just one example. i could say stoning women for not covering up or not letting girls go to school. i could keep going but you get the idea.rammunition wrote:
So to you, the only way to be violent is if you are a suicide bomber?Red Forman wrote:
because it is......... show me all the suicide bombers that are southern baptists or some protestant female suicide bombers? (modern times please. lets keep this to 2000 and beyond shall we)mikkel wrote:
Because Islam as a whole is the only religion which is consistently decried, often in its entirety, as being violent above all else, in sweeping, general statements in this forum. Seems obvious enough to me.
You posed a question asking why people disproportionately defend Islam. I replied speculating it to be because people disproportionately attack Islam and incorrectly characterise its followers as being predominately violent. Then you started asking about the religious affiliations of suicide bombers in response to my reply. My reply argued against the assumption that the majority of Muslims are violent, so unless you're arguing that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers, then I believe that it is you who need to review the debate.Red Forman wrote:
no for christ fucking sake. read the fucking thread next time.mikkel wrote:
So you're vehemently arguing that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers?Red Forman wrote:
pick any other religion if you like. mormon, catholic, w/e.
lol, hey like I said, don't be pissed at me because the actions of Islamic extremism keeps proving you wrong and those that see Islam for what it is right. I didn't commit the terrorist attack on Ft. Hood, a Muslim extremist did. As it turns out, one of the "moderates", you so deeply defend, along with the "moderates" that cheer him on.mikkel wrote:
I'm informing you that I have no intention of arguing anything with you, in an effort to keep you from replying to my posts. If you consider that to be infantile, then you're very welcome to do so. Just stop replying to my posts.lowing wrote:
You mean like, "I am not talking to you anymore than I have to" * holding breathe and crossing arms*mikkel wrote:
Let's start by you showing me the more than one billion suicide bombers supposedly swayed by the violent preachings of this religion, shall we? I don't recall posting anything claiming that the religiously inspired violence in the current era is distributed evenly amongst religions. It's obvious to see that Islamic terrorism is the most prolific at the moment.Red Forman wrote:
because it is......... show me all the suicide bombers that are southern baptists or some protestant female suicide bombers? (modern times please. lets keep this to 2000 and beyond shall we)
You need to drop the infantile chatter if you want to debate this with me.
read the fucking thread. that is all. LBJ and i discussed this already. have a good day.mikkel wrote:
You posed a question asking why people disproportionately defend Islam. I replied speculating it to be because people disproportionately attack Islam and incorrectly characterise its followers as being predominately violent. Then you started asking about the religious affiliations of suicide bombers in response to my reply. My reply argued against the assumption that the majority of Muslims are violent, so unless you're arguing that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers, then I believe that it is you who need to review the debate.Red Forman wrote:
no for christ fucking sake. read the fucking thread next time.mikkel wrote:
So you're vehemently arguing that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers?
or going on to illegal wars because "God" said to do so.Red Forman wrote:
just one example. i could say stoning women for not covering up or not letting girls go to school. i could keep going but you get the idea.rammunition wrote:
So to you, the only way to be violent is if you are a suicide bomber?Red Forman wrote:
because it is......... show me all the suicide bombers that are southern baptists or some protestant female suicide bombers? (modern times please. lets keep this to 2000 and beyond shall we)
Ummmmm link pleaserammunition wrote:
or going on to illegal wars because "God" said to do so.Red Forman wrote:
just one example. i could say stoning women for not covering up or not letting girls go to school. i could keep going but you get the idea.rammunition wrote:
So to you, the only way to be violent is if you are a suicide bomber?
I don't see how that changes the dynamic of our exchange in any way, at all. This is getting too absurd.Red Forman wrote:
read the fucking thread. that is all. LBJ and i discussed this already. have a good day.mikkel wrote:
You posed a question asking why people disproportionately defend Islam. I replied speculating it to be because people disproportionately attack Islam and incorrectly characterise its followers as being predominately violent. Then you started asking about the religious affiliations of suicide bombers in response to my reply. My reply argued against the assumption that the majority of Muslims are violent, so unless you're arguing that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers, then I believe that it is you who need to review the debate.Red Forman wrote:
no for christ fucking sake. read the fucking thread next time.
because i am not going to repeat myself all the time.mikkel wrote:
I don't see how that changes the dynamic of our exchange in any way, at all. This is getting too absurd.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usalowing wrote:
Ummmmm link pleaserammunition wrote:
or going on to illegal wars because "God" said to do so.Red Forman wrote:
just one example. i could say stoning women for not covering up or not letting girls go to school. i could keep going but you get the idea.
FFS, you Americans need to keep up
would make sense except congress had to vote for it. plus all those little UN sanctions and such. nice try though.rammunition wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usalowing wrote:
Ummmmm link pleaserammunition wrote:
or going on to illegal wars because "God" said to do so.
FFS, you Americans need to keep up
So you decide to completely abandon the ongoing debate and ask me a question with absolutely no direct relevance to anything I had said, without giving any indication of this sudden departure from topic?Red Forman wrote:
because i am not going to repeat myself all the time.mikkel wrote:
I don't see how that changes the dynamic of our exchange in any way, at all. This is getting too absurd.
I'm not going to be sucked into a pointless back and forth with you by replying to questions that aren't in any way related to the arguments I make.
