Pages: 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 … 32

 

2008-01-23 04:05:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Twice in 10 years?? Wow now there is a tip toe through the ole' history books. Most Americans were not affected by 911? That is a pretty good one as well. lol.
How does terrorism affect your wife and childrens daily life lowing? Do they have to run to the basement in 'anti-terror' drills? Do they have to avoid public transport for fear of bombs? Do they have to make forays into public places short and swift for fear of attack? You make me laugh!

lowing wrote:

Your mastery of spin and downplaying world events in order to cover for your tolerance of this religion and its activities baffle me? Are you their defense attorney or something?
I am tolerant of all religions lowing - and that's a good thing. The problem is you blame 9/11 on a religion when you should be blaming it on a small group of insane people led by a man who has a personal grudge against the US for reasons unreligious. It is difficult to argue with someone who shows such willful disregard for the finer details of matters. As I said before - you're the kind of guy who calls all people with black hair thieves just because less than 1% of happen to have stolen something or contemplated stealing something.

lowing wrote:

It is also amusing that you Cameronpoe, just your ordinary everyday non-assuming citizen finds himself being interviewed on stage by Al-Jazeera.
Yeah, that sort of thing happens to all us average Joes' over hear as well. As a matter of fact I can't piss without having to grant an interview about world affairs to the media.
I wasn't on stage lowing. They e-mailed me, I e-mailed back. In case you hadn't notice Al Jazeera is pretty much a British TV station these days. They read out my e-mail. Whoop-de-doo. Frankly I don't see the relevance to the OP or the arguments here: perhaps you are trying your by-now-infamous 'dancing around the argument for lack of a decent retort'.
1. Lets see how did 911 affect me and my family...Well, it cost me my job!!!

2. It was Islamic terrorism not just a coupla crazy kids joy riding.

3. Yeah and FOXNEws emails me at least 3 times a day.
2008-01-23 04:05:15
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

Yeah Cam, hard to count legal murders in the ME as a murder stat when  a woman can legal get killed for looking at another man when her husband said not to or some stupid shit like that.

Post the source lets take a look. Becasue I know how hard it is to manipulate faxcts to read whatever you want.
UN Statistics

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/9th_s … xtract.pdf

FBI Statistics

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html

San Diego State University

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwins … istan.html

Keep flailing.
2008-01-23 04:07:53
daddyofdeath
A REAL Combat Engineer in the house
+187|6543|UK Bradford W,Yorks. Age 27
And it continues back and forth, the statistics here the facts there. I don't think anyone gives a flying fuck anymore. 28 pages of useless crap, I lol at the shit you lot argue about.
2008-01-23 04:08:53
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

1. Lets see how did 911 affect me and my family...Well, it cost me my job!!!
You mean the subsidies didn't work? You are talking about one singular event in time. I am talking about how terrorism affects the daily life of your family and your fellow American living in the US. The fact of the matter is that the effect is negligible and completely overexaggerated. Basically the only difference is that you now have air marshalls and a colourful 'Security Advisory Alert' permanently fixed at the 'Elevated' level. I trust your air marshals will see me safely to New York City and back this Paddy's Day and on my inbound and outbound flights to Canada.

lowing wrote:

2. It was Islamic terrorism not just a coupla crazy kids joy riding.
Let's not go over old ground about the inappropriate and misleadingly general use of the term Islam, as if the acts of this band of nutters represented the normal nature of over 1 billion Muslims. It gets tiresome having to continuously call you out on your hatemongering.

lowing wrote:

3. Yeah and FOXNEws emails me at least 3 times a day.
I'm actually surprised it doesn't given your views. I signed up on the Al Jazeera mailing list - they didn't 'come find me'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-23 04:26:09)

2008-01-23 04:10:12
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Again No Cam, my orginal argument that GB is appeasing the Muslim community with its spin doctoring stands, as defined. THe other argument is a direct challenge to YOU saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, which it most certainly is not.
'As defined'? I think we came to the conlusion that your definition was just an inappropriate use of the term appeasement to use its negative connotations to mask the fact that what the Brits are doing actually has a positive effect and costs nothing. Political correctness for the common good.
No! you arrogant piece of work........YOU came to that conclusion, not WE!
Put it to a poll quoting our respective arguments on the matter in a balanced non-leading OP.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-23 04:21:05)

