LUHE:
What is your point? Do you think he is a bad muslim?
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
LUHE:
What is your point? Do you think he is a bad muslim?
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
One could say the Muslims are imitating what the Trump supporters did after the Quebec Mosque attack by a Trump supporter.
Not that I don't think a demonstration against religiously/politically motivated violence would be a good thing in either case.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
To the people who voted down my previous post about the fallacy of composition. I hope one of those brave souls would explain if they voted down my post because it is somehow not the fallacy of composition to say "Muslims do X" when plainly only a subset of Muslims do X, or because they simply think it is an inconvenient point.
I am going to assume the later...
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
That's the big difference with Islam - to be a good Muslim you have to be a butcher and a rapist.
Well, at least here you have found some common ground with Dabiq: You are either not a good Muslim, are you adhere to the darkest interpretation of Islam known to mankind. Muslims in the west, make your choice!
Is a Christian only a good Christian if he adheres to a literal interpretation of the bible? Does a Christian have to choose between supporting LBGT rights and being a good Christian?
Which sect of Christianity contains the 'Good Christians'?
"A bad Muslim".
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Could we not once and for all agree that when we say: "Christians do X" and Muslims do Y" we are engaging in the fallacy of composition?
apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
RT: Well, reason suggests that if you can put a lander on the moon, which is large enough to hold life-support systems plus astronauts, you can also put astronauts inside it before you fly it to the moon...
Regarding your reasons
the moon is loaded with valuable mineral resources including large deposits of silicon, iron, aluminum, magnesium, titaniu
Too expensive to transport.
There is a natural barrier. Perhaps the van allen belt of radiation is just too intense for any proposed spacecraft to protect its occupants from
false (google it)
The scientific research that could be conducted is also immense: there is plenty of room up there for particle accelerators much larger, and thus much more productive, than CERN
to expensive to build, see above.
Another issue is the incredible number of errors and inconsistencies that can be found if one combs through the photographic records of the Apollo missions.
these are easily explained by the specifics of the physics on moon & 1960 camera technology. Often these inconsistencies on reaffirm the authenticity of the photos.
Raw materials, even water (in the form of ice; and also hydrogen trapped in carbonaceous chondrites) and oxygen (in the form of oxides) are surprisingly plentiful on the moon.
water is literally falling from the sky on earth. from the moon, it would costs many thousands of dollars per pound in trnasportation alone, nevermind cost to etablish a colony.
cnn has the highest rated accuracy level out of any cable network.
okay, so that's not setting the bar very high.
but i see people on this forum bashing cnn ad nauseam.
Good question. I have wondered about that myself and it seems that the typical response is
apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
That photo was taken by NASA. Also, I'm not disputing the unmanned missions. Objects could have been sent to the moon. My issue is with the moon landings.
...there are also other telescopes that have taken pictures of the lander.
I am confused now. You claim that NASA flew the lunar lander onto the moon, left a rover on the moon, left mirrors that can be measured to exist by laser on the moon, but they just didn't include a human in the lander?
In other words, Is the lander on the moon or not? (pictures would suggest it is), and if so, when did it get there?
apart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
If man did not land on the moon, when was the lunar module placed on the moon?
http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html
unfolding now - could be terrorist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/man-shot-police-outside-parliament-officer-reportedly-shoots/.
Why would it be tricky to strip British-born Jihadis of their citizenship?
I just said I don't know the specifics. If you are interested in this topic, why not try google? I mean, it is your countries laws after all right?
In many countries, mine included, removing citizenship for people born citizens of a given country is very difficult, whereas putting them in jail is relatively easy.
I don't want to derail this topic out of respect of the victims so I will bow out of this discussion.