claims.
I find it interesting that the only argument you mount toward the OP is the sources. I am left to assume if given a source you can't deny, you would be forced to agree with the OP.
If ya can't trust your Wikipedia, who can ya trust?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
It's very interesting, but you can't generalise. You can find anti-Semites on every continent (I'm sure there's one on Antarctica, if you looked hard enough), so...
I didn't list wikipedi because its usually dissmissed as a biased source!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Haa. You should really stfu when you are talking to one that is getting A´s. Pathetic piece of shit.
Last edited by stef10 (2007-04-01 07:08:55)
Very true... As bad as the Religious Right is here, the Muslim equivalent of them in the Middle East makes people like Pat Robertson look like a liberal....Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Religion should have nothing to do with politics. Unfortunately for the middle east, religion is politics.
M3thod, this is really immature of you. Surely, you can come up with a better argument than to call someone a "bum boy."m3thod wrote:
I heard you're a bum boy, so do you think i should believe this too?stef10 wrote:
I do not read the quran. I have seen quotes from videos, and I have heard this.
I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. We have religious nut jobs here too, but they're less violent and less extreme. Fred Phelps is one of the few that can compare to the lunacy of the extreme Islamists, but aside from him, our religious loonies are generally less destructive and hateful. However, the fact that we still have them seems to imply that it is within human nature to have a certain proportion of any population or culture that is dogmatic and extremist.Commie Killer wrote:
The rest of the world grew up, no one else thinks that way anymore and well, hell, I feel a lot safer now having nukes now then if people had nukes 500 years ago, now people are driven by the conscience and dont usually fall back onto the religion and manipulate it in a sort of way that they can make anything morally right in their own mind. Right now the Mid East is the only place that is still living centuries ago, communist countries are living about 100 years or so, the hard core communists still believe in and pretty much want to force their system upon everyone else, kinda like the religious fanatics do.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Religion should have nothing to do with politics. Unfortunately for the middle east, religion is politics.
I agree that the world should make a concerted effort to keep religion and state separate, but it will be very difficult to promote this concept throughout the Islamic World. I agree that, in many ways, they are living as if it is the Middle Ages. Hopefully, trade will help move them forward to a more rational and secular society, but there are many obstacles to this progress. The most notable one is poverty. Wealth disparity is pretty bad in most of the Islamic World.
Im not saying anyone is wrong here but I have to say first link I picked to read was:
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/handzar.htm
The level of stupidity and retardeness and propaganda in that article was too overwhelming for me to read rest of the links. Al tho it did made me laugh.
And I checked this one for example:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigrat … i_arab.htm
How can a guy write in his book, "A report stated: bla bla bla". What report? By whom? When? Am I supposed to believe this mystical "report".
Here is a tip. When arguing something and you want to give "proof" dont just go to google and type 3 keywords and than copy paste links from first page (in this case google muslim+nazi+connection and you will get most of those links on the first page). Read them your self first and than filter the bullshit ones and post the good ones.
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/handzar/handzar.htm
The level of stupidity and retardeness and propaganda in that article was too overwhelming for me to read rest of the links. Al tho it did made me laugh.
And I checked this one for example:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigrat … i_arab.htm
How can a guy write in his book, "A report stated: bla bla bla". What report? By whom? When? Am I supposed to believe this mystical "report".
Here is a tip. When arguing something and you want to give "proof" dont just go to google and type 3 keywords and than copy paste links from first page (in this case google muslim+nazi+connection and you will get most of those links on the first page). Read them your self first and than filter the bullshit ones and post the good ones.
I wasn't arguing nor debating with him, rather i used a crass analogy to make a point.Turquoise wrote:
M3thod, this is really immature of you. Surely, you can come up with a better argument than to call someone a "bum boy."m3thod wrote:
I heard you're a bum boy, so do you think i should believe this too?stef10 wrote:
I do not read the quran. I have seen quotes from videos, and I have heard this.
I also didn't call him a bum boy, i actually said i heard he was one. Now, implying and outright accusing him of being a bum boy are very much different.
If he'd answered "you've heard wrong" then we would have something to talk about....like any A grade student would.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You might want to reconsider that if you're going to make judgments about a religion that is based on books other than Bible and Torah.stef10 wrote:
The only thing I am gonna read is the Bible/Torah.
You are really acting awfull. Now you making your statement more acceptable.m3thod wrote:
I wasn't arguing nor debating with him, rather i used a crass analogy to make a point.Turquoise wrote:
M3thod, this is really immature of you. Surely, you can come up with a better argument than to call someone a "bum boy."m3thod wrote:
I heard you're a bum boy, so do you think i should believe this too?
I also didn't call him a bum boy, i actually said i heard he was one. Now, implying and outright accusing him of being a bum boy are very much different.