2008-01-23 04:21:30
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX
Wow what a thread...
Its not appeasement, its divide and conquer.
Fuck Israel
2008-01-23 04:25:58
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7100|Nårvei

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wow what a thread...
Its not appeasement, its divide and conquer.
Would normally call this game, set and match but i really don't think lowing sees it that way ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-01-23 05:36:59
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6783|Connecticut
@ Campoe and Lowing's arguement:

Cam, those stats are tainted my friend, at least your presentation of them. Lowing pointed out an interesting fact. Many of the brutal rapes and murders in Pakistan are not considered crimes because they are religiously motivated. The death penalty is commonly practiced in that part of the world. Also nobody took into consideration that a decent percent of the crimes comitted in the U.S. are by    immigrants, rather than citizens of the United States. The source I provided states that many crimes comitted are not reported, however, a good percentage of reported crimes stem from immigrant related crime rings.

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-01-23 05:42:24)

Malloy must go
2008-01-23 05:43:26
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6845

deeznutz1245 wrote:

@ Campoe and Lowing's arguement:

Cam, those stats are tainted mt friend, at least your presentation of them. Lowing pointed out an interesting fact. Many of the brutal rapes and murders in Pakistan are not considered crimes because they are religiously motivated. The death penalty is commonly practiced in that part of the world. Also nobody took into consideration that a decent percent of the crimes comitted in the U.S. are by    immigrants, rather than citizens of the United States. The source I provided states that many crimes comitted are not reported, however, a good percentage of reported crimes stem from immigrant related crime rings.
Most immigrants to the US are Mexican and invariably Christian. The argument isn't about comparative rates of crime based on nationality but on religion. Pakistan is a basketcase country in the same kind of league as Afghanistan and Iraq (two warzones). Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only stable Muslim governments who allow the baser elements of Sharia law to be implemented. Most Muslim countries have legal systems similar to western countries - Turkey, UAE, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, etc. So by and large the statistic prove my point that there is no appreciable difference between how 'violent' predominantly Christian countries as compared against predominantly Muslim countries.

How peaceful the religion of Islam is is also evidenced in the warm welcome the middle east gives to the tens of millions of people visiting the likes of the Pyramids, Petra, Ephesus, Istanbul, Bethlehem, Marrakesh, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc. every year.

For lowings assertion to be correct there would have to be a clear, definitive and marked difference between homicide levels in western 'christendom' countries and typical (i.e., non-warzone) middle eastern 'muslimdom' countries.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-23 06:11:58)

2008-01-23 06:25:08
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7131|Cologne, Germany

are we still discussing appeasement here ?

I didn't have the time to read through those 28 pages, so I'll simply state my opinon with regard to the OP.

appeasement ? no. Classic appeasement would require some demands made by the "enemy" to give in to. But since the UK muslims didn't demand anything from the government, I don't know how you can call that appeasement.

As Dilbert_X said it, it looks more like "Divide and Conquer" to me.

And as far as pandering to a specific group is concerned, that's what every politician does. It's comes with the job. Well, at least if you plan to get re-elected.

And as far as the old discussion about wether islam is an inherently peaceful religion or not goes, well, I'd go with the majority vs. minority approach. If the majority of people that follow one specific religion is peaceful, why would you call that religion violent or dangerous ?

Granted, islam seems to have a larger number of violent or radical followers than any other religion at the moment, but it is also among the youngest of the big religions. So there is still room for development, if you will.

Also, one needs to consider that a lot of islamic states have been the object of questionable western-lead foreign policies lately, which is bound to stir up nationalistic tendencies among their people. The fact of the matter is, the west has a history of messing with these people's internal affairs.
Is it any wonder most muslims don't hold a favorable view of the west ?
2008-01-23 07:31:02
ShowMeTheMonkey
Member
+125|6992
I can't believe this is still going on. With hard facts and evidence CamPam has pulled out all the stops!
2008-01-23 07:32:37
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7100|Nårvei

B.Schuss wrote:

are we still discussing appeasement here ?

