Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You don't understand.  Lowing has set a certain bar for how much Muslims should express outrage over the actions of extremists.  Until they reach that Lowing Bar of Value Judgement they have done nothing.
The 'lowing standard'...a bit like the old 'gold standard' except brown in colour.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

YOUR argument was 200 people protested, I clearly blew that out of the water.
I was originally arguing specifically about Indonesia (the most populous Muslim country in the world) and your source actually said there were less than 200 people protesting there - an infinitesimal percentage of the Muslim population. When I looked at the numbers of protesters across the other Muslim nations that your article mentioned it turned out that not one country had even as much as 5% of their Muslim populations out protesting so quite frankly the violent outrage that you describe was once again the actions of a small unrepresentative minority. Reality sucks when it doesn't back up your stereotype I guess.

lowing wrote:

There was violence and murder attached to these protests and their voices were heard loud enough to sway worldwide public opinion about a cartoon. Now, if that can be done by influential Muslims, there is no excuse why "a few" radicals, can not be curtailed as well. The fact is, ISLAM was more outraged over a cartoon ( Islams image) than they were  over the violence that takes place in its name.
Your a smart guy lowing and I'd like to think you have a realistic view of the modern media...I'm afraid peace loving Muslims don't sell papers or guarantee ratings. Cam has posted several links in this thread and others that have shown leaders speaking out against violence, condemning beheadings, advocating integration and disagreeing with extremist interpretations of Islam and yet the major news stations never carry the stories. Funnily enough two plebs talking about a Shariah revolution in Scotland gets headlines in America and yet 10'000 Muslims marching to protest against extremism doesn't warrant a blip on the radar of the major networks (That's 10'000 lowing, more than your precious cartoon protest).


"If I were a protester"...lol. Totally hypocritical, so you can't be bothered to protest at anything done in your name (like that wedding bomb in the news today) and yet you expect that all Muslims should drop everything else in their everyday lives and march in the street to protest something done by somebody they don't identify with in the slightest but has been done in the name of a warped interpretation of their faith. Once again lowing you are holding people to standards you can't apply to yourself. Hypocritical.
1...yer right, protests like these would certainly be a warm change to what has been shown............nothing

2. I was not talking about politicans wh owill say what he thinks wants to be heard.

3. Never said, "ALL Muslims" should do anything. I said if there is to be protesting, how about protesting something a little more outragous than a cartoon.
1. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not happening. Muslims speak out against extremism all the time but positive stories about Islam aren't in vogue at the moment according to the mainstream media. You should check out that Dispatches documentary Cam mentioned a few days ago if you can find it online, quite telling stuff.

2. Okay, so if Muslim leaders say stuff that is extremist they mean it wholeheartedly but if they speak out against extremism they are only doing it to curry favour with the public? Looks like they just can't win in your book lowing; if you are going to be that blinkered and ignorant in your attitudes then no amount of debating with you will be worthwhile.

3. Errr lowing, roughly the same amount of people turned up at that protest in London against extremism as at your precious cartoon protests but yet again you are filtering this reality out because it goes against your viewpoint.

Muslim Summit Looks At Ways To Fight Radicalism
Muslims Against Extremism & Terror
UAE Scholars Speak Out Against Fatwas
Muslim Scholars Denounce Beheadings
U.S. Islamic Leaders Call on Faithful to Denounce Terrorism
CAIR Condemns Bin Laden's Praise Of 9/11 Hijacker
Muslim Summit Condemning Extremism In Moscow
MPAC & MWL Condemn 'Honour Killing' In Pakistan
30'000 Muslims & Christians March For Peace In The Phillipines
Braddock, bottom line is Islam is a violent intolerant religion, the people that practice it, AS IT IS TAUGHT, are Muslims. Those that do not practice it AS IT IS TAUGHT, are practicing something else.

Christians that follow the word of CHRIST, are PRACTICING CHRISTIANITY, those that do not follow the word of Christ can claim to be Christians all day long, but the truth is they are not.

