The Common Denominator: Islam

[kaz]

[

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? I did not anywhere argue it's"okay." I said it was bad policy and he was a terrible President. If you can't follow a discussion, I"m not going to explain it to you over and over, that's on you.

Uh, he killed 130,000 Iraqis for absolutely no good reason. That's going a little beyond being "A Bad President'.

Because God Told Him To.

But man, you'll give him every fucking excuse, while blaming the whole of Islam for what some deranged convict did the day he got fired.

You haven't shown "God told him to" kill any Iraqis. So if God tells a man to ru into a burning building and save three children and he fails, obviously that was a Christian fanatical murder of three children, wasn't it Joe?

 

[kaz]

I'm just not pretending that their belief in an Imaginary Sky Pixie makes them any less murderous than your belief in an Imaginary Sky Pixie.

LOL, you are like them, not me. You are the one who knows the cosmic truth about God, you say there isn't one. I have no dogmatic beliefs about the universe beyond the knowledge of what I see around me. And that doesn't answer the question. You're like an indian in 1491 who believes the oceans are the end of the world and no one is beyond that. That you can't imagine it isn't proof it doesn't exist, it only proves your mind is small and closed

 

[Pogo]

You tell us. What percentage of Muslims support the beheading of the two journalists?

already been answered, post #525

There's nothing in that post about beheading journalists.

Do support violence to defend Christianity?

I support violence to defend freedom from islamic terrorists. Whether they are 10%, 1%, or 90% of muslims makes no difference. When they do it in the name of islam they are islamic terrorists.

So that makes Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder and their ilk --- what would you say, "Christianic" terrorists? Or "Christianistic"? I'm torn but the first one has a certain je ne sais quoi.

OK so you have

Eric Rudulph - Murdered 2
Scott Roeder - Murdered 1

That's three. Keep going naming Christian motivated murders in the last hundred years to get to the 2980 people who were murdered just on 9/11, not even including Muslim murders in Spain, Russia, Turkey, Germany, France Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia...

I don't need to; I defined an adjective. I could have stopped at 1; the point is made. There's no "threshold" at which an adjective becomes valid.

9/11 was a political act anyway so you're trying to apple-and-orange.

 

[kaz]

already been answered, post #525

There's nothing in that post about beheading journalists.

Do support violence to defend Christianity?

I support violence to defend freedom from islamic terrorists. Whether they are 10%, 1%, or 90% of muslims makes no difference. When they do it in the name of islam they are islamic terrorists.

So that makes Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder and their ilk --- what would you say, "Christianic" terrorists? Or "Christianistic"? I'm torn but the first one has a certain je ne sais quoi.

OK so you have

Eric Rudulph - Murdered 2
Scott Roeder - Murdered 1

That's three. Keep going naming Christian motivated murders in the last hundred years to get to the 2980 people who were murdered just on 9/11, not even including Muslim murders in Spain, Russia, Turkey, Germany, France Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia...

I don't need to; I defined an adjective. I could have stopped at 1; the point is made. There's no "threshold" at which an adjective becomes valid.

9/11 was a political act anyway so you're trying to apple-and-orange.

Spin, spin, spin, you have to be getting dizzy by now

 

[Pogo]

There's nothing in that post about beheading journalists.

Do support violence to defend Christianity?

I support violence to defend freedom from islamic terrorists. Whether they are 10%, 1%, or 90% of muslims makes no difference. When they do it in the name of islam they are islamic terrorists.

So that makes Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder and their ilk --- what would you say, "Christianic" terrorists? Or "Christianistic"? I'm torn but the first one has a certain je ne sais quoi.

OK so you have

Eric Rudulph - Murdered 2
Scott Roeder - Murdered 1

That's three. Keep going naming Christian motivated murders in the last hundred years to get to the 2980 people who were murdered just on 9/11, not even including Muslim murders in Spain, Russia, Turkey, Germany, France Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia...

I don't need to; I defined an adjective. I could have stopped at 1; the point is made. There's no "threshold" at which an adjective becomes valid.

9/11 was a political act anyway so you're trying to apple-and-orange.

