Quote of the Year
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Apparently they did want it or they wouldn't be fighting.
That's nice he's thinking of both sides, but they should have thought of it sooner. It's a little late to change your mind.
Cosidering the Koran, the only way this is going to end is if the Hindus drop their swords. If the Muslims surrended it would be a sign their God wasn't supporting them.
The Muslim God promised victory against their enemies and they're gonna get it no matter how hard they have to fight.
Ben
That's nice he's thinking of both sides, but they should have thought of it sooner. It's a little late to change your mind.
Cosidering the Koran, the only way this is going to end is if the Hindus drop their swords. If the Muslims surrended it would be a sign their God wasn't supporting them.
The Muslim God promised victory against their enemies and they're gonna get it no matter how hard they have to fight.
Ben
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
It is the fault of role models who have failed to teach peaceful conflict resolution and have instead taught that force and violence is the answer.
Fires such as these should be fought with water, not more fire.
Fires such as these should be fought with water, not more fire.
Bebelina ...
It's a ruby-red iMac DV G3/400 w/512 mb RAM and runs OSX better than expected for a G3.
As to the other ... at the center of a protest, when two people square off, do they fully and consciously intend to be the catalyst? When someone throws a bottle, or swings a stick, do they expect to be the flashpoint for regional violence and a ridiculous death toll?
I've been at demonstrations where scuffling ensued, and people work very hard to stop this sort of thing because those watching can see the violence spread. Or what of Seattle, and our WTO riot, where violence came to the people who did not wish it, and those who brought violence went scot-free? Admittedly, nobody died in Seattle, but if 400 people died that day, would the mayor have intended to kill 400 people?
Nobody ever wants it to go as far as it does; that's the amazing thing about crowds and the "mob mentality"; it is a surrender of restraint in order to justify the unspeakable evils that people feel obliged to bring for greater good. When you march forth in violent revolution, you stoop to the level of your oppressors. It is easier done as a group. Emma Goldman's sentiments regarding her friend and co-conspirator Berkman, are especially telling. It is intriguing to read through the transformation of a conscience from plotting revolutionary murder to recanting violence and sympathizing with those trapped within violence.
What people want is change. They do not want the fight, they do not want the violence. They want things to get better than they are and have been, and they want the bad reason for their suffering to change.
There are two undercurrents to American thought, for instance, which chill me. One pictures the rest of the world as being savages of various sorts, with bloodlusts and conflict for the sake of violence; e.g., wanting the fight. The other pictures Americans as peace-loving. Of all arbitrary fights going on in the world, we've got our hand in a few. Is there an idea between being willing to fight, being resigned to fighting, and wanting to fight?
Americans, for instance, generally range from willing to wanting to fight, while pretending to be resigned to fighting.
But I tend to assume that most people around the world don't walk around with a bloodlusting glint in their eye; if that's truly the case, then I'm surprised at how little conflict there is, and how much of humanity is still holding on, even by threads.
thanx much,
Tiassa
It's a ruby-red iMac DV G3/400 w/512 mb RAM and runs OSX better than expected for a G3.
As to the other ... at the center of a protest, when two people square off, do they fully and consciously intend to be the catalyst? When someone throws a bottle, or swings a stick, do they expect to be the flashpoint for regional violence and a ridiculous death toll?
I've been at demonstrations where scuffling ensued, and people work very hard to stop this sort of thing because those watching can see the violence spread. Or what of Seattle, and our WTO riot, where violence came to the people who did not wish it, and those who brought violence went scot-free? Admittedly, nobody died in Seattle, but if 400 people died that day, would the mayor have intended to kill 400 people?
Nobody ever wants it to go as far as it does; that's the amazing thing about crowds and the "mob mentality"; it is a surrender of restraint in order to justify the unspeakable evils that people feel obliged to bring for greater good. When you march forth in violent revolution, you stoop to the level of your oppressors. It is easier done as a group. Emma Goldman's sentiments regarding her friend and co-conspirator Berkman, are especially telling. It is intriguing to read through the transformation of a conscience from plotting revolutionary murder to recanting violence and sympathizing with those trapped within violence.
What people want is change. They do not want the fight, they do not want the violence. They want things to get better than they are and have been, and they want the bad reason for their suffering to change.