I do not like Islam for its teachings and the actions that are FREQUENTLY carried out in its name around the world. IF there are only a "few" people carrying out these acts, then it shouldn't be a problem reeling them in and slsapping their dicks in the dirt, yet, it is not being done.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Braddock wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You don't understand.  Lowing has set a certain bar for how much Muslims should express outrage over the actions of extremists.  Until they reach that Lowing Bar of Value Judgement they have done nothing.
The 'lowing standard'...a bit like the old 'gold standard' except brown in colour.
I have no standard other than the personal responsibilty standard. No excuse you can come up with can trump it.

Other than that, I like what I like and I do not like what I do not like, and I do not like Islam
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

How old was the girl? Chances are she didn't even know what it meant. And this guy...

[...] The lawyer’s take on it is that a swasticka is a symbol of hate [...]
...obviously doesn't know where it came from before the Nazis (though it's obvious what most people mean by using it).

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-07-14 00:20:43)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

How old was the girl? Chances are she didn't even know what it meant.
7 or 8 I think it said, the point being however, the parents did and the girl was taken from them
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

How old was the girl? Chances are she didn't even know what it meant.
7 or 8 I think it said, the point being however, the parents did and the girl was taken from them
Still, as repugnant as it is, I could imagine the outcry if a black kid was taken away from his black family if he went to school bearing a symbol of 'black power.'
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock, bottom line is Islam is a violent intolerant religion, the people that practice it, AS IT IS TAUGHT, are Muslims. Those that do not practice it AS IT IS TAUGHT, are practicing something else.
No, certain interpretations and translations are violent but the most common interpretation is one which is not violent and does not inspire people to go out and slay infidels where they stand. If I wanted to hand pick certain segments from the bible and ignore others I could come up with a pretty wacky and violent interpretation of Christianity but it wouldn't be fair to view the entire faith through that prism.

lowing wrote:

Christians that follow the word of CHRIST, are PRACTICING CHRISTIANITY, those that do not follow the word of Christ can claim to be Christians all day long, but the truth is they are not.
I don't give a shit about the religion itself lowing, I only care about being able to coexist peacefully. I find many aspects of Judaism insulting but I don't care because I don't follow any prescribed form of religion. The reality for me is that I've never seen or experienced any anti-Western sentiment from a Muslim.

lowing wrote:

I do not like Islam for its teachings and the actions that are FREQUENTLY carried out in its name around the world. IF there are only a "few" people carrying out these acts, then it shouldn't be a problem reeling them in and slsapping their dicks in the dirt, yet, it is not being done.
Firstly, acts of extremism are not carried out FREQUENTLY in Islam's name, it is a tiny minority that carry out violent and intolerant acts. Just do the maths lowing, there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world and you are happy to judge them all on the back of a handful of atrocities since 9/11. Interpretations like Wahabism, which are the real threat to peaceful coexistence, only hold sway in extremist nations like your old buddies Saudi Arabia and yet the US would rather invade the more moderate Iranian nation as part of the 'war on terror', which to me is pretty stupid.

As regards reeling in these extremists...you say it should be easy? Well it should have been quite easy finding Osama Bin Laden, the leader, seen as you have thousands of troops throughout the region and yet you haven't even got close enough to sniff his shit.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-14 00:58:47)

Ratzinger
Member
+43|6362|Wollongong, NSW, Australia

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You don't understand.  Lowing has set a certain bar for how much Muslims should express outrage over the actions of extremists.  Until they reach that Lowing Bar of Value Judgement they have done nothing.
The 'lowing standard'...a bit like the old 'gold standard' except brown in colour.
I have no standard other than the personal responsibilty standard. No excuse you can come up with can trump it.

Other than that, I like what I like and I do not like what I do not like, and I do not like Islam
I may have missed something before this, but (pause for effect), are you a Christian? Do you have any religious beliefs?
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

Ratzinger wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


The 'lowing standard'...a bit like the old 'gold standard' except brown in colour.
I have no standard other than the personal responsibilty standard. No excuse you can come up with can trump it.