I see, so your proof is someone said he said, got it. Not sure that would hold up in court.rammunition wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usalowing wrote:
Ummmmm link pleaserammunition wrote:
or going on to illegal wars because "God" said to do so.
FFS, you Americans need to keep up
Also I am not ready to call this a holy crusade because the man prayed for guidance, I bet the bastard even prayed and gave thanks for his dinner!!
you asked a completely stupid ass question that i already addressed in this thread. go QQ then. idc.mikkel wrote:
So you decide to completely abandon the ongoing debate and ask me a question with absolutely no direct relevance to anything I had said, without giving any indication of this sudden departure from topic?Red Forman wrote:
because i am not going to repeat myself all the time.mikkel wrote:
I don't see how that changes the dynamic of our exchange in any way, at all. This is getting too absurd.
I'm not going to be sucked into a pointless back and forth with you by replying to questions that aren't in any way related to the arguments I make.
good for you, this frees you up to argue with me about this direct terrorist attack on US soil that occured less than a year since Obama took office and the only one since 911mikkel wrote:
So you decide to completely abandon the ongoing debate and ask me a question with absolutely no direct relevance to anything I had said, without giving any indication of this sudden departure from topic?Red Forman wrote:
because i am not going to repeat myself all the time.mikkel wrote:
I don't see how that changes the dynamic of our exchange in any way, at all. This is getting too absurd.
I'm not going to be sucked into a pointless back and forth with you by replying to questions that aren't in any way related to the arguments I make.
We can discuss the infiltration of this terrorist, his local support and how the actions of Islam keeps proving your theories of a peaceful and tolerant religion is bullshit. You go first!!!
Keep it civil so we can keep it open.
I haven't asked you anything in this thread, Marine.Red Forman wrote:
you asked a completely stupid ass question that i already addressed in this thread. go QQ then. idc.mikkel wrote:
So you decide to completely abandon the ongoing debate and ask me a question with absolutely no direct relevance to anything I had said, without giving any indication of this sudden departure from topic?Red Forman wrote:
because i am not going to repeat myself all the time.
I'm not going to be sucked into a pointless back and forth with you by replying to questions that aren't in any way related to the arguments I make.
hellomikkel wrote:
I haven't asked you anything in this thread, Marine.Red Forman wrote:
you asked a completely stupid ass question that i already addressed in this thread. go QQ then. idc.mikkel wrote:
So you decide to completely abandon the ongoing debate and ask me a question with absolutely no direct relevance to anything I had said, without giving any indication of this sudden departure from topic?
I'm not going to be sucked into a pointless back and forth with you by replying to questions that aren't in any way related to the arguments I make.
mikkel wrote:
So you're vehemently arguing that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers?
They don't need them, they get a redneck christian fruitloop elected president and he sends 250,000 troops to the ME to kill muslims.Red Forman wrote:
show me all the suicide bombers that are southern baptists or some protestant female suicide bombers
No need for suicide bombers when you can send B52s.
Fuck Israel
thought that was for oil? yall need to make up your minds and be consistant.Dilbert_X wrote:
They don't need them, they get a redneck christian fruitloop elected president and he sends 250,000 troops to the ME to kill muslims.Red Forman wrote:
show me all the suicide bombers that are southern baptists or some protestant female suicide bombers
No need for suicide bombers when you can send B52s.
That's a rhetorical question, Marine. I wasn't asking you if you're seriously arguing that over half a billion people are suicide bombers. I was trying to figure out what you were arguing with your completely irrelevant follow-up question. I haven't asked you anything in this thread.Red Forman wrote:
hellomikkel wrote:
I haven't asked you anything in this thread, Marine.Red Forman wrote:
you asked a completely stupid ass question that i already addressed in this thread. go QQ then. idc.mikkel wrote:
So you're vehemently arguing that the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers?
Last edited by mikkel (2009-11-09 16:19:00)
It was for a number of reasons, oil was one of them, keeping Bush's christian power base happy was another.Red Forman wrote:
thought that was for oil? yall need to make up your minds and be consistant.Dilbert_X wrote:
They don't need them, they get a redneck christian fruitloop elected president and he sends 250,000 troops to the ME to kill muslims.Red Forman wrote:
show me all the suicide bombers that are southern baptists or some protestant female suicide bombers
No need for suicide bombers when you can send B52s.
Fuck Israel
No worries, I guess it is getting so hard to defend Islam that the last resort must be, "I am not talking to you". Don't blame him really. I wouldn't want to be on the losing side of an argument either.ATG wrote:
Keep it civil so we can keep it open.
Can't hold your breathe for ever Mikkel
that makes no sense. no troops i knew were fighting for god. i dont think your comparison makes any sense.Dilbert_X wrote:
It was for a number of reasons, oil was one of them, keeping Bush's christian power base happy was another.Red Forman wrote:
thought that was for oil? yall need to make up your minds and be consistant.Dilbert_X wrote:
They don't need them, they get a redneck christian fruitloop elected president and he sends 250,000 troops to the ME to kill muslims.
No need for suicide bombers when you can send B52s.
troops don't get to call the shots though, or resign even.
Fuck Israel
troops pull the triggerDilbert_X wrote:
troops don't get to call the shots though, or resign even.