There are two undercurrents to American thought, for instance, which chill me. One pictures the rest of the world as being savages of various sorts, with bloodlusts and conflict for the sake of violence; e.g., wanting the fight. The other pictures Americans as peace-loving. Of all arbitrary fights going on in the world, we've got our hand in a few. Is there an idea between being willing to fight, being resigned to fighting, and wanting to fight?
Americans, for instance, generally range from willing to wanting to fight, while pretending to be resigned to fighting.
But I tend to assume that most people around the world don't walk around with a bloodlusting glint in their eye; if that's truly the case, then I'm surprised at how little conflict there is, and how much of humanity is still holding on, even by threads.
thanx much,
Tiassa
"when two people square off, do they fully and consciously intend to be the catalyst? When someone throws a bottle, or swings a stick, do they expect to be the flashpoint for regional violence and a ridiculous death toll?"
Should have though of that shouldn't they have?
"I didn't know" isn't an excuse. Like the school bully who smacks the wrong kid and ends up with a mob of angry kids kicking his ass.
It's hard to feel sorry for people when they start and perpetuate a war and then try to act like a victim.
Ben
Should have though of that shouldn't they have?
"I didn't know" isn't an excuse. Like the school bully who smacks the wrong kid and ends up with a mob of angry kids kicking his ass.
It's hard to feel sorry for people when they start and perpetuate a war and then try to act like a victim.
Ben
"A believer should not kill a believer for the sake of an unbeliever. Jews who follow them shall be treated with equality and helped, and believers fighting for God should not make a separate peace. The apostle called on believers to avenge blood shed in the way of God. Anyone convicted of killing a believer shall be subject to retaliation or blood money for the next of kin. Believers should not help wrong-doers. Any differences should be submitted to God and Muhammad. Thus the Muslims and Jews became one community, respecting each other's religions. The wronged were to be helped, and the Jews were expected to contribute as long as the war lasted."
http://san.beck.org/AB13-MuhammadandIslam.html
Peace is only for those who side with Islam. All others are open season if they should ever go against God.
And since the Hindus have gone against God, until they side with Muslims, there will be no peace.
Allah would never allow his people to surrender to unbelievers. So this war will go on and on until they are all dead.
"...therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority" (4:91).
Ben
http://san.beck.org/AB13-MuhammadandIslam.html
Peace is only for those who side with Islam. All others are open season if they should ever go against God.
And since the Hindus have gone against God, until they side with Muslims, there will be no peace.
Allah would never allow his people to surrender to unbelievers. So this war will go on and on until they are all dead.
"...therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority" (4:91).
Ben
Last edited:
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
***It's hard to feel sorry for people when they start and perpetuate a war and then try to act like a victim.***
What causes one to hold an entire group accountable for the actions of a few extremists?
Put out the train fire, mourn, bury the dead, bring the individuals who were responsible to justice, take steps to try and prevent such senseless acts from being repeated and let there be peace.
What causes one to hold an entire group accountable for the actions of a few extremists?
Put out the train fire, mourn, bury the dead, bring the individuals who were responsible to justice, take steps to try and prevent such senseless acts from being repeated and let there be peace.
"What causes one to hold an entire group accountable for the actions of a few extremists?"
Never said anyone but those fighting were accountable.
Everyone who fights in the war is accountable for their actions. Judging by the number who are being slaughtered, it's not just a few. I can understand feeling sorry for those who want to but can't escape having never fired a shot. But anyone who picks up a weapon and perpetuates the violence on either side deserves no pity no matter what they say.
Ben
Never said anyone but those fighting were accountable.
Everyone who fights in the war is accountable for their actions. Judging by the number who are being slaughtered, it's not just a few. I can understand feeling sorry for those who want to but can't escape having never fired a shot. But anyone who picks up a weapon and perpetuates the violence on either side deserves no pity no matter what they say.
Ben
Principles or excuses?
Your bully comparison is misdirected: you're employing an example which examines only one party in a two-party dispute in order to refute the point you're addressing. Such a comparison of, as the term has it, ducks and horses, is inappropriate.
Of those who start and perpetuate conflicts: it kind of puts the WTC disaster in a whole new light when we start considering American foreign policy both politically and industrially. We shouldn't act like a victim if we're going to choose to involve ourselves in such conflicts.
And therein lies a specific myopia of which I accuse many religious folk. The principles you espouse may work well and fine in this situation, but how can you call it a principle if you're willing to sacrifice it in the next situation?
As in this conflict: both sides seek change. They do not necessarily seek slaughter. The revocation of the primacy of the self in terms of communal idea as opposed to communal action is a nefariously sticky issue. I can't say anyone's gotten it right yet.
