It is utterly useless trying to explain something to a guy that have no will to listen
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
What you fail to understand is, I am listening, I just do not agree with you.Varegg wrote:
It is utterly useless trying to explain something to a guy that have no will to listen
Or does, in your world, not agreeing with you equate not listening? Pretty pompous attitude if you ask me
tell it to the people who want a definition of "IS".........utterly rediculousKmarion wrote:
25 pages of arguing semantics is pretty funny.
??? Somebody asked for a definition of the word 'is' in this thread???lowing wrote:
tell it to the people who want a definition of "IS".........utterly rediculousKmarion wrote:
25 pages of arguing semantics is pretty funny.
If you take the time to read through the entire thread again lowing you will find out that most doesn't agree with you ... i have no problem with people not sharing my views and i have the ability of changing view when convinced that my previous view of the matter wasn't correct or plausible.lowing wrote:
What you fail to understand is, I am listening, I just do not agree with you.Varegg wrote:
It is utterly useless trying to explain something to a guy that have no will to listen
Or does, in your world, not agreeing with you equate not listening? Pretty pompous attitude if you ask me
Last i heard that was by Clinton and him alone, and i can't see where in this thread that have been discussed ?lowing wrote:
tell it to the people who want a definition of "IS".........utterly rediculousKmarion wrote:
25 pages of arguing semantics is pretty funny.
Last edited by Varegg (2008-01-22 03:05:32)
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
1. I did not concede this was appeasement to terrorists, I never said it was in the first place.CameronPoe wrote:
In fairness to you, you did concede that this is in no way an appeasement of terrorists so I guess you might be softening up a little in your old age!lowing wrote:
No where here, or in any of my posts in my history of posting here, can you, or will you find me untrue to this. If I am stubborn, which I am, it is because I have not been convinced that my opinion is wrong, or any less correct than anyone elses view point. I stick to my opinions because I think they are either correct or justified.
I feel this OP is appeasement, regardless of it is smart or not, and none of you has convinced me otherwise.
You failed to concede in the light of plain factual information on the war principles of Islam that this terrorism is in fact contrary to Islamic doctrine and law.
You failed to concede in the light of pure obviousness and logic that this terrorism is detrimental to Islam in a general sense with unwarranted anti-Muslim sentiment rising, i.e., the terrorism is anti-Islam (counter to the interests of Muslims).
You failed to concede that the British government will still refer to terrorism as terrorism and that they will be quite clear who perpetrated it, and that as such they are not hiding anything.
You failed to concede that by the British government dropping their highly insulting and generalised term for this type of terrorism nobody is impacted upon detrimentally and that only positive effects arise thereof.
To be honest you should have entitled the thread "Great Britain should continue to use a term that insults and degrades the innocent law-abiding and peaceful British Muslim community."
2. I see nothing IN PRACTICE, that makes me feel that terrorism is contradictory to Islam. Islam is a violent oppressive religion Terrorism is a violent oppressive practice.
3. I do realize this, and it is time for Muslims to recapture their religion from terrorists, and keep it merely the violent oppressive religion it is.
4. I will not concede this, the British Govt. is doing nothing but appeasing the Muslim community by pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and is not being commited by Muslims in the name of Islam. It is simply the truth and sometimes truth hurts.
5. It is appeasement by PC. It is pandering. YOU YOURSELF called it "BRAINWASHING". I have never said a thing about it being smart or not, it might be, but it is obvious what they are trying to do and why. Why can you not concede that?
Bottom line is I can list the opposite of everything you just posted and tacked on "YOU FAILED TO CONCEDE". THis does not make me wrong. You simply can not stand politically incorrect, becasue it might hurt soemones feelings. I don't give a shit about pandering to someones feelings, the truth is the truth. You are simply willing to ignore the truth in exchange for warm fuzzies.