Other than that, I like what I like and I do not like what I do not like, and I do not like Islam
I may have missed something before this, but (pause for effect), are you a Christian? Do you have any religious beliefs?
I don't think lowing is particularly religious; to be fair to him if he is he doesn't go on about it or use it as a stick to beat people with.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

How old was the girl? Chances are she didn't even know what it meant.
7 or 8 I think it said, the point being however, the parents did and the girl was taken from them
Still, as repugnant as it is, I could imagine the outcry if a black kid was taken away from his black family if he went to school bearing a symbol of 'black power.'
Well, now that ya mention it..........I would have to agree. No proof that there is a double standard though.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Ratzinger wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

The 'lowing standard'...a bit like the old 'gold standard' except brown in colour.
I have no standard other than the personal responsibilty standard. No excuse you can come up with can trump it.

Other than that, I like what I like and I do not like what I do not like, and I do not like Islam
I may have missed something before this, but (pause for effect), are you a Christian? Do you have any religious beliefs?
nope. I do not credit a God for my successes and I do not BLAME the devil for my failures.

I am the only one I credit and blame for results of my decisions.

Last edited by lowing (2008-07-14 03:11:43)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock, bottom line is Islam is a violent intolerant religion, the people that practice it, AS IT IS TAUGHT, are Muslims. Those that do not practice it AS IT IS TAUGHT, are practicing something else.
No, certain interpretations and translations are violent but the most common interpretation is one which is not violent and does not inspire people to go out and slay infidels where they stand. If I wanted to hand pick certain segments from the bible and ignore others I could come up with a pretty wacky and violent interpretation of Christianity but it wouldn't be fair to view the entire faith through that prism.

lowing wrote:

Christians that follow the word of CHRIST, are PRACTICING CHRISTIANITY, those that do not follow the word of Christ can claim to be Christians all day long, but the truth is they are not.
I don't give a shit about the religion itself lowing, I only care about being able to coexist peacefully. I find many aspects of Judaism insulting but I don't care because I don't follow any prescribed form of religion. The reality for me is that I've never seen or experienced any anti-Western sentiment from a Muslim.

lowing wrote:

I do not like Islam for its teachings and the actions that are FREQUENTLY carried out in its name around the world. IF there are only a "few" people carrying out these acts, then it shouldn't be a problem reeling them in and slsapping their dicks in the dirt, yet, it is not being done.
Firstly, acts of extremism are not carried out FREQUENTLY in Islam's name, it is a tiny minority that carry out violent and intolerant acts. Just do the maths lowing, there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world and you are happy to judge them all on the back of a handful of atrocities since 9/11. Interpretations like Wahabism, which are the real threat to peaceful coexistence, only hold sway in extremist nations like your old buddies Saudi Arabia and yet the US would rather invade the more moderate Iranian nation as part of the 'war on terror', which to me is pretty stupid.

As regards reeling in these extremists...you say it should be easy? Well it should have been quite easy finding Osama Bin Laden, the leader, seen as you have thousands of troops throughout the region and yet you haven't even got close enough to sniff his shit.
1. There is nothing of the teachings of Christ that you ca ncherry pick to show his teachings as violent.

Cherry pick is exactly what you would have to do, to show the teachings and practices of Muhammad is anything BUT violent.

2. See 1. Nothing in the teachings of Christ teaches violence

3. Funny how no one can find him, no Islamic nation knows where he is and there are only "a few" protecting him.. huh?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
1. There is nothing of the teachings of Christ that you ca ncherry pick to show his teachings as violent.
You're cherry-picking right there. Try reading the Old Testament.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. There is nothing of the teachings of Christ that you ca ncherry pick to show his teachings as violent.
You're cherry-picking right there. Try reading the Old Testament.
The old testament is merely propaganda created by Islamic extremists to deflect attention away from their own violent ways!
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. There is nothing of the teachings of Christ that you ca ncherry pick to show his teachings as violent.
You're cherry-picking right there. Try reading the Old Testament.
There is nothing in the teachings of CHRIST that you can cherry pick to show HIS teachings are violent. COMPARE apples and apples. The teachings of Christ, who CHRISTians follow and the teaching of Muhammad who Muslims follow
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Braddock wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. There is nothing of the teachings of Christ that you ca ncherry pick to show his teachings as violent.
You're cherry-picking right there. Try reading the Old Testament.
The old testament is merely propaganda created by Islamic extremists to deflect attention away from their own violent ways!
You can say what you want Braddock, CHRISTians acknowledge the old testament but through the NEW COVENANT, they follow the teachings of Christ.......................Regardless if you like it or not.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