And that is a bigger problem than labels, holy texts, or anything: the sheer stupidity of the division we foster by arbitrary faith. It's a human symptom, not Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise.
thanx,
Tiassa
So by your reasoning, then, "Jack" and I, whose debate has reached a critical and boiling point, who are prepared to deal blows over the issue, are responsible for the actions of other individuals?
Your bully comparison is misdirected: you're employing an example which examines only one party in a two-party dispute in order to refute the point you're addressing. Such a comparison of, as the term has it, ducks and horses, is inappropriate.
Of those who start and perpetuate conflicts: it kind of puts the WTC disaster in a whole new light when we start considering American foreign policy both politically and industrially. We shouldn't act like a victim if we're going to choose to involve ourselves in such conflicts.
And therein lies a specific myopia of which I accuse many religious folk. The principles you espouse may work well and fine in this situation, but how can you call it a principle if you're willing to sacrifice it in the next situation?
As in this conflict: both sides seek change. They do not necessarily seek slaughter. The revocation of the primacy of the self in terms of communal idea as opposed to communal action is a nefariously sticky issue. I can't say anyone's gotten it right yet.
And that is a bigger problem than labels, holy texts, or anything: the sheer stupidity of the division we foster by arbitrary faith. It's a human symptom, not Muslim, Hindu, or otherwise.
thanx,
Tiassa
"As in this conflict: both sides seek change. They do not necessarily seek slaughter."
Then they need to learn how to aquire change without the use of slaughter.
Foreign Policy has nothing to do with war. Poor babies weren't getting enough free money. Bite me. Put upon bullies is what they are. They were expecting everyone to give them their lunch money and the US dared to say no. We weren't being agressive. We just weren't being friendly enough according to them. If I ask for $100 from you and you only give me $1 I have no right to shoot you. I should consider myself lucky I got $1. I had no right to any of it. 9/11 wasn't our fault by any stretch of the Koran. We didn't attack them so they had no right to attack us.
Ben
Then they need to learn how to aquire change without the use of slaughter.
Foreign Policy has nothing to do with war. Poor babies weren't getting enough free money. Bite me. Put upon bullies is what they are. They were expecting everyone to give them their lunch money and the US dared to say no. We weren't being agressive. We just weren't being friendly enough according to them. If I ask for $100 from you and you only give me $1 I have no right to shoot you. I should consider myself lucky I got $1. I had no right to any of it. 9/11 wasn't our fault by any stretch of the Koran. We didn't attack them so they had no right to attack us.
Ben
Pucky on the left, pucky on the right, stand-up-sit-down peace, peace, peace!
Now we see the BS float to the surface:
Do you have a job, KalvinB? Have you ever? How much did you get paid? I guarantee you that even when it wasn't enough to rent an apartment, it was still worth a lot more than what you would make working in Afghanistan. Tell me, KalvinB, what makes one person worth less so that their labors are worth less than any other? Why is it that a family of four can spend more money at a baseball game than some families in this world see in an entire year? What, their labor is just on generosity, and they should be happy with the $1 you're willing to give up instead of the $100 deserved for labors performed?
When the United States government goes forth and actively helps create and maintain conditions whereby our companies may pay awful wages internationally for the preservation of our excess (life would continue, as much as I hate to admit it, without baseball) and therefore perpetuate an existence of suffering, then yes, our foreign policy has much with what motivates people to warfare. It does not make 9/11 right in any sense; nor, of course, do any conceptual wrongs make violence right. After all, as history shows, after British lease-law fostered and perpetuated starvation among the Irish until the Irish rebelled, both British and American sentiments were that the Irish were ungrateful for all the British had done for them, including forbidding them at force of law, violence, and deprivation, to grow viable food. And so they revolted. Fucking ingrates, right? OF course, seventy-five or so years later, they would win the day.
If bin Laden had credibility, KalvinB, and if your presumptions of Islamic belligerence were in any way, shape, or form correct, don't you think more of that 82% of international Muslims who think the American tale of 9/11 doesn't quite jibe would be supporting their man? As it is, conditions in India and Pakistan are progressing exactly as I would fear in my most sinister conception of why the United States is at war in Afghanistan; however, being that I do not hold with conspiracy grandeur, I find the present state a predictable affair that is as unfortunate as it is useless.
