If you hate Islam but supported Iraq......

No, I absolutely understand that. That's why I specifically couched my question to people who believe that Islam "can not be refined".

Stop being a moron. I know you are being deliberately obtuse.

And that is your fault.

So, you understand that people are not at all like you are trying to portray them, yet you are still trying to talk to people who do not exist. They have a word for that, schizophrenia.

huh? Here's the OP in checklist format:

___ Do you think Islam is fundamentally incapable of being moderate (re: non-violet towards the West)?

___ Do you support the Iraqi War strategy that relied, in part, on the idea of moderate/non-violent Muslims gaining strength in the area?

If you checked yes to both of those questions, please explain how you reconcile the two positions.
If you checked only one or neither of the questions, then this doesn't apply to you.

Simple.


What you called a paradox the universe doesn't allow, or something like that, is what I call politically-expedient hypocrisy. I think the people who would check both of those options are actually very real people, and not the product of a mental disease.

He's just trying to scuttle the thread. Maybe the truth hit him across the face like a pimp-slap or something.
 
No, I absolutely understand that. That's why I specifically couched my question to people who believe that Islam "can not be refined".

Stop being a moron. I know you are being deliberately obtuse.

And that is your fault.

So, you understand that people are not at all like you are trying to portray them, yet you are still trying to talk to people who do not exist. They have a word for that, schizophrenia.

huh? Here's the OP in checklist format:

___ Do you think Islam is fundamentally incapable of being moderate (re: non-violet towards the West)?

___ Do you support the Iraqi War strategy that relied, in part, on the idea of moderate/non-violent Muslims gaining strength in the area?

If you checked yes to both of those questions, please explain how you reconcile the two positions.
If you checked only one or neither of the questions, then this doesn't apply to you.

Simple.


What you called a paradox the universe doesn't allow, or something like that, is what I call politically-expedient hypocrisy. I think the people who would check both of those options are actually very real people, and not the product of a mental disease.

Sure does make sense if you put it that way, doesn't it? To bad the OP tried to paint everyone with the same brush, and then subsequent post went out of the way to reinforce the original intent to make anyone who agrees with either of those positions look like idiots. Maybe you should consider writing all of Guextohell's posts.
 
No, I absolutely understand that. That's why I specifically couched my question to people who believe that Islam "can not be refined".

Stop being a moron. I know you are being deliberately obtuse.

And that is your fault.

So, you understand that people are not at all like you are trying to portray them, yet you are still trying to talk to people who do not exist. They have a word for that, schizophrenia.

"Schizophrenia". LMFAO.

Look, it's patently obvious what you are trying to do here and you've been called on it by multiple posters. So why not just stop being such a fucking jackass?

Multiple, as in more than one. To be precise, two.

How many have called you out on what you posted in the OP?
 
So, you understand that people are not at all like you are trying to portray them, yet you are still trying to talk to people who do not exist. They have a word for that, schizophrenia.

huh? Here's the OP in checklist format:

___ Do you think Islam is fundamentally incapable of being moderate (re: non-violet towards the West)?

___ Do you support the Iraqi War strategy that relied, in part, on the idea of moderate/non-violent Muslims gaining strength in the area?

If you checked yes to both of those questions, please explain how you reconcile the two positions.
If you checked only one or neither of the questions, then this doesn't apply to you.

Simple.


What you called a paradox the universe doesn't allow, or something like that, is what I call politically-expedient hypocrisy. I think the people who would check both of those options are actually very real people, and not the product of a mental disease.

Sure does make sense if you put it that way, doesn't it? To bad the OP tried to paint everyone with the same brush, and then subsequent post went out of the way to reinforce the original intent to make anyone who agrees with either of those positions look like idiots. Maybe you should consider writing all of Guextohell's posts.

No I didn't. The question is specifically addressed to a specific audience. Everyone on this thread has figured that out but you.

Originally I thought you were just stupid, now I think you are just acting stupid.
 
I think the simple answer is that those who think all Muslims are evil/"Islam is a terrorist organization" and what not did not support the War in Iraq because they wanted a better life for Iraqis and to place moderates in power to nation-build, but because at the time they reflexively supported whatever Bush did and they just support the idea of going to war with Muslim nations and killing Muslims.

As a side note, while he's responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than anyone since the Crusades, I think one of the few laudable traits of G.W. Bush's presidency is that he was always one to draw clear distinctions (rhetorically at least) between the few hundred Muslim terrorists we were fighting and the billion+ decent Muslims of the world. Even moreso than his successor who is probably too timid to do so because 60 million idiots think he's a "secret Muslim." Bush would have been a staunch proponent of the Ground Zero mosque, for instance, and tried to reach out to and defend American Muslims even while bombing to hell the hundreds of thousands of Muslim citizens in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top