I didn't have the time to read through those 28 pages, so I'll simply state my opinon with regard to the OP.

appeasement ? no. Classic appeasement would require some demands made by the "enemy" to give in to. But since the UK muslims didn't demand anything from the government, I don't know how you can call that appeasement.

As Dilbert_X said it, it looks more like "Divide and Conquer" to me.

And as far as pandering to a specific group is concerned, that's what every politician does. It's comes with the job. Well, at least if you plan to get re-elected.

And as far as the old discussion about wether islam is an inherently peaceful religion or not goes, well, I'd go with the majority vs. minority approach. If the majority of people that follow one specific religion is peaceful, why would you call that religion violent or dangerous ?

Granted, islam seems to have a larger number of violent or radical followers than any other religion at the moment, but it is also among the youngest of the big religions. So there is still room for development, if you will.

Also, one needs to consider that a lot of islamic states have been the object of questionable western-lead foreign policies lately, which is bound to stir up nationalistic tendencies among their people. The fact of the matter is, the west has a history of messing with these people's internal affairs.
Is it any wonder most muslims don't hold a favorable view of the west ?
This really is the essense of what we have tried to explain to lowing in so many possible ways during all these pages
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2008-01-23 19:01:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah Cam, hard to count legal murders in the ME as a murder stat when  a woman can legal get killed for looking at another man when her husband said not to or some stupid shit like that.

Post the source lets take a look. Becasue I know how hard it is to manipulate faxcts to read whatever you want.
UN Statistics

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/9th_s … xtract.pdf

FBI Statistics

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html

San Diego State University

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwins … istan.html

Keep flailing.
and where are the stats that shows how many Americans were killed in the name of God or Christianity? Remember CAM, it is a violent intolerant religion. Post stats on violent religion deaths, lets see who is on top?
2008-01-23 19:10:02
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


'As defined'? I think we came to the conlusion that your definition was just an inappropriate use of the term appeasement to use its negative connotations to mask the fact that what the Brits are doing actually has a positive effect and costs nothing. Political correctness for the common good.
No! you arrogant piece of work........YOU came to that conclusion, not WE!
Put it to a poll quoting our respective arguments on the matter in a balanced non-leading OP.
Cam, there are definitions of appeasement that have nothing to do with demands. I have posted them. If you refuse to accept that, then there really is nothing I can do about that.

I see no reason in polling a predominantly European socialist forum. Your collective opinions does nothing to change mine.
2008-01-23 19:13:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:

I can't believe this is still going on. With hard facts and evidence CamPam has pulled out all the stops!
your title suits you perfectly. Cam is a great guy, but he does not control the definitions of words to suit his arguments. Appeasement can be used with out demands issued. You guys just hate can't admit that this i swhat GB is doing. Appeasing with PC.
2008-01-23 19:15:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6941|USA

Varegg wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

are we still discussing appeasement here ?

I didn't have the time to read through those 28 pages, so I'll simply state my opinon with regard to the OP.

appeasement ? no. Classic appeasement would require some demands made by the "enemy" to give in to. But since the UK muslims didn't demand anything from the government, I don't know how you can call that appeasement.

As Dilbert_X said it, it looks more like "Divide and Conquer" to me.

And as far as pandering to a specific group is concerned, that's what every politician does. It's comes with the job. Well, at least if you plan to get re-elected.

And as far as the old discussion about wether islam is an inherently peaceful religion or not goes, well, I'd go with the majority vs. minority approach. If the majority of people that follow one specific religion is peaceful, why would you call that religion violent or dangerous ?

Granted, islam seems to have a larger number of violent or radical followers than any other religion at the moment, but it is also among the youngest of the big religions. So there is still room for development, if you will.