As to that, I look forward to your paper on the warlike Hindus, as well.
thanx,
Tiassa
Now we see the BS float to the surface:
War is part of foreign policy; I didn't think the definition of foreign policy was so hard to grasp. But you have made an important mistake related to this mistake:
Right, so all that money we're just "giving away", then, is not in exchange for labor and products which allow Americans to become richer? I spent more money last week on dope than some Afghanis will see in a year; my iMac cost me four people's incomes in some countries; if I add up my jeans, shirt, glasses, underwear, and the soap, shampoo, conditioner, and moisturizer, I can account for a year's income in a single shower and change of clothes.
Do you have a job, KalvinB? Have you ever? How much did you get paid? I guarantee you that even when it wasn't enough to rent an apartment, it was still worth a lot more than what you would make working in Afghanistan. Tell me, KalvinB, what makes one person worth less so that their labors are worth less than any other? Why is it that a family of four can spend more money at a baseball game than some families in this world see in an entire year? What, their labor is just on generosity, and they should be happy with the $1 you're willing to give up instead of the $100 deserved for labors performed?
So your labors should not be paid with money? Come work for me anytime. What, did you steal the computter you're posting from?
On the one hand, a recent Gallup poll abroad figured that only 18% of international Muslims believe the American version of what happened on 9/11 and therefore is justified in its Afghani Crusade. To the other, you don't see the other 82% of them taking up arms. You are absolutely correct when you say 9/11 is not our fault by any stretch of the Koran. 9/11 is no more justified by the Koran than the Salem Trials were justified by the Bible.
When the United States government goes forth and actively helps create and maintain conditions whereby our companies may pay awful wages internationally for the preservation of our excess (life would continue, as much as I hate to admit it, without baseball) and therefore perpetuate an existence of suffering, then yes, our foreign policy has much with what motivates people to warfare. It does not make 9/11 right in any sense; nor, of course, do any conceptual wrongs make violence right. After all, as history shows, after British lease-law fostered and perpetuated starvation among the Irish until the Irish rebelled, both British and American sentiments were that the Irish were ungrateful for all the British had done for them, including forbidding them at force of law, violence, and deprivation, to grow viable food. And so they revolted. Fucking ingrates, right? OF course, seventy-five or so years later, they would win the day.
If bin Laden had credibility, KalvinB, and if your presumptions of Islamic belligerence were in any way, shape, or form correct, don't you think more of that 82% of international Muslims who think the American tale of 9/11 doesn't quite jibe would be supporting their man? As it is, conditions in India and Pakistan are progressing exactly as I would fear in my most sinister conception of why the United States is at war in Afghanistan; however, being that I do not hold with conspiracy grandeur, I find the present state a predictable affair that is as unfortunate as it is useless.
As to that, I look forward to your paper on the warlike Hindus, as well.
thanx,
Tiassa
You have a hard time grasping simple concepts. Islam is a war based religion. Everything that's going on in their country is a result of a religion that doesn't know the meaning of the word peace much less how to obtain it. That's not the US's problem.
Last I checked Afgans don't work for the US. Any money we give them is of our own free will. If they don't like it, they can take nothing or oh I dunno, MOVE.
Hey hey a Gallup poll. Boy I better just sit down for this one.
You've got to be kidding me. If anything it shows the ignorance of the people who live there. Next you're going to tell me that Saddam Hussain is also really a great guy. After all, how could millions of Arabians be wrong?
If you want to compare numbers, how could 1 billion people on OUR side be wrong?
Where did you learn how to debate? Holy crap.
Ben
Last I checked Afgans don't work for the US. Any money we give them is of our own free will. If they don't like it, they can take nothing or oh I dunno, MOVE.
Hey hey a Gallup poll. Boy I better just sit down for this one.
You've got to be kidding me. If anything it shows the ignorance of the people who live there. Next you're going to tell me that Saddam Hussain is also really a great guy. After all, how could millions of Arabians be wrong?
If you want to compare numbers, how could 1 billion people on OUR side be wrong?
Where did you learn how to debate? Holy crap.
Ben
They want to kill all US citizens. We may not have borne the problem, but it exists none-the-less. That is our problem.
That is unrelated. Any judgment of a middle-eastern warmonger, must also account for the circumstances. Hussein was installed by the US. We are an oligarchy; that is the most apparent problem. We perpetuate oligarchies; that is our problem and their problem. A democracy this is not.