You're cherry-picking right there. Try reading the Old Testament.
The old testament is merely propaganda created by Islamic extremists to deflect attention away from their own violent ways!
You can say what you want Braddock, CHRISTians acknowledge the old testament but through the NEW COVENANT, they follow the teachings of Christ.......................Regardless if you like it or not.
And yet you feel that Muslims are incapable of acknowledging the violent sections of the Koran while following the peaceful sections...double standards yet again.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6591|London, England

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You're cherry-picking right there. Try reading the Old Testament.
The old testament is merely propaganda created by Islamic extremists to deflect attention away from their own violent ways!
You can say what you want Braddock, CHRISTians acknowledge the old testament but through the NEW COVENANT, they follow the teachings of Christ.......................Regardless if you like it or not.
If Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ to be called Christians. Well, I don't think there is even one Christian on this planet. Cos I rarely see Christians acting like Jesus.

With Islam, Muhammad was a fucked up guy himself, so at least when they're fucked up as they are, they're sticking with Muhammads fucked up ideologies!

In other words, Christians aren't like Christ, Muhammadans (ye olde term for Mooj's) are like Muhammad

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-07-14 05:53:11)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
You can say what you want Braddock, CHRISTians acknowledge the old testament but through the NEW COVENANT, they follow the teachings of Christ.......................Regardless if you like it or not.
Then why hasn't the OT been removed from the bible?
The OT and NT pretty much stand separately.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


The old testament is merely propaganda created by Islamic extremists to deflect attention away from their own violent ways!
You can say what you want Braddock, CHRISTians acknowledge the old testament but through the NEW COVENANT, they follow the teachings of Christ.......................Regardless if you like it or not.
And yet you feel that Muslims are incapable of acknowledging the violent sections of the Koran while following the peaceful sections...double standards yet again.
There is no double standard.

I said if you follow the teachings of Christ, you are a Christian, if you do not, you are not a Christian, regardless of what you call yourself. Following the teachings means non violent. Violence in the name Christ IS NON-Chirsitan.

Following theviolent teaching of Muhammad means you are a Muslim. If you d onot follow his teachings then you are not practicing his word and therefore are not Muslim, regardless of what you call yourself.

Not a double standard at all Braddock

You either follow the teachings or you do not.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:


You can say what you want Braddock, CHRISTians acknowledge the old testament but through the NEW COVENANT, they follow the teachings of Christ.......................Regardless if you like it or not.
And yet you feel that Muslims are incapable of acknowledging the violent sections of the Koran while following the peaceful sections...double standards yet again.
There is no double standard.

I said if you follow the teachings of Christ, you are a Christian, if you do not, you are not a Christian, regardless of what you call yourself. Following the teachings means non violent. Violence in the name Christ IS NON-Chirsitan.

Following theviolent teaching of Muhammad means you are a Muslim. If you d onot follow his teachings then you are not practicing his word and therefore are not Muslim, regardless of what you call yourself.

Not a double standard at all Braddock

You either follow the teachings or you do not.
Then what you are saying is there are millions and millions of Muslims out there who are not actually Muslims as the vast majority are not slaying us infidels, are they?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


And yet you feel that Muslims are incapable of acknowledging the violent sections of the Koran while following the peaceful sections...double standards yet again.
There is no double standard.

I said if you follow the teachings of Christ, you are a Christian, if you do not, you are not a Christian, regardless of what you call yourself. Following the teachings means non violent. Violence in the name Christ IS NON-Chirsitan.

Following theviolent teaching of Muhammad means you are a Muslim. If you d onot follow his teachings then you are not practicing his word and therefore are not Muslim, regardless of what you call yourself.