Spin, spin, spin, you have to be getting dizzy by now

There's nothing to "spin", dood or doodette. An adjective is assigned by simple logic, not by some kind of lexicographical election where it has to get 2800 fricking votes before it works. Your attempted stretch point was patently absurd.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You haven't shown "God told him to" kill any Iraqis. So if God tells a man to ru into a burning building and save three children and he fails, obviously that was a Christian fanatical murder of three children, wasn't it Joe?

That's not a particularly good analogy. Iraq wasn't "on fire' when Bush invaded it. Even though Saddam was an abuser of human rights, the fact was that the No-Fly zones imposed over the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas really prevented him from causing more greif to those folks.

Those Iraqis would not have died had Bush simply minded his own business.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm just not pretending that their belief in an Imaginary Sky Pixie makes them any less murderous than your belief in an Imaginary Sky Pixie.

LOL, you are like them, not me. You are the one who knows the cosmic truth about God, you say there isn't one. I have no dogmatic beliefs about the universe beyond the knowledge of what I see around me. And that doesn't answer the question. You're like an indian in 1491 who believes the oceans are the end of the world and no one is beyond that. That you can't imagine it isn't proof it doesn't exist, it only proves your mind is small and closed

well, yeah, but the thing was, you really haven't shown any PROOF of a God.

You guys just insist their is one, and dammit, if you don't do what he wants, there's going to be trouble.

The Christians and the Muslims are kind of the same on that score.

 

[kaz]

I support violence to defend freedom from islamic terrorists. Whether they are 10%, 1%, or 90% of muslims makes no difference. When they do it in the name of islam they are islamic terrorists.

So that makes Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder and their ilk --- what would you say, "Christianic" terrorists? Or "Christianistic"? I'm torn but the first one has a certain je ne sais quoi.

OK so you have

Eric Rudulph - Murdered 2
Scott Roeder - Murdered 1

That's three. Keep going naming Christian motivated murders in the last hundred years to get to the 2980 people who were murdered just on 9/11, not even including Muslim murders in Spain, Russia, Turkey, Germany, France Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia...

I don't need to; I defined an adjective. I could have stopped at 1; the point is made. There's no "threshold" at which an adjective becomes valid.

9/11 was a political act anyway so you're trying to apple-and-orange.

Spin, spin, spin, you have to be getting dizzy by now

There's nothing to "spin", dood or doodette. An adjective is assigned by simple logic, not by some kind of lexicographical election where it has to get 2800 fricking votes before it works. Your attempted stretch point was patently absurd.

So Muslim radicals who kill tens and hundreds of thousands are "political." but a nut job who shoots one guy who isn't supported by anyone is a Christian nut job. You win, you're logical.

LOL, you're an idiot. Seriously, man, you are an idiot.

 

[kaz]

[

You haven't shown "God told him to" kill any Iraqis. So if God tells a man to ru into a burning building and save three children and he fails, obviously that was a Christian fanatical murder of three children, wasn't it Joe?

That's not a particularly good analogy. Iraq wasn't "on fire' when Bush invaded it. Even though Saddam was an abuser of human rights, the fact was that the No-Fly zones imposed over the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas really prevented him from causing more greif to those folks.

Those Iraqis would not have died had Bush simply minded his own business.

I see, so Hussein using WMDs on his own people, attacking Iran and using WMDs on them, invading Kuwait and torching their oil wells when he lost wasn't "on fire." Actually, it was literally "on fire." You and Pogo just need to ream each other in the ass and leave normal people alone, you're sick.

 

[Pogo]

So that makes Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder and their ilk --- what would you say, "Christianic" terrorists? Or "Christianistic"? I'm torn but the first one has a certain je ne sais quoi.

OK so you have

Eric Rudulph - Murdered 2
Scott Roeder - Murdered 1

That's three. Keep going naming Christian motivated murders in the last hundred years to get to the 2980 people who were murdered just on 9/11, not even including Muslim murders in Spain, Russia, Turkey, Germany, France Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia...

I don't need to; I defined an adjective. I could have stopped at 1; the point is made. There's no "threshold" at which an adjective becomes valid.

9/11 was a political act anyway so you're trying to apple-and-orange.

Spin, spin, spin, you have to be getting dizzy by now

There's nothing to "spin", dood or doodette. An adjective is assigned by simple logic, not by some kind of lexicographical election where it has to get 2800 fricking votes before it works. Your attempted stretch point was patently absurd.

So Muslim radicals who kill tens and hundreds of thousands are "political." but a nut job who shoots one guy who isn't supported by anyone is a Christian nut job. You win, you're logical.

LOL, you're an idiot. Seriously, man, you are an idiot.

Umm.... I'm not the one suggesting that whether a motivation is political or religious depends on some kind of number.
Guess who that leaves as the "idiot".

 

[kaz]

I'm just not pretending that their belief in an Imaginary Sky Pixie makes them any less murderous than your belief in an Imaginary Sky Pixie.

LOL, you are like them, not me. You are the one who knows the cosmic truth about God, you say there isn't one. I have no dogmatic beliefs about the universe beyond the knowledge of what I see around me. And that doesn't answer the question. You're like an indian in 1491 who believes the oceans are the end of the world and no one is beyond that. That you can't imagine it isn't proof it doesn't exist, it only proves your mind is small and closed

well, yeah, but the thing was, you really haven't shown any PROOF of a God.

God is your thing. Not mine. LOL. What a moron. I don't know what to say, guy. You aren't even functional.

 

[Pogo]

[

You haven't shown "God told him to" kill any Iraqis. So if God tells a man to ru into a burning building and save three children and he fails, obviously that was a Christian fanatical murder of three children, wasn't it Joe?

That's not a particularly good analogy. Iraq wasn't "on fire' when Bush invaded it. Even though Saddam was an abuser of human rights, the fact was that the No-Fly zones imposed over the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas really prevented him from causing more greif to those folks.

Those Iraqis would not have died had Bush simply minded his own business.

I see, so Hussein using WMDs on his own people, attacking Iran and using WMDs on them, invading Kuwait and torching their oil wells when he lost wasn't "on fire." Actually, it was literally "on fire." You and Pogo just need to ream each other in the ass and leave normal people alone, you're sick.

None of that was happening in 2002. Not a single one.

--- anything else?

 

[kaz]

OK so you have

Eric Rudulph - Murdered 2
Scott Roeder - Murdered 1

That's three. Keep going naming Christian motivated murders in the last hundred years to get to the 2980 people who were murdered just on 9/11, not even including Muslim murders in Spain, Russia, Turkey, Germany, France Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malaysia...

I don't need to; I defined an adjective. I could have stopped at 1; the point is made. There's no "threshold" at which an adjective becomes valid.

9/11 was a political act anyway so you're trying to apple-and-orange.

Spin, spin, spin, you have to be getting dizzy by now

There's nothing to "spin", dood or doodette. An adjective is assigned by simple logic, not by some kind of lexicographical election where it has to get 2800 fricking votes before it works. Your attempted stretch point was patently absurd.

So Muslim radicals who kill tens and hundreds of thousands are "political." but a nut job who shoots one guy who isn't supported by anyone is a Christian nut job. You win, you're logical.

LOL, you're an idiot. Seriously, man, you are an idiot.

Umm.... I'm not the one suggesting that whether a motivation is political or religious depends on some kind of number.
Guess who that leaves as the "idiot".

You said 9/11 was political, not religious. But shooting someone over abortion laws was religious, not political. Can't even make up the crap you actually believe. You need to stop reaming hillbillies in the ass and learn to read and process.

 

[kaz]

[

You haven't shown "God told him to" kill any Iraqis. So if God tells a man to ru into a burning building and save three children and he fails, obviously that was a Christian fanatical murder of three children, wasn't it Joe?

That's not a particularly good analogy. Iraq wasn't "on fire' when Bush invaded it. Even though Saddam was an abuser of human rights, the fact was that the No-Fly zones imposed over the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas really prevented him from causing more greif to those folks.

Those Iraqis would not have died had Bush simply minded his own business.

I see, so Hussein using WMDs on his own people, attacking Iran and using WMDs on them, invading Kuwait and torching their oil wells when he lost wasn't "on fire." Actually, it was literally "on fire." You and Pogo just need to ream each other in the ass and leave normal people alone, you're sick.

None of that was happening in 2002. Not a single one.

No...they had already happened. Good argument that... not.

 

[Pogo]

Kazmelt in progress. You can set your watch by it.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So Muslim radicals who kill tens and hundreds of thousands are "political." but a nut job who shoots one guy who isn't supported by anyone is a Christian nut job. You win, you're logical.

LOL, you're an idiot. Seriously, man, you are an idiot.

First, where are you getting the "hundreds of thousands" figure is beyond me.

Second, if you want to go there, Christians are just as likely to kill people to resolve a political or religious difference as a Muslim.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I see, so Hussein using WMDs on his own people, attacking Iran and using WMDs on them, invading Kuwait and torching their oil wells when he lost wasn't "on fire." Actually, it was literally "on fire." You and Pogo just need to ream each other in the ass and leave normal people alone, you're sick.

Except that all stopped in 1991, when Iraq agreed to a bunch of disarmarment and inspections and no fly zones and sanctions that pretty much reduced Saddam to the "Mayor Of Baghdad".

You can't come back 12 years after the fact and say, "Hey we are attacking you for what you did 12 years ago."

That's not how your boy George W. Stupid sold the war.

George W. Stupid didn't sell his war on "Saddam did very bad stuff 12 years ago but my Daddy left him in power."

He sold it on, "Saddam has a nuke, and he's going to give it to Al Qaeda and you are ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!"

 

[Redfish]

[
And, as you have posted numerous apologetics for savagery....

Six Pinocchios.

Um, okay, how is beheading "Savage" and Carpet bombing isn't?

if you don't know the difference then there is no help for you.

That isn't an answer... or even a very good try.

So carnage is okay if you use billion dollar technology?

aggression vs retaliation, murder vs war-------------look up the words, then you might get it.

 

[Redfish]

[

You haven't shown "God told him to" kill any Iraqis. So if God tells a man to ru into a burning building and save three children and he fails, obviously that was a Christian fanatical murder of three children, wasn't it Joe?

That's not a particularly good analogy. Iraq wasn't "on fire' when Bush invaded it. Even though Saddam was an abuser of human rights, the fact was that the No-Fly zones imposed over the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas really prevented him from causing more greif to those folks.

Those Iraqis would not have died had Bush simply minded his own business.

I see, so Hussein using WMDs on his own people, attacking Iran and using WMDs on them, invading Kuwait and torching their oil wells when he lost wasn't "on fire." Actually, it was literally "on fire." You and Pogo just need to ream each other in the ass and leave normal people alone, you're sick.

None of that was happening in 2002. Not a single one.

--- anything else?

and Bush did not go into that stupid war on his own. both parties supported and funded it. It was supported by the UN, UK, EU, and most of the civilized world.

it was a foolish waste of lives and money------------but they are all responsible. To say Bush did it all on his own is to ignore reality.

 

[Redfish]

[

I see, so Hussein using WMDs on his own people, attacking Iran and using WMDs on them, invading Kuwait and torching their oil wells when he lost wasn't "on fire." Actually, it was literally "on fire." You and Pogo just need to ream each other in the ass and leave normal people alone, you're sick.

Except that all stopped in 1991, when Iraq agreed to a bunch of disarmarment and inspections and no fly zones and sanctions that pretty much reduced Saddam to the "Mayor Of Baghdad".

You can't come back 12 years after the fact and say, "Hey we are attacking you for what you did 12 years ago."

That's not how your boy George W. Stupid sold the war.

George W. Stupid didn't sell his war on "Saddam did very bad stuff 12 years ago but my Daddy left him in power."

He sold it on, "Saddam has a nuke, and he's going to give it to Al Qaeda and you are ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!"

nice recitation of dem/libs lies and talking points. Saddam convinced the entire world that he had WMDs and was prepared to use them. He was hanged because of it.

its amazing how you partisan hacks revise history to serve your failed liberal agenda.