Forget about all that junk about them hating us for our values. Many of them are dirt poor. Their dictators point the finger at us. Guess what, they got it half right. We established a good share of dictatorships. We did it in Iraq, Kosovo, and came close to doing it in Viet Nam. Do these nations sound familiar? Is it any wonder they are angry?
Whose side is this? There are but 300 million people in the US. Using complex math called division, I can find that this is about one-third of your number.
Where did you learn to debate? Exactly how does one go about making crap holy?
Last edited:
Where? Obviously a better school than you, KalvinB
Last time I checked, American money was going toward Afghani opium. Sure, it's black market, but that's how our drug war fosters terrorism: if it weren't for our drug war they wouldn't be working for warlords.
So, uh ... when they move, and get here ... when they get off the boat with no money and no home and no job skills or linguistic connections, are you going to take care of them, or do they have to convert to Christianity before you will?
Look at it this way: when everybody the US is screwing moves and comes here, there won't be anyone left to screw. But that's okay, because Christians have helped ensure that Americans have a healthy history of tearing themselves apart every now and then.
But I digress:
Quite simply, you want to throw numbers around. Now, KalvinB, it's not about a simple comparison, or who has the biggest cock. What it's about is your stupid need to make frothing barbarians out of Muslims and the fact that, while 82% of them think the US is full of shit on a point or two, that clear majority of them are not lining up behind bin Laden. Why are they not lining up behind bin Laden? Because they do not find his actions justified by the Qur'an. Do you really think that bin Laden represents all Muslims? After all, you have made specific reference to the fact that we did not attack them, but they attacked us. The absolute racism and cultural bigotry of your position is disgraceful.
Of course, how had they attacked us that required us to dislocate three-million-plus Islamic Arabs (e.g. them) out of what is now Israel? Since you like the simplistic, silly comparisons, we might wonder about that. Remember that the United States, more than even the United Nations or God, is the chief agent responsible for Israel's survival as a Hebrew nation. I know you would like the world to be as simplistic as you have demanded God should be, but it's not, KalvinB. If we get right down to it, KalvinB, you're not seeking a solution but a victory. And that's just repugnant. Take your moral contempt and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Would you like to consider all of them in Iran, and how the Shah hurt the people with the full cooperation and encouragement and technical and financial and military support of the US and UK in a Cold War chess game? If there is one thing about their being stuck in Iran makes me feel better about, it's that they are a little too far away to take out the unholy rage for which we in the modern US are merely the catalyst.
How long will you let governments starve your child before you actually do something about it? I'd bet that, by any comparison, you're an extremist. (Realize, KalvinB, that people's reactions to the prolonged suffering of their children, while predictable and expected, is, for some reason, considered extreme. Are they not smart enough? How are they going to be smart enough to figure that out if they can't afford schools and the rifle leaves them wondering if they'll live long enough to make that education anything but wasted.)
Learn to look at people like people. Look around, KalvinB, if you took home less than a thousand dollars a year to feed, clothe, and house your family on, and that was the best you could get because someone overseas needed another HDTV ... I take it you'd be the same person you are today?
Your compassion seems such that you wish to despise these people for the crime of having deliberately conspired to be born. Really, KalvinB, you should try to hate people just a little less.
It wouldn't bug me so much if your self-righteousness wasn't so fucking hypocritical. But that makes all the difference in the world; you go from being an unfortunate symptom of an earthsickness to being a willing agent of its transmission. I'm not God; I have no obligation to forgive you that hideous choice.
Your attitude is contemptible and representative of the reasons why Americans are the subject of international hostility.
thanx,
Tiassa
I can easily grasp your unfailing bigotry. An idea as small as your petty hatreds is quite easy to grasp.
Is that what you would say to Jesus if he was stuck in Afghanistan? Whatsoever you do to the least of his brethren ....
Last time I checked, American money was going toward Afghani opium. Sure, it's black market, but that's how our drug war fosters terrorism: if it weren't for our drug war they wouldn't be working for warlords.
So, uh ... when they move, and get here ... when they get off the boat with no money and no home and no job skills or linguistic connections, are you going to take care of them, or do they have to convert to Christianity before you will?
Look at it this way: when everybody the US is screwing moves and comes here, there won't be anyone left to screw. But that's okay, because Christians have helped ensure that Americans have a healthy history of tearing themselves apart every now and then.
But I digress:
I'm sorry, I forgot that the only indicator of fact was your opinion. Kindly have a point in your own topic or just give it up.
And here you show the utter lack of sympathy which plagues the western experience. Really, KalvinB, what do these people have to compare to? The United States? How are they going to make that comparison? Low-level Victoria's Secret catalog drops by the Air Force? (Nod to Jimmy Buffet on that one.) It's almost like you expect them to look at the situation with the same resources, background, and therefore opinion as you, and resent that they do not.
And I thank you for conclusively demonstrating that you have missed the point. And I will even be so kind as to go to the effort that you cannot with your dismissals. I will tell you what point you've missed.
Quite simply, you want to throw numbers around. Now, KalvinB, it's not about a simple comparison, or who has the biggest cock. What it's about is your stupid need to make frothing barbarians out of Muslims and the fact that, while 82% of them think the US is full of shit on a point or two, that clear majority of them are not lining up behind bin Laden. Why are they not lining up behind bin Laden? Because they do not find his actions justified by the Qur'an. Do you really think that bin Laden represents all Muslims? After all, you have made specific reference to the fact that we did not attack them, but they attacked us. The absolute racism and cultural bigotry of your position is disgraceful.
Of course, how had they attacked us that required us to dislocate three-million-plus Islamic Arabs (e.g. them) out of what is now Israel? Since you like the simplistic, silly comparisons, we might wonder about that. Remember that the United States, more than even the United Nations or God, is the chief agent responsible for Israel's survival as a Hebrew nation. I know you would like the world to be as simplistic as you have demanded God should be, but it's not, KalvinB. If we get right down to it, KalvinB, you're not seeking a solution but a victory. And that's just repugnant. Take your moral contempt and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Would you like to consider all of them in Iran, and how the Shah hurt the people with the full cooperation and encouragement and technical and financial and military support of the US and UK in a Cold War chess game? If there is one thing about their being stuck in Iran makes me feel better about, it's that they are a little too far away to take out the unholy rage for which we in the modern US are merely the catalyst.
How long will you let governments starve your child before you actually do something about it? I'd bet that, by any comparison, you're an extremist. (Realize, KalvinB, that people's reactions to the prolonged suffering of their children, while predictable and expected, is, for some reason, considered extreme. Are they not smart enough? How are they going to be smart enough to figure that out if they can't afford schools and the rifle leaves them wondering if they'll live long enough to make that education anything but wasted.)
Learn to look at people like people. Look around, KalvinB, if you took home less than a thousand dollars a year to feed, clothe, and house your family on, and that was the best you could get because someone overseas needed another HDTV ... I take it you'd be the same person you are today?
Your compassion seems such that you wish to despise these people for the crime of having deliberately conspired to be born. Really, KalvinB, you should try to hate people just a little less.
It wouldn't bug me so much if your self-righteousness wasn't so fucking hypocritical. But that makes all the difference in the world; you go from being an unfortunate symptom of an earthsickness to being a willing agent of its transmission. I'm not God; I have no obligation to forgive you that hideous choice.
Your attitude is contemptible and representative of the reasons why Americans are the subject of international hostility.
thanx,
Tiassa
"I can easily grasp your unfailing bigotry. An idea as small as your petty hatreds is quite easy to grasp."
Why don't you take a moment to look up the word "peace" in the Koran and tell me what you find. It's one thing to claim bigotry. It's another to do actual research into what I'm talking about.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of his brethren ...."
Jesus got annoyed at the people who only looked to him for earthly bread. We're not here to support the rest of the world. If you want to be the saviour go ahead. But I have my head in reality.
"What it's about is your stupid need to make frothing barbarians out of Muslims and the fact that, while 82% of them think the US is full of shit on a point or two, that clear majority of them are not lining up behind bin Laden. Why are they not lining up behind bin Laden? Because they do not find his actions justified by the Qur'an. Do you really think that bin Laden represents all Muslims? "
No, jackass.
Like I said. You don't understand and it's incredibly pathetic that you waste so much time writing stupid posts that have no bearing in anything I'm actually saying.
Ben
Why don't you take a moment to look up the word "peace" in the Koran and tell me what you find. It's one thing to claim bigotry. It's another to do actual research into what I'm talking about.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of his brethren ...."
Jesus got annoyed at the people who only looked to him for earthly bread. We're not here to support the rest of the world. If you want to be the saviour go ahead. But I have my head in reality.
"What it's about is your stupid need to make frothing barbarians out of Muslims and the fact that, while 82% of them think the US is full of shit on a point or two, that clear majority of them are not lining up behind bin Laden. Why are they not lining up behind bin Laden? Because they do not find his actions justified by the Qur'an. Do you really think that bin Laden represents all Muslims? "
No, jackass.
Like I said. You don't understand and it's incredibly pathetic that you waste so much time writing stupid posts that have no bearing in anything I'm actually saying.
Ben
What is this standard of yours?
No matter how determined you are to make us believe you have a point, you never seem to get around to telling us what it is. Of course, you also get cranky if we try to figure that out, so in the end, why did you bother putting your two cents in on this topic if you weren't prepared to discuss it? Don't waste our time. Why don't you tell us what the point is; what is it that we're looking for that you're so hung up on?
You see, many of the issues you select, KalvinB, only stand out as unusual when declared wrong and then placed for contrast against Christian principle under the presupposition that the Christian principle is right. Such practices result in stupid nitpicking, like your separation of whether you do the killing yourself or get to play Pontius Pilate. The Islamic way is wrong when contrasted against the Christian way under the presupposition of Christian correctness. But that presupposition cannot change or overrule the fact that Christianity calls for the murder of people based on religious differences. You may find reason to hate the Muslim, KalvinB, but after this, you should never wonder why people reject Christian guidance for social policy. Why would we want to invest authority with the power to murder people for religion?
A very simple question, KalvinB, and I hope you deign to answer it because your failure to consider it in such context is one of the underlying faults of your position: Does a witch deserve to be murdered? According to you as you assess the priorities of your life. Let me point out a couple of things:
* Is the answer Yes? What else need I say? I have already pointed out that you are justifying murder in the name of religion; you would merely be providing a declaratory affirmation to that which is already demonstratively known.
* Is the answer No? On what grounds do you defy the Bible?
I'll leave it to you to figure out.
Let us know.
thanx,
Tiassa
No matter how determined you are to make us believe you have a point, you never seem to get around to telling us what it is. Of course, you also get cranky if we try to figure that out, so in the end, why did you bother putting your two cents in on this topic if you weren't prepared to discuss it? Don't waste our time.
And what, specifically, am I not supposed to find? You might as well tell me which of your presuppositions I'm supposed to employ while I do it. What, am I looking for a big neon sign?
Why don't you tell us what the point is; what is it that we're looking for that you're so hung up on?
Hey, I'm not the one who believes in heaven and hell. Everlasting fire is your own option, but how you regard the least of his brethren, so do you regard him. And that is, according to the book of Matthew, one of the primary criteria of Judgement.
You see, many of the issues you select, KalvinB, only stand out as unusual when declared wrong and then placed for contrast against Christian principle under the presupposition that the Christian principle is right. Such practices result in stupid nitpicking, like your separation of whether you do the killing yourself or get to play Pontius Pilate. The Islamic way is wrong when contrasted against the Christian way under the presupposition of Christian correctness. But that presupposition cannot change or overrule the fact that Christianity calls for the murder of people based on religious differences. You may find reason to hate the Muslim, KalvinB, but after this, you should never wonder why people reject Christian guidance for social policy. Why would we want to invest authority with the power to murder people for religion?
A very simple question, KalvinB, and I hope you deign to answer it because your failure to consider it in such context is one of the underlying faults of your position: Does a witch deserve to be murdered? According to you as you assess the priorities of your life. Let me point out a couple of things:
* Is the answer Yes? What else need I say? I have already pointed out that you are justifying murder in the name of religion; you would merely be providing a declaratory affirmation to that which is already demonstratively known.
* Is the answer No? On what grounds do you defy the Bible?
I'll leave it to you to figure out.
Then what's all this Us and Them crap, KalvinB? Why are you making an issue out of all of Islam because of Osama bin Laden? This is one of the things which compels me to accuse you of bigotry and hatred. You are so determined to score a victory of some arcane quantification that you're badmouthing a whole lot of people without conscience and doing your utmost to further strife among creation. Good show. I know that's what Jesus wants you to do.
How long are you going to hide behind that line?
Let us know.
thanx,
Tiassa
Like I said. Pathetic.
There's no point in explaining anything since I have on a number of occasions and all you do is post more ignorant pathetic dribble.
You are completely inept when it comes to listening, understanding or anything else required for intelligent debate.
So whatever. Why should I talk if you aren't going to listen?
Ben
There's no point in explaining anything since I have on a number of occasions and all you do is post more ignorant pathetic dribble.
You are completely inept when it comes to listening, understanding or anything else required for intelligent debate.
So whatever. Why should I talk if you aren't going to listen?
Ben
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
KalvinB,
***Never said anyone but those fighting were accountable.
Everyone who fights in the war is accountable for their actions. Judging by the number who are being slaughtered, it's not just a few. I can understand feeling sorry for those who want to but can't escape having never fired a shot. But anyone who picks up a weapon and perpetuates the violence on either side deserves no pity no matter what they say.***
Do you have any real clue as to what is happening?
Most of the individual "Muslims" involved in the initial act of setting the train of "Hindus" on fire have been arrested.
Most of the individual "Muslims" who are being slaughtered in the aftermath are peaceful, law-abiding, family-oriented people who had nothing to do with setting the fire. They are being hunted, electrocuted, burned alive, and otherwise slaughtered in and around their homes because they happen to live in a community that is known to be inhabited by those of the "Muslim" faith.
***Never said anyone but those fighting were accountable.
Everyone who fights in the war is accountable for their actions. Judging by the number who are being slaughtered, it's not just a few. I can understand feeling sorry for those who want to but can't escape having never fired a shot. But anyone who picks up a weapon and perpetuates the violence on either side deserves no pity no matter what they say.***
Do you have any real clue as to what is happening?
Most of the individual "Muslims" involved in the initial act of setting the train of "Hindus" on fire have been arrested.
Most of the individual "Muslims" who are being slaughtered in the aftermath are peaceful, law-abiding, family-oriented people who had nothing to do with setting the fire. They are being hunted, electrocuted, burned alive, and otherwise slaughtered in and around their homes because they happen to live in a community that is known to be inhabited by those of the "Muslim" faith.
It's a good question, KalvinB
Besides, come on ... I feel cheated here. You put so much more effort into cussing out other people. Why are you shorting me on this? Hmm? Perhaps because you can't keep up the bluster for long without at least a foothold? Huff and puff all you want, Wolfie ... you'll just blow yourself over again.
Maybe I'll just go read some of your better tantrums and pretend you're talking to me.
Look, Ben, you can keep calling people pathetic and inept, but that doesn't change A) that you can't demonstrate the basis of your slanders, and B) that you're still being a bigoted punk. The basic difference here, Ben, is that when I say you're being a bigot, not only do I have the evidence of your own posts, but you continue to prove the point. When you call people pathetic and inept ... well, we expect it from you, Ben. It's pretty much the lifeblood of your debate. We know that ducking, weaving, and insulting are the prime skills of many of our Christian posters--we've had many down and dirty rumbles on that very subject. If you were the soup of the day, you'd be split peabrain.
It's real simple, Ben. If you want us to respect your intelligence, you have to show it. If you want us to continue treating you like a joke, just keep behaving as you have been.
If you want it to be academic, then try being academic. If you want a 24-7 personal grudge, go to Parascope.
thanx,
Tiassa
I'll let Toad the Wet Sprocket speak my reply:
We all wonder why you bother, KalvinB. I do admit, it's hard to pay attention to your posts. Either the gales of laughter you inspire with your tantrums or the effort of not rolling on the floor at your ongoing example of what's wrong with the mere idea of a Christian intellect do, in fact, make concentration more difficult than it needs be.
Besides, come on ... I feel cheated here. You put so much more effort into cussing out other people. Why are you shorting me on this? Hmm? Perhaps because you can't keep up the bluster for long without at least a foothold? Huff and puff all you want, Wolfie ... you'll just blow yourself over again.
Maybe I'll just go read some of your better tantrums and pretend you're talking to me.
Look, Ben, you can keep calling people pathetic and inept, but that doesn't change A) that you can't demonstrate the basis of your slanders, and B) that you're still being a bigoted punk. The basic difference here, Ben, is that when I say you're being a bigot, not only do I have the evidence of your own posts, but you continue to prove the point. When you call people pathetic and inept ... well, we expect it from you, Ben. It's pretty much the lifeblood of your debate. We know that ducking, weaving, and insulting are the prime skills of many of our Christian posters--we've had many down and dirty rumbles on that very subject. If you were the soup of the day, you'd be split peabrain.
It's real simple, Ben. If you want us to respect your intelligence, you have to show it. If you want us to continue treating you like a joke, just keep behaving as you have been.
If you want it to be academic, then try being academic. If you want a 24-7 personal grudge, go to Parascope.
thanx,
Tiassa