Yeru asked the question;
I've not seen anyone here claim that Islam is evil, of whom do you speak?
I pointed out;
I see no difference between claims of being intrinsically violence or of being evil. If anyone wants to argue an intrinsically violent religion isn't evil, they're free to do so. It would be funny.
Yeru has not responded to this.
He instead says;
iit's a documented fact that Islam started and spread through violence.
which doesn't address the question of whether as a religon it is intrinsically violent. I can explain the word 'intrinsically' to you if you like Yeru.
Then it gets funny, as you say;
You keep wanting to tie violence and religion together here. This is your doing.
It IS? You've said;
...it's a documented fact that Islam started and spread through violence.
The arguement is that islam was founded with violence, and there are violent proponents in it still.
Is it your contention that Islam was NOT founded by violence?
You consistantly tie religion and violence together.
If you are incapable of constructing an argument without contradicting yourself in the process, I suggest your time in front of a screen would be better spent with an X-Box....
You are also dishonest and evasive in discussion;
Would Muslims seeing people like you (active Christians) characterise their religion as evil
I haven't done that, I've only reiterated the fact that Islam was founded and spread by violence.
This evades showing how claiming a religion is intrinsically violent is not equivalent to claiming it is evil. I have asked you to do this. You have not.
And you're perfectly aware of the impact attitudes like your have;
I'm certain a Muslim would see me as a practicing Christian purporting this as religious discussion.
... yet despite the fact that creating such a sentiment in the majority of peaceful, innocent Muslims will inevitably lead to making the problem worse, you persist in it. Is that stupid or what? I thought people would have learnt from Bush calling it a Crusade...
Then, to give us a little variety, you make an ad hom attack on the entirity of Islam;
they would see a secularist like yourself as evil in a religious sense too
They would? You asked 1.2 billion people?
Thi Chi make it very clear he considers it's 'us' or 'them'. If he's not talking about the end of Islam, he can come and clarify his statements himself. But just as he has refused to reveal to us the extent of HIS religous extremism when asked specific questions before, I think he may also refuse to answer this. In any case, you make no comment on the very clear opinion I quoted later in my last post;
we can try to rationalize this historical aggression (by their own leaders admission) away and start appeasements, and face a thousand years of darkness, or we can make the choice to stand up to this ongoing threat that will send us back to the 9th century, if we loose.
A little too clear what he thinks, isn't it? Now, will you stand by such people or stand against them (see what I mean about some extremist Christians being akin to the Wahabbis?). I think people saying things like that are far more worthy of criticism than that I get from you for using an expletive in a post!
It's nice to note that you admit not having read all of the comments in a thread before benefitting us with your wisdom. Maybe next time, rather than asking where someone says something, you can read the thread beforehand and enter the debate better prepared.
Oh, and stop repeating this;
I never said ISLAM is evil, I said it was founded by violence.
Actually you also say it was 'spread by violence' and 'there are violent proponents in it still'.
You claim it was violent at the begining, whilst spreading and now. You are trying to get out of admitting such a religion could also be called 'evil'. Let me see the logic behind that... and until you do, I'll ignore you repeating this.
I notice you have no comment about me showing that there were people on the board who talked of nuclear attacks against the Middle East, or of posters who saw no possibility of peaceful co-exiostence. Do you have problems admitting you were wrong? Or are you hoping people won't notice?
When you are proved wrong about your claims that most Palestinians don't want peace, you try to divert the discussion into one of what they mean by peace, without subjecting the Israelis to any similar analysis. Again, you're wrong over something without chaging your opinion, and try to divert attention away from it.
The you make yet another strawman scarecrow;
If I didn't know better it sounds like YOU are calling Islam evil. Besides which, it's the duty of ALL people to educate themselves.
The operative word in the paragraph you are commenting on with regard to Isalm was 'Wahhabi'. How can commenting on ONE violent sect of Islam be taken as a comment against Islam as a whole unless the person making such a misrepresentation is doing so as an attack on the other person in the argument. You're either trying to be clever, or cannot understand simple sentences. Choose.
And your arrogance is stupifying;
Besides which, it's the duty of ALL people to educate themselves.
Go on then. And whilst you do, tell me how you would be have fulfilled your 'duty' to educate yourself in a countries with no real facilities for education (like Afghanistan) or where the educational system was subverted by religious zealots (Saudi, Palestine).
Oh, I should have said 'powerful democracy' instead of 'largest democracy'. See how I admitted to an error? Learn.
But you won't I don't think. You respond to my comment about the moral issue of being an ally with a human rights violator just because they have oil by asking;
So, the US government is suppossed to use religion as a discriminator?
I didn't say that scarecrow. If you can't understand the argument, don't have it. If you think you're being clever with your strawmen, you're not.
Here's another one;
So, we excuse all violent people because of the arguement you just used...the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the Communists, the KKK, everyone gets a pass. Thanks once again for exposing one of the biggest errors in liberalism.
This was a response to me explaining why many Wahhabis have an excuse for being ignorant. I was not excusing violence. Stop with the straw men scarecrow...
Oh, are you trying an ad hom here?
I don't think that you have to cut someone's head off to be an extremist. To you, anyone with a core set of values is an extremist, that's the impression I get.
You're implying (either because you don't know the implications of what you write or deliberately) I have no core values.
And then you do one of the stupidest things you've ever done.
You ask;
Define "worst off" and why are they so bad off? How has the west caused this? I'm not eveing going to address your obvious hatred of christian values.
I respond;
Oh Yeru, shame on you! Do some research on education, equality, freedom of speech and human rights violations and then tell me that the average Arab is in anyhway comparable to your average European or American!
And your reply is;
The west is denying free speech? equality? education? human rights? when did this happen...I thought it was the Arab rulers doing this to their own people.
Having asked how Arabs as a whole are worse off, you then show you know perfectly well they are. Did you loose track of your argument?
That deserves a long, slow hand-clap...
... oh, yeah, straw man - Wizard of Oz - scarecrow. Try and keep up, eh?
And here's the 'THEY' again
THEY WANT YOU DEAD
Who? The Jews? The <insert racial insult here>? The gays? The A-rabs? The Muslims? Or an extremist group of Muslims identifying for the most part with Wahhabi doctrines?
Address your fear and hate to those that deserve it, not 'THEY". THEY is used time and time again by people seeking to portray groups of individuals as identical, normally to make them ALL seem as dangerous/bad/immoral as each other.
Oh; I use 'we' in talking about the problems engendered by colonialism and Imperialism by both European powers and the USA.
Some of them are just morons. But they are all scum.
Everyone that doesn hold your opinion I take it
Another strawman. Either your reading comprehension or your honesty is in serious doubts scarecrow. I am calling people who talk about "incinerating innocent men women and children" scum. It's got nothing to do with them having a different opinion to me.
When I say "if we kill too many innocent people, we will become their enemy" you say "I'm still not seeing any solutions"; if you don't see ensuring as few innocent people suffer as is possible as a solution to something I am truely sorry for you.
And yet again, your utter lack of sympathy or fellow-feeling for those who have to live alongside the violent dangerous ones is clearly shown. You just say "maybe they need to kick the criminal out of their neighborhood". Yes, unarmed civilians taking on armed paramillitaries - who don't have any problem about killing other Arabs who get in their way. Would you be as willing for your partner's and daughter's lives to be put at risk as you are to put other innocent people's lives at risk? I don't think so.
dolphman
Life was just dandy before Sept 11.
Which shows how much you know. You're a funny guys and have brains. Learn about the background history to avoid saying cringingly uninformed things like that. 911 didn't drop out of the clear blue sky.
I think having one city nuked to bring this point finally hope could be a positive thing
Well, I have to say, may it be right over your head... and may everyone else have got out in time. I hope your component molecules get to feel good about the sacrifice YOU made for peace.
But of course in this you are theorising several million men women and children dying being a positive thing, but would not invisage yourself being one of the victims as such a positive thing.
You're also showing (if you think a proper nuclear bomb is a likely terrorist threat) you don't even know what the current siutuation is, let alone the run up to 911.
Whenever we try to influence democracy on someone
You would find, if you read what I wrote, that I very clearly criticise Western nations for allying themselves with NON-DEMOCRATIC governments, such as the Iraq dictatorship or the Saudi Royal Family. IF Western Nations had been keen on imposing democracy a few decades ago, the world would be a different place. But is was easier to deal with pet dictators and servile feudal lords than with democracies.
If you would stop re-writing history to paint the West as bringers of light and democracy, you might actually learn something.
Crazy... please show me the evidence you have that a terrorist organsiation has the capacity to deliver a proper fission device? Will to use it is not the point. You've already shown a will to nuke the Middle East, even though it would kill millions of innocent people.
Whilst a dirty bomb attack is possible, anyone who thinks even a Hiroshima-level attack is possible is on something or just engaing in vacuous fear-mongering.
FBF...
To paraphrase Churchill; "Never in the history of human conflict has so much been spoken by so many who know so little."