Not a double standard at all Braddock

You either follow the teachings or you do not.
Then what you are saying is there are millions and millions of Muslims out there who are not actually Muslims as the vast majority are not slaying us infidels, are they?
They can call themselves what they will, but nope.

Same with Christianity, these people of everyday life can flip ya off, steal, kill, be impolite, hord, cheat, and call themselves Christians, the fact is they are not.

There is no greater example of hypocrisy than self proclaimed Christians, that do not practice the teachings of Christ as part of their everyday interactions.
Ratzinger
Member
+43|6362|Wollongong, NSW, Australia

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:


You can say what you want Braddock, CHRISTians acknowledge the old testament but through the NEW COVENANT, they follow the teachings of Christ.......................Regardless if you like it or not.
And yet you feel that Muslims are incapable of acknowledging the violent sections of the Koran while following the peaceful sections...double standards yet again.
There is no double standard.

I said if you follow the teachings of Christ, you are a Christian, if you do not, you are not a Christian, regardless of what you call yourself. Following the teachings means non violent. Violence in the name Christ IS NON-Chirsitan.

Following theviolent teaching of Muhammad means you are a Muslim. If you d onot follow his teachings then you are not practicing his word and therefore are not Muslim, regardless of what you call yourself.

Not a double standard at all Braddock

You either follow the teachings or you do not.
Amused as fuck by the assertation that Christianity is non-violent. Anyone want to come to a stoning? REAL Christians reject the first testament, do they?

You're babbling Lowing, AND laughingly referring to double standards while denying the violence inherent in rejecting all other teachings.

Your delusions and theirs are equally valid.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6622|USA

Ratzinger wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:


And yet you feel that Muslims are incapable of acknowledging the violent sections of the Koran while following the peaceful sections...double standards yet again.
There is no double standard.

I said if you follow the teachings of Christ, you are a Christian, if you do not, you are not a Christian, regardless of what you call yourself. Following the teachings means non violent. Violence in the name Christ IS NON-Chirsitan.

Following theviolent teaching of Muhammad means you are a Muslim. If you d onot follow his teachings then you are not practicing his word and therefore are not Muslim, regardless of what you call yourself.

Not a double standard at all Braddock

You either follow the teachings or you do not.
Amused as fuck by the assertation that Christianity is non-violent. Anyone want to come to a stoning? REAL Christians reject the first testament, do they?

You're babbling Lowing, AND laughingly referring to double standards while denying the violence inherent in rejecting all other teachings.

Your delusions and theirs are equally valid.
I think I made it clear that people committing violence in the name of Christ are NOT practicing Christianity....regardless as to their claims.

Violence in the name of Christianity is hypocritcal because it is not what is taught in the words of Christ.

Violence in the name of Islam unfortuantely is consistent with the teachings of Muhammad
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command

lowing wrote:

Ratzinger wrote:

lowing wrote:


There is no double standard.

I said if you follow the teachings of Christ, you are a Christian, if you do not, you are not a Christian, regardless of what you call yourself. Following the teachings means non violent. Violence in the name Christ IS NON-Chirsitan.

Following theviolent teaching of Muhammad means you are a Muslim. If you d onot follow his teachings then you are not practicing his word and therefore are not Muslim, regardless of what you call yourself.

Not a double standard at all Braddock

You either follow the teachings or you do not.
Amused as fuck by the assertation that Christianity is non-violent. Anyone want to come to a stoning? REAL Christians reject the first testament, do they?

You're babbling Lowing, AND laughingly referring to double standards while denying the violence inherent in rejecting all other teachings.

Your delusions and theirs are equally valid.
I think I made it clear that people committing violence in the name of Christ are NOT practicing Christianity....regardless as to their claims.

Violence in the name of Christianity is hypocritcal because it is not what is taught in the words of Christ.

Violence in the name of Islam unfortuantely is consistent with the teachings of Muhammad
So when Jesus told his followers to tip over the money changers tables he wasn't advocating violence?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard