We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam

[Kagom]

I believe I posed that as an either/or, but you would be more correct. Appeasement would be followed by subjugation.

But I have not advocated appeasement before subjugation.

 

[Gunny]

You hit the nail on the head. WE have progressed, they haven't. But there was a time where they were more tolerant. That's my only point in this whole issue. The only tolerance they have right now is not imposing a tax on non-muslims.

So then, just WHAT is your point? What they used to be is not relevant to what they are NOW, nor does it excuse anything they are doing NOW.

 

[Kagom]

So then, just WHAT is your point? What they used to be is not relevant to what they are NOW, nor does it excuse anything they are doing NOW.

My point is that they weren't always this way. It's only posting of facts and thoughts. If you don't want to read it, don't.

 

[Annie]

My point is that they weren't always this way. It's only posting of facts and thoughts. If you don't want to read it, don't.

My point being your ARE advocating appeasement through your calls for 'understanding'. When weren't they 'this way?' For them not to be, meant they weren't being true to their message. You are dissing them, while attempting to appease us.

 

[Kagom]

My point being your ARE advocating appeasement through your calls for 'understanding'. When weren't they 'this way?' For them not to be, meant they weren't being true to their message. You are dissing them, while attempting to appease us.

Hi, I posted the article, but I didn't say we should be understanding.

ANd I am doing no such thing.

 

[Gunny]

My point is that they weren't always this way. It's only posting of facts and thoughts. If you don't want to read it, don't.

I don't think you're catching on here. You claim you threw out an article to have "out and about." Nice.

Clue: Try throwing one out that you believe in and will defend. You've pretty-much been handed your ass very badly for posting an article you obviously know nothing about.

Then you get all overly-sensitive when someone points out that the Islamofascists do not tolerate homosexuals at all and start pissing at them for bringing it up.

The fact is, by posting an apologist articel, you place yourself in the apologist position. A homosexual apologizing for a violent religion that does not tolerate the existence of homosexuals is rather illogical of you.

 

[Bonnie]

When the Islamic response to the Pope's message is "you'd better personally apologize, or we'll burn your cities and behead every infidel we can find," it's pretty hard to categorize Islamic violence as a "myth." Seems that the Muslim response to the Pope's speech actually proves his point more than anything.

YUP!!!!

 

[Bonnie]

*lightbulb above Kagom's head* They, meaning the radical Muslims, truly would slit your throat, as opposed to those on a messageboard that just don't like gays. Personally, I think it should be between you and God, but my guess is you will be dealing with an Islamicist before a Pale or OCA.

Me thinks you may be right

 

[Kagom]

I don't think you're catching on here. You claim you threw out an article to have "out and about." Nice.

Clue: Try throwing one out that you believe in and will defend. You've pretty-much been handed your ass very badly for posting an article you obviously know nothing about.

Then you get all overly-sensitive when someone points out that the Islamofascists do not tolerate homosexuals at all and start pissing at them for bringing it up.

The fact is, by posting an apologist articel, you place yourself in the apologist position. A homosexual apologizing for a violent religion that does not tolerate the existence of homosexuals is rather illogical of you.

1.) It's a break from all the articles posted normally about how evil Islam is and the such. You can't have a different viewpoint or something? I didn't profess to know anything about the article.

2.) Yes, I've had my ass handed to me. Big whoop.

3.) Over-sensitive? Yes, exactly, because you people have to fucking mention it every other page. What the hell do you take me for? An idiot? I know a little bit about Islam and its view on homosexuality. There's no need to come off like a broken record over it.

4.) And I've stated I'm not an apologist.

 

[Annie]

1.) It's a break from all the articles posted normally about how evil Islam is and the such. You can't have a different viewpoint or something? I didn't profess to know anything about the article. So, now you think differently?

2.) Yes, I've had my ass handed to me. Big whoop. This happens all the time? If so, perhaps you should rethink?

3.) Over-sensitive? Yes, exactly, because you people have to fucking mention it every other page. What the hell do you take me for? An idiot? I know a little bit about Islam and its view on homosexuality. There's no need to come off like a broken record over it. Maybe trying to make you see that you need to rethink?

4.) And I've stated I'm not an apologist. so what would you describe what you've been doing?

Curious.

 

[Kagom]

Curious.

I'm not thinking differently at all.

Secondly, I should brush up on what I know, become more educated on the subject. Won't hurt.

Thirdly, you guys aren't going to make me rethink anything. My opinions haven't changed one bit.

I would describe myself as defending myself and why I posted the article.

 

[Annie]

I'm not thinking differently at all.

Secondly, I should brush up on what I know, become more educated on the subject. Won't hurt.

Thirdly, you guys aren't going to make me rethink anything. My opinions haven't changed one bit.

I would describe myself as defending myself and why I posted the article.

So to recap, in spite of any information that isn't from a source you 'approve' , disregarding the fact that you have no response to any of the above, you will hold firm. Got it.

 

[Kagom]

So to recap, in spite of any information that isn't from a source you 'approve' , disregarding the fact that you have no response to any of the above, you will hold firm. Got it.

I guess that's the best way to put it. But we all know I'd be Captain Obvious if I said "but that sounds stupid."

 

[Gunny]

1.) It's a break from all the articles posted normally about how evil Islam is and the such. You can't have a different viewpoint or something? I didn't profess to know anything about the article.

2.) Yes, I've had my ass handed to me. Big whoop.

3.) Over-sensitive? Yes, exactly, because you people have to fucking mention it every other page. What the hell do you take me for? An idiot? I know a little bit about Islam and its view on homosexuality. There's no need to come off like a broken record over it.

4.) And I've stated I'm not an apologist.

You're over your head then. Islam IS a religion of violence and intolerance. Try reading some of the Koran before talking out your ass.

First, YOU told us. You didn't have to. If you wish to be defined by your sexual behavior, then don't whine when your sexual behavior is mentioned.

Second, the fact that you posted an apologist article, which for normal posters implies you endorse the product unless stated otherwise which you did not, for a religion that is intolerant of homosexuals, kind of begs the answer to the question: WHy would a homosexual endorse a religion that is intolerant of homosexuals and would more than likely deem you unworthy of life in the preliminaries?

I saw a legitimate question similar to the one I posed, not anyone addressing you as "fag" or otherwise insulting you over it. If you're going to wear it on your sleeve, expect to get punched in the arm. Simple as that.

 

[Nuc]

I've studied Islam and despite some fundamental flaws there are a lot of interesting, intellectual, spiritual sides of it. However that's not what it's followers seem to emphasize in the real world. We have to face the religion as it is practiced, not by what it could be or should be.

 

[Kagom]

You're over your head then. Islam IS a religion of violence and intolerance. Try reading some of the Koran before talking out your ass.

First, YOU told us. You didn't have to. If you wish to be defined by your sexual behavior, then don't whine when your sexual behavior is mentioned.

Second, the fact that you posted an apologist article, which for normal posters implies you endorse the product unless stated otherwise which you did not, for a religion that is intolerant of homosexuals, kind of begs the answer to the question: WHy would a homosexual endorse a religion that is intolerant of homosexuals and would more than likely deem you unworthy of life in the preliminaries?

I saw a legitimate question similar to the one I posed, not anyone addressing you as "fag" or otherwise insulting you over it. If you're going to wear it on your sleeve, expect to get punched in the arm. Simple as that.

Islam has a peaceful side, but it's the followers who inact the violent side.

Yes, I told you, but that was personal preference. I"m not upset that my being gay is mentioned. I'm annoyed by the fact that everyone felt they had to throw in "ISLAM HATES GAYS! LOLZ!" so many times. It's an insult to my intelligence to assume I don't know anything about Islam or their feelings regarding homosexuality.

I didn't feel that I was supporting the apologist thought to Islam. I was posting an article I found to be interesting and it was nothing more. It's what I do for the most part.

 

[nt250]

Hi, I posted the article, but I didn't say we should be understanding.

ANd I am doing no such thing.

What are they doing now? Giving courses on how to be a Message Board Jerk 101.


Posting an article that you KNOW will cause dissent, and then claiming you only posted it but don't agree with it, or you only posted it and doesn't reflect your own views, or you only posted it to start a dicussion, or you only posted and if anybody doesn't like take it up with the author, is a classic passive aggressive liberal tactic.

Sheesh.

 

[007]

So, despite kags lack of knowledge of islam, and how violent it was, is, and no doubt always will be, and islamo's saw queer's heads off, he still thinks the article about being "nice" to them is... 'interesting'. Hmmm... lost me.

 

[Kagom]

So, despite kags lack of knowledge of islam, and how violent it was, is, and no doubt always will be, and islamo's saw queer's heads off, he still thinks the article about being "nice" to them is... 'interesting'. Hmmm... lost me.

I have limited knowledge and I do know how violent it is. And it's interesting because it offers a differing viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[007]

I have limited knowledge and I do know how violent it is. And it's interesting because it offers a differing viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that.

If it's the 'viewpoint' of an apologist, then yes, there is, something wrong with that.

Why prolong your agony kag? Just admit the article is a piece of crap and your pain will be over.