LOL, yeah....Varegg wrote:
If you take the time to read through the entire thread again lowing you will find out that most doesn't agree with you ... i have no problem with people not sharing my views and i have the ability of changing view when convinced that my previous view of the matter wasn't correct or plausible.lowing wrote:
What you fail to understand is, I am listening, I just do not agree with you.Varegg wrote:
It is utterly useless trying to explain something to a guy that have no will to listen
Or does, in your world, not agreeing with you equate not listening? Pretty pompous attitude if you ask meLast i heard that was by Clinton and him alone, and i can't see where in this thread that have been discussed ?lowing wrote:
tell it to the people who want a definition of "IS".........utterly rediculousKmarion wrote:
25 pages of arguing semantics is pretty funny.
You know as to what I am referring. You and the rest of the feel good group spent 25 pages trying dissect one word Instead of arguing the OPCameronPoe wrote:
??? Somebody asked for a definition of the word 'is' in this thread???lowing wrote:
tell it to the people who want a definition of "IS".........utterly rediculousKmarion wrote:
25 pages of arguing semantics is pretty funny.
A typical liberal ploy. Define "IS"
I think most of us saw a potentially implied message in your rather stretched use of the term 'appeasement'.lowing wrote:
1. I did not concede this was appeasement to terrorists, I never said it was in the first place.
That's irrelevant. In cold hard fact actuality it is unislamic and when you talk of 'in practice' you are only referring to a tiny minority of misguided individuals. As such, you are generalising in a vastly overstretched manner, no ifs no buts. You are also as a consequence completely deluded in your again wildly overstretched assertion that islam is a violent religion. These are facts that cannot be argued against, taking your words at face value and applying logic to the facts as they stand.lowing wrote:
2. I see nothing IN PRACTICE, that makes me feel that terrorism is contradictory to Islam. Islam is a violent oppressive religion Terrorism is a violent oppressive practice.
Wahey! Another concession! I have no idea what the second part of your sentence is about however.lowing wrote:
3. I do realize this, and it is time for Muslims to recapture their religion from terrorists, and keep it merely the violent oppressive religion it is.
By not conceding this you are in fact burying your head in the sand and only believing what you want to believe. As such, we cannot argue over this as you are blatantly wrong. The British government recognises and often points to the madrassahs of Pakistan as part of the root of the problem. By you not recognising this fact you are in fact posting completely incorrect assertions.lowing wrote:
4. I will not concede this, the British Govt. is doing nothing but appeasing the Muslim community by pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and is not being commited by Muslims in the name of Islam. It is simply the truth and sometimes truth hurts.
'Appeasement by PC'. lol. We have already determined over various posts that this is not appeasement, as per the dictionary definition and the generally accepted meaning of the term. It is political correctness and in this case is a very good thing, the reasons why having been outlined in many posts. You are seemingly the only person on this thread to think that it is a bad thing. Thankfully people with your views are as much in the minority as Muslims who carry out car-bombings.lowing wrote:
5. It is appeasement by PC. It is pandering. YOU YOURSELF called it "BRAINWASHING". I have never said a thing about it being smart or not, it might be, but it is obvious what they are trying to do and why. Why can you not concede that?
Well in fact, on all of the points above I demonstrated based on fact not opinion where you have been wrong on each count. Thank you and good day.lowing wrote:
Bottom line is I can list the opposite of everything you just posted and tacked on "YOU FAILED TO CONCEDE". THis does not make me wrong. You simply can not stand politically incorrect, becasue it might hurt soemones feelings. I don't give a shit about pandering to someones feelings, the truth is the truth. You are simply willing to ignore the truth in exchange for warm fuzzies.
We did argue the article lowing and seing as you where also debating the said word for 25 pages you have now officially put yourself in the feel good group with the rest of us, funny how words sometimes are magicallowing wrote:
You know as to what I am referring. You and the rest of the feel good group spent 25 pages trying dissect one word Instead of arguing the OPCameronPoe wrote:
??? Somebody asked for a definition of the word 'is' in this thread???lowing wrote:
tell it to the people who want a definition of "IS".........utterly rediculous
A typical liberal ploy. Define "IS"
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Not hardly slick, the term appeasement fits, you only choose to ignore the context of 1 of the 120 definitions of it. I never said appeasement applied to the terrorists, Islam IS a violent and oppressive religion in PRACTICE. You haven't proven anything exccept your willingness to dilute the truth if not out right re-direct it, in exchange for warm fuzzy feelings.CameronPoe wrote:
I think most of us saw a potentially implied message in your rather stretched use of the term 'appeasement'.lowing wrote:
1. I did not concede this was appeasement to terrorists, I never said it was in the first place.That's irrelevant. In cold hard fact actuality it is unislamic and when you talk of 'in practice' you are only referring to a tiny minority of misguided individuals. As such, you are generalising in a vastly overstretched manner, no ifs no buts. You are also as a consequence completely deluded in your again wildly overstretched assertion that islam is a violent religion. These are facts that cannot be argued against, taking your words at face value and applying logic to the facts as they stand.lowing wrote:
2. I see nothing IN PRACTICE, that makes me feel that terrorism is contradictory to Islam. Islam is a violent oppressive religion Terrorism is a violent oppressive practice.Wahey! Another concession! I have no idea what the second part of your sentence is about however.lowing wrote:
3. I do realize this, and it is time for Muslims to recapture their religion from terrorists, and keep it merely the violent oppressive religion it is.By not conceding this you are in fact burying your head in the sand and only believing what you want to believe. As such, we cannot argue over this as you are blatantly wrong. The British government recognises and often points to the madrassahs of Pakistan as part of the root of the problem. By you not recognising this fact you are in fact posting completely incorrect assertions.lowing wrote:
4. I will not concede this, the British Govt. is doing nothing but appeasing the Muslim community by pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and is not being commited by Muslims in the name of Islam. It is simply the truth and sometimes truth hurts.'Appeasement by PC'. lol. We have already determined over various posts that this is not appeasement, as per the dictionary definition and the generally accepted meaning of the term. It is political correctness and in this case is a very good thing, the reasons why having been outlined in many posts. You are seemingly the only person on this thread to think that it is a bad thing. Thankfully people with your views are as much in the minority as Muslims who carry out car-bombings.lowing wrote:
5. It is appeasement by PC. It is pandering. YOU YOURSELF called it "BRAINWASHING". I have never said a thing about it being smart or not, it might be, but it is obvious what they are trying to do and why. Why can you not concede that?Well in fact, on all of the points above I demonstrated based on fact not opinion where you have been wrong on each count. Thank you and good day.lowing wrote:
Bottom line is I can list the opposite of everything you just posted and tacked on "YOU FAILED TO CONCEDE". THis does not make me wrong. You simply can not stand politically incorrect, becasue it might hurt soemones feelings. I don't give a shit about pandering to someones feelings, the truth is the truth. You are simply willing to ignore the truth in exchange for warm fuzzies.
I never got an answer, do we call terrorism committed by the Irish, anti-Irish activity, by the Spainish, anti-spainish activity, or by midgets anti-midget activity? I doubt it.
No I wasn't arguing the word, you and others like you were, I could only respond to what was posted. and what was posted was a dissection of a word in exchange for the OP issue.Varegg wrote:
We did argue the article lowing and seing as you where also debating the said word for 25 pages you have now officially put yourself in the feel good group with the rest of us, funny how words sometimes are magicallowing wrote:
You know as to what I am referring. You and the rest of the feel good group spent 25 pages trying dissect one word Instead of arguing the OPCameronPoe wrote:
??? Somebody asked for a definition of the word 'is' in this thread???
A typical liberal ploy. Define "IS"
You are in denial already ?lowing wrote:
No I wasn't arguing the word, you and others like you were, I could only respond to what was posted. and what was posted was a dissection of a word in exchange for the OP issue.Varegg wrote:
We did argue the article lowing and seing as you where also debating the said word for 25 pages you have now officially put yourself in the feel good group with the rest of us, funny how words sometimes are magicallowing wrote:
You know as to what I am referring. You and the rest of the feel good group spent 25 pages trying dissect one word Instead of arguing the OP
A typical liberal ploy. Define "IS"
You have without doubt been a part of this discussion lowing, actually the sole candidate for your view of it ... if it was only me and others like me we would not have a discussion of semantics seings as the rest of us agree and you alone don't ...
But we could prolly use another 25 pages arguing this new development also, you never debate ... you respond.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
The term appeasement as it is defined in the dictionary and as it is accepted by most does not concur with your definition. You seek to use it in this thread because the term has negative connotations so you can use it all you want because as we have determined this move is a positive one and for you to use the term appeasement in your description you are only making yourself look silly.lowing wrote:
Not hardly slick, the term appeasement fits, you only choose to ignore the context of 1 of the 120 definitions of it. I never said appeasement applied to the terrorists, Islam IS a violent and oppressive religion in PRACTICE. You haven't proven anything exccept your willingness to dilute the truth if not out right re-direct it, in exchange for warm fuzzy feelings.
I never got an answer, do we call terrorism committed by the Irish, anti-Irish activity, by the Spainish, anti-spainish activity, or by midgets anti-midget activity? I doubt it.
Islam is a peaceful religion. A tiny number (a tiny minority) of idiots who happen to be Muslim have chosen to resort to violent means for political ends. Given that these are a tiny minority unrepresentative of true Islam you are in fact again making yourself look silly by making such a ludicrous generalisation to serve your own agenda of Muslim bashing.
IRA acts? I have nothing to do with the IRA and I am Irish - why alienate Irish people by calling it Irish terrorism? A lot of decent peaceful Irish people living in England were victimised by the British from the kind of generalisations that went on back in the 80s. A lot of innocent men served decades in prison through misguided anti-Irish sentiment stoked up by the kind of generalisations you seek to propagate. It helped no-one. Sorry lowing but it's a failure on your part with that argument too. It's called terrorism. It doesn't need generalised labels. If anything, attach the political goal to the terrorism, nothing more is necessary: anti-British terrorism, anti-Spanish terrorism (you seem not to realise that the Basque people are a distinct ethnicity who have nothing to do with Spain and want nothing to do with Spain), anti-Western terrorism, etc.
Edit:
I'll elaborate on the 'Irish Terror' issue: the term 'Irish Terror' I actually find deeply offensive. Why should I be included in a generalised definition of acts carried out by people that I regard as having sullied the values of Ireland and dirtied her name? The term itself leads one to believe that all Irish people have a vendetta against the British. I think you'll find Irish people are a lot more pragmatic than that and the fact of the matter is that once you leave the border counties most people in the Republic are more concerned about their IPods and their widescreen TVs than what is happening in the six counties. Someone in affluent Dublin 4 would be dumbfounded to be associated by nationality with the killing of innocent civilians. All the use of the term 'Irish Terror' would achieve is to stoke up unwarranted general anti-Irish sentiment among British people, which would not be helpful in any way, shape or form. Sorry lowing, you lose.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-22 04:19:39)
Michael McLarnon (22) shot at his home by british Army. Kathleen Thompson (47) shot in her back garden by british army. Martin McShane (16) shot as he left a youth centre by the british army. Sean O'Riordan (13) shot dead during riot. Patrick Donaghy (86) murdered in his flat by british army. Francis Rowntree (11) shot by british army in Divis. Manus Deery (15) shot by british army on Westland street. Norman McGrath (18) shot by british soldiers as the passed him in an APC. Margaret Gargan (13), David McCafferty (15) and John Dougal (16) shot by british army as they played in westrock drive. John Mooney (17) shot as he walked along Ligoniel road. Sarah Worthington (50) shot in her home by british army. Leo McGuigan (16) shot while walking his dog in Ardoyne by British Army. Francis Quinn (20) shot by army while tending to a wounded man. Desmond Healey (14) shot by British army on Lenadoon Av. Annette McGavigan (14) shot as she played on Bulcher street by the british Army, Daniel Hegarty (16) shot by british as he walked along Creggan heights. Daniel Rooney (19) shot by passing british army car. James Doherty (6) shot as he played in his garden. Elizabeth McGregor (76) shot by british as she walked along Hibusy Gardens .. what is terrorism Lowing?
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-01-22 10:20:34)
Sorry Cam, I stopped reading your shit when I reached "Islam is a peaceful religion".CameronPoe wrote:
The term appeasement as it is defined in the dictionary and as it is accepted by most does not concur with your definition. You seek to use it in this thread because the term has negative connotations so you can use it all you want because as we have determined this move is a positive one and for you to use the term appeasement in your description you are only making yourself look silly.lowing wrote:
Not hardly slick, the term appeasement fits, you only choose to ignore the context of 1 of the 120 definitions of it. I never said appeasement applied to the terrorists, Islam IS a violent and oppressive religion in PRACTICE. You haven't proven anything exccept your willingness to dilute the truth if not out right re-direct it, in exchange for warm fuzzy feelings.
I never got an answer, do we call terrorism committed by the Irish, anti-Irish activity, by the Spainish, anti-spainish activity, or by midgets anti-midget activity? I doubt it.
Islam is a peaceful religion. A tiny number (a tiny minority) of idiots who happen to be Muslim have chosen to resort to violent means for political ends. Given that these are a tiny minority unrepresentative of true Islam you are in fact again making yourself look silly by making such a ludicrous generalisation to serve your own agenda of Muslim bashing.
IRA acts? I have nothing to do with the IRA and I am Irish - why alienate Irish people by calling it Irish terrorism? A lot of decent peaceful Irish people living in England were victimised by the British from the kind of generalisations that went on back in the 80s. A lot of innocent men served decades in prison through misguided anti-Irish sentiment stoked up by the kind of generalisations you seek to propagate. It helped no-one. Sorry lowing but it's a failure on your part with that argument too. It's called terrorism. It doesn't need generalised labels. If anything, attach the political goal to the terrorism, nothing more is necessary: anti-British terrorism, anti-Spanish terrorism (you seem not to realise that the Basque people are a distinct ethnicity who have nothing to do with Spain and want nothing to do with Spain), anti-Western terrorism, etc.
Edit:
I'll elaborate on the 'Irish Terror' issue: the term 'Irish Terror' I actually find deeply offensive. Why should I be included in a generalised definition of acts carried out by people that I regard as having sullied the values of Ireland and dirtied her name? The term itself leads one to believe that all Irish people have a vendetta against the British. I think you'll find Irish people are a lot more pragmatic than that and the fact of the matter is that once you leave the border counties most people in the Republic are more concerned about their IPods and their widescreen TVs than what is happening in the six counties. Someone in affluent Dublin 4 would be dumbfounded to be associated by nationality with the killing of innocent civilians. All the use of the term 'Irish Terror' would achieve is to stoke up unwarranted general anti-Irish sentiment among British people, which would not be helpful in any way, shape or form. Sorry lowing, you lose.
I tried to argue the post but you and others like you, typical liberals, decided the best defense was to ignore the post and focus on a word to detract from the real argument. Nothing new actually, I should have expected it really.Varegg wrote:
You are in denial already ?lowing wrote:
No I wasn't arguing the word, you and others like you were, I could only respond to what was posted. and what was posted was a dissection of a word in exchange for the OP issue.Varegg wrote:
We did argue the article lowing and seing as you where also debating the said word for 25 pages you have now officially put yourself in the feel good group with the rest of us, funny how words sometimes are magical
You have without doubt been a part of this discussion lowing, actually the sole candidate for your view of it ... if it was only me and others like me we would not have a discussion of semantics seings as the rest of us agree and you alone don't ...
But we could prolly use another 25 pages arguing this new development also, you never debate ... you respond.
Sorry pal, I will not appease you by dismissing my beliefs for those of the popular Euro mindset.
Oblivious to reality as ever. Keep living in the fantasy land where the actions of 1% of a particular group of people should dictate your opinion on 100% of that group. We'll be pragmatic, reasonable and realistic instead.lowing wrote:
Sorry Cam, I stopped reading your shit when I reached "Islam is a peaceful religion".
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-22 14:10:57)
Where did we say we ignored the content of your post ? ... we would not have this discussion if we ignored it, common sense really, you remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the holy grail - why can't you just fold for once, think it will do good for your ego ...lowing wrote:
I tried to argue the post but you and others like you, typical liberals, decided the best defense was to ignore the post and focus on a word to detract from the real argument. Nothing new actually, I should have expected it really.Varegg wrote:
You are in denial already ?lowing wrote:
No I wasn't arguing the word, you and others like you were, I could only respond to what was posted. and what was posted was a dissection of a word in exchange for the OP issue.
You have without doubt been a part of this discussion lowing, actually the sole candidate for your view of it ... if it was only me and others like me we would not have a discussion of semantics seings as the rest of us agree and you alone don't ...
But we could prolly use another 25 pages arguing this new development also, you never debate ... you respond.
Sorry pal, I will not appease you by dismissing my beliefs for those of the popular Euro mindset.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Lowing reminds me of Nick Griffin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm
Join up lowing, these people would love you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4670574.stm
Join up lowing, these people would love you.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
This is an incredibly odd thread.
Surely you lot can find something more interesting to argue about than word definitions?
Surely you lot can find something more interesting to argue about than word definitions?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
LOL..."Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion"................yeah you do that.CameronPoe wrote:
Oblivious to reality as ever. Keep living in the fantasy land where the actions of 1% of a particular group of people should dictate your opinion on 100% of that group. We'll be pragmatic, reasonable and realistic instead.lowing wrote:
Sorry Cam, I stopped reading your shit when I reached "Islam is a peaceful religion".
It is so very funny how "1%" can turn a world on its ass ain't it? Is there any other "1%" that can have such an impact on global affairs?? Equally amusing is how the other "99%" can not do anything about it. Less sit back and watch.
Sure thing, as soon as you prove me wrong, just as soon as you prove Islam is a peaceful tolerant religion that GB is not trying to appease by its use of PC. You arrogant asses need to do better than to simply tell me "I am wrong just admit it".. Fuck, Cam is now spouting off about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is....and how I do not live in the realms of reality because I do not believe it...You gotta be kiddin' me!!!!!Varegg wrote:
Where did we say we ignored the content of your post ? ... we would not have this discussion if we ignored it, common sense really, you remind me of the black knight in Monty Python and the holy grail - why can't you just fold for once, think it will do good for your ego ...lowing wrote:
I tried to argue the post but you and others like you, typical liberals, decided the best defense was to ignore the post and focus on a word to detract from the real argument. Nothing new actually, I should have expected it really.Varegg wrote:
You are in denial already ?
You have without doubt been a part of this discussion lowing, actually the sole candidate for your view of it ... if it was only me and others like me we would not have a discussion of semantics seings as the rest of us agree and you alone don't ...
But we could prolly use another 25 pages arguing this new development also, you never debate ... you respond.
Sorry pal, I will not appease you by dismissing my beliefs for those of the popular Euro mindset.
That's right lowing, Islam isn't actually a religion buut one big club where everyone knows each other and what they've got planned. In fact, it's a well known fact that every Muslim has a hotline to Osama and anyone of them could call him up right now and tell him to stop this whole jihad stuff.lowing wrote:
LOL..."Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion"................yeah you do that.CameronPoe wrote:
Oblivious to reality as ever. Keep living in the fantasy land where the actions of 1% of a particular group of people should dictate your opinion on 100% of that group. We'll be pragmatic, reasonable and realistic instead.lowing wrote:
Sorry Cam, I stopped reading your shit when I reached "Islam is a peaceful religion".
It is so very funny how "1%" can turn a world on its ass ain't it? Is there any other "1%" that can have such an impact on global affairs?? Equally amusing is how the other "99%" can not do anything about it. Less sit back and watch.
I just rang him. He thinks lowing is racist.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
That's right lowing, Islam isn't actually a religion buut one big club where everyone knows each other and what they've got planned. In fact, it's a well known fact that every Muslim has a hotline to Osama and anyone of them could call him up right now and tell him to stop this whole jihad stuff.lowing wrote:
LOL..."Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion"................yeah you do that.CameronPoe wrote:
Oblivious to reality as ever. Keep living in the fantasy land where the actions of 1% of a particular group of people should dictate your opinion on 100% of that group. We'll be pragmatic, reasonable and realistic instead.
It is so very funny how "1%" can turn a world on its ass ain't it? Is there any other "1%" that can have such an impact on global affairs?? Equally amusing is how the other "99%" can not do anything about it. Less sit back and watch.
lowing, you really are a dumbass....
Last edited by m3thod (2008-01-22 18:30:49)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.