300 Million Reasons To Worry?

Sure. But he is but one person. If a Scientologist kills a Bhuddist in Thailand, is Thailand now on the run from Scientologists? There will be examples like Van Gogh, but they are not the norm. Far from it. A more measurable example would be to look up the number of homicides in the Netherlands for that year and see how many were Muslims killing non-Muslims and whether those murders were politically/religiously motivated. Get a dozen or so of those a year and I think you've got a problem. If not, hardly worth getting alarmist about. BTW, I am against religion, but Islam more so than most. A disgustingly misogynistic religion invented to give a free pass to men who treat women like shit - just so we're clear on where I stand.


Then why do you defend it?

This notion that Islam itself is not to blame is a ludicrous one. Theo Van Gogh was killed because Islam said it was the right thing to do. Islam IS to blame because Islam was invented, and is geared towards, just the types of people who would kill Theo Van Gogh. And Margaret Hussan. And Nick Berg. The little kids in Beslan. The people on the planes. The people at Windows On The World. And you and me.
 
Then why do you defend it?

This notion that Islam itself is not to blame is a ludicrous one. Theo Van Gogh was killed because Islam said it was the right thing to do. Islam IS to blame because Islam was invented, and is geared towards, just the types of people who would kill Theo Van Gogh. And Margaret Hussan. And Nick Berg. The little kids in Beslan. The people on the planes. The people at Windows On The World. And you and me.

How is it defending Islam to acknowledge that it's influence on the laws in countries in which Muslims reside has been negligible.

I mean... you can try blaming it for all of the problems of the world, but it seems to me that overemphasizing it's importance and/or impact has led to a great many more issues.
 
How is it defending Islam to acknowledge that it's influence on the laws in countries in which Muslims reside has been negligible.

I mean... you can try blaming it for all of the problems of the world, but it seems to me that overemphasizing it's importance and/or impact has led to a great many more issues.

Sounds kind of like Neville Chamberlain.

When people say they have specific goals (such as killing everybody who doesn't convert to their religion) why is it overemphasis to take them at their word?
 
How is it defending Islam to acknowledge that it's influence on the laws in countries in which Muslims reside has been negligible.

I mean... you can try blaming it for all of the problems of the world, but it seems to me that overemphasizing it's importance and/or impact has led to a great many more issues.


Because it's not true? Did that thought ever cross your mind?

Do you read the news? Are you up on world events? Every major conflict in the world today, with the exception of North Korea, is a direct result of the the intolerance of Islam.
 
Because it's not true? Did that thought ever cross your mind?

Do you read the news? Are you up on world events? Every major conflict in the world today, with the exception of North Korea, is a direct result of the the intolerance of Islam.

I think if you read his post and actually understand his point, you'll find it is. Iraq is a direct result of the intolerance of Islam???? Er.... I think you need to stop speaking in such broad strokes.

I also think when you focus totally, entirely and completely on terrorists instead of going about your life... and weaken freedoms out of fear... then they win without firing a shot or setting off a bomb.... or flying a plane into a building.

By the by... for someone who clearly is limited in so many areas, you really need to stop insulting everyone else's intelligence, dearie. Because your knowledge of "world events" is as lopsided as I've ever seen.
 
I think if you read his post and actually understand his point, you'll find it is. Iraq is a direct result of the intolerance of Islam???? Er.... I think you need to stop speaking in such broad strokes.

I also think when you focus totally, entirely and completely on terrorists instead of going about your life... and weaken freedoms out of fear... then they win without firing a shot or setting off a bomb.... or flying a plane into a building.

By the by... for someone who clearly is limited in so many areas, you really need to stop insulting everyone else's intelligence, dearie. Because your knowledge of "world events" is as lopsided as I've ever seen.

Gee, nobody has called me "dearie" since I was 18 and worked at Woolworths.

I don't insult everyone else's intelligence. Just the stupid ones.
 
I think if you read his post and actually understand his point, you'll find it is. Iraq is a direct result of the intolerance of Islam???? Er.... I think you need to stop speaking in such broad strokes.

I also think when you focus totally, entirely and completely on terrorists instead of going about your life... and weaken freedoms out of fear... then they win without firing a shot or setting off a bomb.... or flying a plane into a building.

By the by... for someone who clearly is limited in so many areas, you really need to stop insulting everyone else's intelligence, dearie. Because your knowledge of "world events" is as lopsided as I've ever seen.

Every major conflict in the world today, with the exception of North Korea, is a direct result of the the intolerance of Islam.....

how does your post even attempt to respond to this?
 
I'm not defending it. Point out one of the 1500+ posts I've made where Iv'e defended Islam? Not being concerned about its impact, and defending it are two different subjects. I will never defend any religion.

islam is not a religion it is a political way of life
 
I'm not defending it. Point out one of the 1500+ posts I've made where Iv'e defended Islam? Not being concerned about its impact, and defending it are two different subjects. I will never defend any religion.


You defend Islam by comparing it to other religions in an attempt to prove it's just as bad.

Would you do the same in reverse? If somebody posted a thread trashing Christians and Christianity, would you reply to that thread and compare it to Islam and Muslims?

If you would, then good for you. But in my experience, that never happens. Liberals freely bash Christians all the time and think nothing of it. The only religion I have ever seen a liberal defend is Islam. And they always do it by comparing it to Christianity.

Liberals are also the most hateful people I have ever seen towards Christians.
 
Did Chamberlain not have a policy of appeasement with Hiltler?

No, not an official policy. Having lived through the great war, Europe would have done anything not to go through such a thing again, which is why Hitler got as far he did. But when he invaded Poland, Chamberlain said enough is enough. History sees Chamberlain as an appeaser, yet he was the one who declared war on Germany.
 
You defend Islam by comparing it to other religions in an attempt to prove it's just as bad.

No I did not.

If you would, then good for you. But in my experience, that never happens. Liberals freely bash Christians all the time and think nothing of it. The only religion I have ever seen a liberal defend is Islam.

As somebody pointed out recently, if this was a board with a lot of Muslims on it, then they would probably be in the firing line (and if the mods were Muslims, all us free thinkers would be banned in a second). It's not, so they are not.

Liberals are also the most hateful people I have ever seen towards Christians.

Funny, some people consider me a liberal (even though I'm not), yet the only person I have seen call Christians stupid on this board, is you. Go figure...
 
No, not an official policy. Having lived through the great war, Europe would have done anything not to go through such a thing again, which is why Hitler got as far he did. But when he invaded Poland, Chamberlain said enough is enough. History sees Chamberlain as an appeaser, yet he was the one who declared war on Germany.

The Munich Pact of 1938 was not a policy of appeasement?
 
The Munich Pact of 1938 was not a policy of appeasement?

Hit and run post...would like to talk more on this...Basically, no. I don't think it was at the time. I think if they knew what Hitler was going to do next, the French and British never would have agreed to it. They thought it was the end of German expansionism. To me an appeasement policy was no war at any cost. Britain ended up going to war, so they obviously did have a line in the sand drawn. Poland was it. later mtnbiker..look for your reply when I get back online..
 
Hit and run post...would like to talk more on this...Basically, no. I don't think it was at the time. I think if they knew what Hitler was going to do next, the French and British never would have agreed to it.

This was my point. Because when these Muslims take over you will also not have said they were harmless if you knew now what you will know then.
 

Forum List

Back
Top