Also, one needs to consider that a lot of islamic states have been the object of questionable western-lead foreign policies lately, which is bound to stir up nationalistic tendencies among their people. The fact of the matter is, the west has a history of messing with these people's internal affairs.
Is it any wonder most muslims don't hold a favorable view of the west ?
This really is the essense of what we have tried to explain to lowing in so many possible ways during all these pages
You might wanna stop trying to steal Cam's thunder, you have contributed DICK to this thread unless insults and name calling is constructive debating tactics. Oh wait, YOU ARE a socialist/liberal .never mind.
2008-01-23 21:34:43
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

are we still discussing appeasement here ?

I didn't have the time to read through those 28 pages, so I'll simply state my opinon with regard to the OP.

appeasement ? no. Classic appeasement would require some demands made by the "enemy" to give in to. But since the UK muslims didn't demand anything from the government, I don't know how you can call that appeasement.

As Dilbert_X said it, it looks more like "Divide and Conquer" to me.

And as far as pandering to a specific group is concerned, that's what every politician does. It's comes with the job. Well, at least if you plan to get re-elected.

And as far as the old discussion about wether islam is an inherently peaceful religion or not goes, well, I'd go with the majority vs. minority approach. If the majority of people that follow one specific religion is peaceful, why would you call that religion violent or dangerous ?

Granted, islam seems to have a larger number of violent or radical followers than any other religion at the moment, but it is also among the youngest of the big religions. So there is still room for development, if you will.

Also, one needs to consider that a lot of islamic states have been the object of questionable western-lead foreign policies lately, which is bound to stir up nationalistic tendencies among their people. The fact of the matter is, the west has a history of messing with these people's internal affairs.
Is it any wonder most muslims don't hold a favorable view of the west ?
This really is the essense of what we have tried to explain to lowing in so many possible ways during all these pages
You might wanna stop trying to steal Cam's thunder, you have contributed DICK to this thread unless insults and name calling is constructive debating tactics. Oh wait, YOU ARE a socialist/liberal .never mind.
This was an utterly pointless post. All YOU did was quote a guy quoting a fairly decent post and insult them in turn.

I think answering B.Schuss's point would be a good idea.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-01-23 21:36:28
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK
Lowing, I think you watch too much Fox News.
2008-01-23 21:41:10
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7051

adam1503 wrote:

Lowing, I think you watch too much Fox News.
lol...

Apparently it is ok to generalize as long as it is not about islam.
2008-01-23 21:46:16
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

usmarine2005 wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Lowing, I think you watch too much Fox News.
lol...

Apparently it is ok to generalize as long as it is not about islam.
Who is generalising? I merely stated my opinion.
2008-01-23 21:58:15
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6614|New Haven, CT
This thread requires a sticky, because it is so epic.
2008-01-23 22:00:57
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7051

adam1503 wrote:

Who is generalising? I merely stated my opinion.
lol...no such distinction in this section.
2008-01-23 22:06:12
adam1503
Member
+85|6678|Manchester, UK

usmarine2005 wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Who is generalising? I merely stated my opinion.
lol...no such distinction in this section.
Please explain?
2008-01-23 23:44:32
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6965|Canberra, AUS

usmarine2005 wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Lowing, I think you watch too much Fox News.
lol...

Apparently it is ok to generalize as long as it is not about islam.
Wut?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-01-24 01:09:05
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7100|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

You might wanna stop trying to steal Cam's thunder, you have contributed DICK to this thread unless insults and name calling is constructive debating tactics. Oh wait, YOU ARE a socialist/liberal .never mind.
When discussing semantics how important is it that i am a socialist/liberal, does it make my arguments lesser ?

Where exactly did i steal Cams socalled thunder ?

I happen to agree with Cam on almost all issues so is it wrong of me support a post he writes once in a while rather than posting the exact same content ?

And if you bother to read the thread again you will find out i have contributed with my own thoughts about the issue with constructive posts on nearly every page and on many pages several times.

Where exactly did i insult you, or is it insulting when having another opinion than yourself ?

Have it not struck you that you are actually wrong about the semantics in this thread when the people that usually supports your view either are absent or for a change agrees with me and Cam?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................

 

Pages: 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 … 32

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard