09 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMFYou're right, I didn't mean it that way. I meant, in the case of what Is happening in the world TODAY: that All Muslims aren't suicide bombers nor do all Muslims fly planes into buildings, killing innocnt civilians; however, ALL suicide bombers are Muslims and ALL planes that purposely fly into buildings, killing innocent civilians are flown by Muslims.
Yes. Exactly. And my point was that [b]your point above wasn't what you now seem to claim it was.
Unless we are to believe that when you said this...
It's very simple: All Muslims aren't suicide bombers nor do all Muslims fly planes into buildings, killing innocnt civilians; however, ALL suicide bombers are Muslims and ALL planes that purpose ...[text shortened]... on has a monopoly on meting out death and destruction.
Somehow I don't think you did.[/b]
The fact that no religion has a monopoly on death and destruction still stands with examples used (pick any) since man began worshipping a God or Gods.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by dystoniacWhy restrict the terms of reference in this peculiar way. Why only "suicide bombers" and "planes flying into buildings"?. Why not add cluster bombs, uranium tipped munitions, white phosphorous, withholding life saving medicines from people who need them, deliberate bombing of water supplies etc. etc. Why do you claim to be commenting on "what Is happening in the world today" and the fact that no one has "a monopoly on death and destruction" but then choose only a couple of things that are going on, and insisting on only talking about one religion in particular?
You're right, I didn't mean it that way. I meant, in the case of what Is happening in the world TODAY: ... ALL suicide bombers are Muslims and ALL planes that purposely fly into buildings, killing innocent civilians are flown by Muslims.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by dystoniacAs pointed out by FMF you are being picky. You probably define a 'terrorist' as someone you don't like.
You're right, I didn't mean it that way. I meant, in the case of what Is happening in the world TODAY: that All Muslims aren't suicide bombers nor do all Muslims fly planes into buildings, killing innocnt civilians; however, ALL suicide bombers are Muslims and ALL planes that purposely fly into buildings, killing innocent civilians are flown by Muslims.
As I mentioned earlier Bush and friends redefined the meaning to mean anyone they didn't like, thought they made some mistakes along the way. I remember someone claiming that 'anyone who supports a terrorist is a terrorist'. But then the US supported Sadam Husein who then went on to terrorize his population.
I prefer the definition that fits the word ie A terrorist is someone who commits acts who's primary intention is to instill terror in the survivors.
Again, the US is guilty of such actions from as long ago as the Nukes dropped on Japan.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I value all human life, but the topic is the slaughter of Christians. Why don't you cover the slaughtering of Muslims?
Well then, why do you mention the slaughtering of Christians in Sudan? Are you not aware that the vast majority of people killed in Sudan were Muslim? Or do you value Christian lives higher than Muslim lives?
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMFOK, Looking at the Muslims, why don't we use 'beheadings', 'honor killings', acid being thrown in the eyes of Afghan school girls by the Taliban, stoning of people accused of adultry, denying Christians the right to worship in Saudi Arabia and practically every Muslim country, sometimes by using terror.. While I'm at it, the American military treats wounded enemy fighters as best they can if warranted. Can you say the same about the Taliban/Insurgents? What is wrong with cluster bombs if it kills taliban fighters. Do you wish the US forces to resort to 'spit-balls? White phosphorous works quite well for its intended purpose-almost as well as a Islamist suicide bomber climbing aboard a bus filled with women and children and self-detonating.
Why restrict the terms of reference in this peculiar way. Why only "suicide bombers" and "planes flying into buildings"?. Why not add cluster bombs, uranium tipped munitions, white phosphorous, withholding life saving medicines from people who need them, deliberate bombing of water supplies etc. etc. Why do you claim to be commenting on "what Is happening in the ...[text shortened]... hings that are going on, and insisting on only talking about one religion in particular?
09 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou know nothing about WW2, do you? What do they teach about WW2 in your schools in S. Africa? That the US was the evil empire and Hitler and the Japanese commited no atrocities? Have you ever heard of The Rape of Nanking? Let's look at the Hiroshima and Nagaszki bombs in perspective, shall we? Those two bombs didn't kill nearly as many people compared to conventional bombings which also destroyed as much of Europe as the two nukes did in Japan. You were probaly an amoeba during 1945, but my father and a million other allied soldiers was about to invade Japan, and when Japan capitulated because of the nukes, nothing could have been more relieving to the allies. Go back and throw your 'doctored-up' history books away and read some real history about WW2
As pointed out by FMF you are being picky. You probably define a 'terrorist' as someone you don't like.
As I mentioned earlier Bush and friends redefined the meaning to mean anyone they didn't like, thought they made some mistakes along the way. I remember someone claiming that 'anyone who supports a terrorist is a terrorist'. But then the US supported S
Again, the US is guilty of such actions from as long ago as the Nukes dropped on Japan.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by FMFWell, yes, I am still commenting on what's happening in the world today and the fact that no one has a monopoly on death and destruction. I am simply pointing out the Muslim version of death and destruction as nobody at RHP seems to want to or else are fearful of a fatwah.
So, you're still doing it, then? Are you still claiming to be commenting on "what is happening in the world today" and the fact that no one has "a monopoly on death and destruction"?
I know that WW2 was started in a Christian nation by an occult-worshipping lunatic named Hitler and that the Pope had no backbone to denounce his Holocaust. I know that the early Americans tried to "tame" the natives with so-called Christianity, America, as a Christian nation owned slaves (so did every other nation BTW), we propped up a brutal regime in Iran under the Shah, etc.
Let me ask you this. Do you think the Afgan people would be better off with a democratic government or a regime controlled by the Taliban?
09 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by dystoniacNone of these things are typical, characteristic or tolerated in the world's biggest Muslim country, Indonesia. Any comment?
OK, Looking at the Muslims, why don't we use 'beheadings', 'honor killings', acid being thrown in the eyes of Afghan school girls by the Taliban, stoning of people accused of adultry, denying Christians the right to worship in Saudi Arabia and practically every Muslim country, sometimes by using terror..
I ask this in the interests of establishing a bit of perspective and proportion.
Also: you claim that "Christians are denied the right to worship in [...] practically every Muslim country."
Here you will find a list of the 48 countries of teh world that have a Muslim majority population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_countries
Please tell us in which 25 (or more) of these countries Christians are denied the right to worship.
09 Mar 09
Originally posted by dystoniacI thought that the topics were why people hate Muslims and 'terrorists'. I must have missed the place where it changed to 'the slaughter of Christians'. Or is 'the slaughter of Christians' your definition of 'terrorist'?
No, I value all human life, but the topic is the slaughter of Christians. Why don't you cover the slaughtering of Muslims?