If he'd answered "you've heard wrong" then we would have something to talk about....like any A grade student would.
And do the post below. I was not saying that one religion is better than the other. I was telling the reason why muslims may hate Jews and Christians.
And just because I am saying that I would only read the Bible. I am a Christian, and it would be imho pretty awfull to read a book that does not have anything to do with the God I have my faith in.
Last edited by stef10 (2007-04-01 07:34:27)
The crassness is the point though. You'll be far less productive by using "crass analogies." I get what you're saying, but you should've expected stef to take it as an insult.m3thod wrote:
I wasn't arguing nor debating with him, rather i used a crass analogy to make a point.Turquoise wrote:
M3thod, this is really immature of you. Surely, you can come up with a better argument than to call someone a "bum boy."m3thod wrote:
I heard you're a bum boy, so do you think i should believe this too?
I also didn't call him a bum boy, i actually said i heard he was one. Now, implying and outright accusing him of being a bum boy are very much different.
If he'd answered "you've heard wrong" then we would have something to talk about....like any A grade student would.
Again, you might want to read the religious text involved if you're interested in determining why this ethnic conflict exists. Other than that, history should be your guide.stef10 wrote:
And do the post below. I was not saying that one religion is better than the other. I was telling the reason why muslims may hate Jews and Christians.
Admittedly, my knowledge of the Quran is very limited, but most of the observations I make are based on the recent history of the region (the last 200 years). I'm not really judging Islam itself as much as I am judging people's interpretations of it. It sounded like you were judging Islam itself.
Yes, and why even make such a statement. Probably because you do not agree in what I am saying.Turquoise wrote:
The crassness is the point though. You'll be far less productive by using "crass analogies." I get what you're saying, but you should've expected stef to take it as an insult.m3thod wrote:
I wasn't arguing nor debating with him, rather i used a crass analogy to make a point.Turquoise wrote:
M3thod, this is really immature of you. Surely, you can come up with a better argument than to call someone a "bum boy."
I also didn't call him a bum boy, i actually said i heard he was one. Now, implying and outright accusing him of being a bum boy are very much different.
If he'd answered "you've heard wrong" then we would have something to talk about....like any A grade student would.
That is an outrageous behavior.
Well, I just know that the quran wants Muslims to fight Christians and Jews. Because Christians believe in the tetra and because the Quran says that Jews are a greedy people and evil people. Pretty funny when people say that Muslims and Jews have the God.
And I do not respect Islam and the Quran when it wants hatred and war againts my religion.
Last edited by stef10 (2007-04-01 07:43:32)
BUTT SNIFFER ALERT!!m3thod wrote:
I heard you're a bum boy, so do you think i should believe this too?stef10 wrote:
I do not read the quran. I have seen quotes from videos, and I have heard this.
lowing wrote:
JahManRed wrote:
The Soviet Muslims were living under a Soviet Stalinist Communist regime. They choose what they thought to be the lesser of 2 evils at the time for the survival of their religion and freedom to practice their beliefs.
Your link to the modern Jihad is tedious.
"The German courting of the Soviet Muslims was part of Hitler's lunatic schemes for bringing Turkey into his side and for advancing to control the oil fields in Middle East and Baku."
http://stosstruppen39-45.tripod.com/id10.html
Kinda like the USA's courting of notorious human rights abusers Saudi Arabia and Saddam for their oil.
The British indicated their intent to carve a Jewish state out of Palestine as early as 1917 through the Balfour Declaration:
"The first is the Balfour Declaration of 1917: An official letter from the British Foreign Office headed by Arthur Balfour, the UK's Foreign Secretary (from December 1916 to October 1919), to Lord Rothschild, who was seen as a representative of the Jewish people. The letter stated that the British government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
The Muslims knew Britain's intention to allow Israel to create its own state and shift a million Muslims of their lands. When your peoples lands, history and culture is under threat from the largest super power of the time, you cast your eyes around for friends. "Is my enemy's enemy's my friend?" Britain had made it clear that they were going to allow creation of Israel and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni foresaw a the oppression which continues to this day. He was a nationalist and his first priority was the survival of his country.That's not what I m saying. I am a believer in the two state solution using the 1947 borders. The Israelis and Palestinians are both entitled to their respective states. However I and the international community bar UK & US, am against the illegal occupation of lands outside those borders.lowing wrote:
excellent post:
I guess, protecting your lands, history, and culture from aggression is only reserved for non-Jews. If a Jew does it, it is terrorism. Are you saying that Jews have NO historical presence, and no culture associated with the Middle East? .Because it wasn't the British who were going to occupy the lands.This proves that it was their lands they were concerned with firstly, not exacting revenge. The British were looking away out of there. The Zionists where as aggressive towards the British as the Arabs are/were. See King David hotel and British Garrison attacks on the British by the Zionists for proof. There was no way the Arabs could defeat the British, that would have been suicide. Waiting for a weaker force to move in then strike is just good military tactics. They seeked to avoid that still by siding with the Nazis and have them do it for/with them.lowing wrote:
So if the Muslims were afraid of British intentions, why not "eliminate" the British as a race?? Why eliminate the people the British fought for?
In all honesty, Yes and Yes. There is no doubting that Arab culture is brutal. It wouldn't be the first time whole peoples and cultures were wiped out or integrated into/by a conquering nation tho. (Look at the policies the British had in Ireland and Scotland, were a newly wed woman had to spend her first night wed being rapped and hopefully impregnated by the British lord of the area).The different sections of Islam, like Christians (see N.Ireland) have been in fighting for years and the Israelites were involved in that fight too. So in my mind its not Religious intolerance, is intolerance of anyone who is different and that stretches through all society East and West. Muslims are not the only people were the extreme right are intolerant.lowing wrote:
Are you saying that the genocide of the Jews by the Muslims and Nazis was merely a rational pre-emptive measure to make sure Israel is never established. That intolerance for the Jews had nothing to do with it?? Do you honestly believe this??
You can't say that the Muslims supported the extermination of the Jewish people through religious hatred alone, although that may have played a part. If say the Balfour Declaration had declared that Madagascar was to be a future home for the Jewish people at the cost and displacement of the insidious peoples, the peoples wouldn't have walked away without a fight and we may have found Africans fighting in the ranks of the SS. Today we might have a stable Middle east and a southern Africa in even more disarray, if that's possible.
Not every Muslim hates Christians and Jews. I'd argue the vast majority of Muslims outside of the Middle East have decent relations with Christians and Jews. Granted, I'm aware that Denmark has had some serious problems with Muslims lately. I remember that cartoon fiasco -- that was just absolutely pathetic on the part of the Muslim community. They do really need to lighten up about things like that. It was just a few cartoons....stef10 wrote:
Yes, and why even make such a statement. Probably because you do not agree in what I am saying.Turquoise wrote:
The crassness is the point though. You'll be far less productive by using "crass analogies." I get what you're saying, but you should've expected stef to take it as an insult.m3thod wrote:
I wasn't arguing nor debating with him, rather i used a crass analogy to make a point.
I also didn't call him a bum boy, i actually said i heard he was one. Now, implying and outright accusing him of being a bum boy are very much different.
If he'd answered "you've heard wrong" then we would have something to talk about....like any A grade student would.
That is an outrageous behavior.
Well, I just know that the quran wants Muslims to fight Christians and Jews. Because Christians believe in the tetra and because the Quran says that Jews are a greedy people and evil people. Pretty funny when people say that Muslims and Jews have the God.
And I do not respect Islam and the Quran when it wants hatred and war againts my religion.
So yeah, I know where you're coming from because of that conflict. In all honesty, Denmark should probably consider restricting their immigration more. Plenty of people would like to move to Denmark, so your country can choose to allow more non-Muslims in, if the Muslims already there are causing problems.
Awful?! Haha do i need to remind you of your responses? And How you chose to respond to my accusation was your problem.stef10 wrote:
You are really acting awfull. Now you making your statement more acceptable.m3thod wrote:
I wasn't arguing nor debating with him, rather i used a crass analogy to make a point.Turquoise wrote:
M3thod, this is really immature of you. Surely, you can come up with a better argument than to call someone a "bum boy."
I also didn't call him a bum boy, i actually said i heard he was one. Now, implying and outright accusing him of being a bum boy are very much different.
If he'd answered "you've heard wrong" then we would have something to talk about....like any A grade student would.
And do the post below. I was not saying that one religion is better than the other. I was telling the reason why muslims may hate Jews and Christians.
And just because I am saying that I would only read the Bible. I am a Christian, and it would be imho pretty awfull to read a book that does not have anything to do with the God I have my faith in.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Yeah good point....it's sometime i just can't help it....maybe i wanted a rise from him?!Turquoise wrote:
The crassness is the point though. You'll be far less productive by using "crass analogies." I get what you're saying, but you should've expected stef to take it as an insult.m3thod wrote:
I wasn't arguing nor debating with him, rather i used a crass analogy to make a point.Turquoise wrote:
M3thod, this is really immature of you. Surely, you can come up with a better argument than to call someone a "bum boy."
I also didn't call him a bum boy, i actually said i heard he was one. Now, implying and outright accusing him of being a bum boy are very much different.
If he'd answered "you've heard wrong" then we would have something to talk about....like any A grade student would.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
FAIL! I can see that your sig is the story of your life.
Grow up!
You are so funny(sarcasm).
Grow up!
You are so funny(sarcasm).