sandy: answer these claims against Christianity
- Thread starter Kadark
- Start date
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in several Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen.[1] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria and the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines, or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not specifically forbidden by law. In Egypt openly gay men have been prosecuted under general public morality laws. (See Cairo 52.) On the other hand, homosexuality, while not legal, is tolerated to some extent in Lebanon, and has been legal in Turkey for decades.
In Saudi Arabia, the maximum punishment for homosexuality is public execution, but the government will use other punishments — e.g., fines, jail time, and whipping — as alternatives, unless it feels that homosexuals are challenging state authority by engaging in LGBT social movements.[2] Iran is perhaps the nation to execute the largest number of its citizens for homosexuality. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, the Iranian government has executed more than 4000 people charged with homosexual acts. In Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban homosexuality went from a capital crime to one that it punished with fines and prison sentence.
Please note: 4000 people were killed for homosexual acts in Iran.
here is a recent article about homosexuals being killed there
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/07/iran_executes_2.html
So much good stuff! What to choose, what to choose...
...:bugeye: What do we know about the little blue pill?
Buff and rough.
Well, I agree that it would be the proper thing, but it's not too realistic.
They'll probably say something like: "Oh, God - why in the fuck didn't they listen to Geoff? Why? Especially about the zombie thing."
The requirement of four witnesses means that no case of rape can ever really be proven; therefore, all such accusations fall into the area of zina, which is illegal sexual relations (adultery, etc). In this case, both the man and woman are punished. Homosexuality is similar.
Strangely, they all seem to think they do; and they all appear similar, almost identical, in their perspective. Unless you think that the punishment for, say, homosexuality in Oman is to have a big happy parade with balloons and cake for everyone. Not enough difference to slide a fatwa between them.
...:bugeye: What do we know about the little blue pill?
Buff and rough.
Well, I agree that it would be the proper thing, but it's not too realistic.
They'll probably say something like: "Oh, God - why in the fuck didn't they listen to Geoff? Why? Especially about the zombie thing."
The requirement of four witnesses means that no case of rape can ever really be proven; therefore, all such accusations fall into the area of zina, which is illegal sexual relations (adultery, etc). In this case, both the man and woman are punished. Homosexuality is similar.
Strangely, they all seem to think they do; and they all appear similar, almost identical, in their perspective. Unless you think that the punishment for, say, homosexuality in Oman is to have a big happy parade with balloons and cake for everyone. Not enough difference to slide a fatwa between them.
Still can’t prove Muslims orchestrated 911?
“Twiddling their thumbs”? They were in Iraq, allowed by Saddam, and were inspecting the country for things like weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, etc. The US broke international laws and created an unsupported, pre-emptive attack on a nation innocent from the accusations against them. You can say anything you want about this war, but one thing’s for certain, it is illegal.
Iraq is in violation of humanitarian issues such as executing their own citizens. However, this does not warrant an invasion for the reasons the US mentioned. The UN wasn’t behind it, the whole world disagreed, and Iraq, most importantly, was no international threat. Iraq is in violation for problems within its own borders; however, the timing and presentation of the war were way off, making it illegal. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
This post verifies the fact that you are an idiot. I never said the American government supported these modern day militants - I distinctly said America supplied and funded Iraq in its war with IRAN (in which Saddam was in power).
Actually, your link showed five QUOTES. QUOTES are not WELL-DOCUMENTED EVENTS. If I wanted to, I could create false quotes for Hitler and make them sound believable. My link had no quotes, only real-life events that Hitler experienced. You know, supporting the Pope, killing homosexuals when in power, etc. Those kinds of things.
Tell me where I said these empires were perfect. I beg you. Quit distorting my words to help your weak argument.
Knowing that I am going to Heaven is my God-given right when I am a born-again Christian. 
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:2, 3) ...
Radical Islamists are "hijacking" the "religion of peace." I get that. What I don't get is why don't the "nice, peaceful Muslims" do something about it? If there was a group of Christians doing vile things in the name of Jesus, I would personally get on their @sses so fast, they wouldn't know what hit them. Then I would get hundreds/thousands/millions more to join me. (Just like with the anti-shamnesty bill.)
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:2, 3) ...
Radical Islamists are "hijacking" the "religion of peace." I get that. What I don't get is why don't the "nice, peaceful Muslims" do something about it? If there was a group of Christians doing vile things in the name of Jesus, I would personally get on their @sses so fast, they wouldn't know what hit them. Then I would get hundreds/thousands/millions more to join me. (Just like with the anti-shamnesty bill.)
Knowing that I am going to Heaven is my God-given right when I am a born-again Christian.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:2, 3) ...
People who look too far into the future lose grasp of the present.
Why should I care if a Muslim militant kills an American soldier? Americans are happy to hear did militants, and consequently, I am happy to hear dead American soldiers. Whatever the Muslim death toll, America has waged a war it cannot win. Shades of the Vietnam war can be seen resembled here. Sure, the Vietnamese suffered critical death, however, that didn't stop them from kicking America's ass.
Please, stop. The laughing is killing me. Oh, man. No like video of suicide bombers? Jihad and shaheed and muhajedeen, oh my.
And theeen, he kept kicking them out n' such. And tried to buy off-the shelf nukes from North Korea. Got some proof for the illegality of the US invasion? Come on, should be easy. I'm not even saying you're wrong! Lazy, maybe.
:yawn: Sorry, not really into the "leave em alone so they can get nukes" position. You got anything else?
Awww - hurtful names from a verified shithead. I can't tell you how much that hurts. I was talking about that conflict, dolt. Where is all the American gear that they supposedly supplied the Iraqis for that war? Come on, where? M-series tanks? M16s? Or is it, again, all Soviet gear like it is now. You know, I'm at a loss to explain the kind of utter idiot that could take my point and then try to attach it to the wrong period. Iraq has used Soviet gear for a long, long time and right up to the present day. For fuck's sake.
Like hadiths and Sura and biographies? Are you sure?
Again, you seem to think that once baptised, always baptised. People leave faiths, or ignore them, or drop them. Was Stalin a Christian? I bet he was baptized too.
...is that your usual deal then? Whatever floats your boat, I guess. You don't seem to get that private statements in the company of peers illustrate a person's actual motivation. Or maybe in your world, no one ever lies.
Pandering to religion gets him popular support, which he was big on. Duh.
Hey, you said they were great! And I'm sure they were awesome! Awesome!
Except not for the unbelievers. Now, for you that just translates to "not perfect". For the rest of us - you know, the kuffar - that translates to "shitty oppressive society". But don't be too concerned, as I know you're not, about everybody else. It's an islamic paradise! Who cares about the shirkers? Woo hoo!
I very much doubt that you're laughing at all. In any case, I still have yet to see a SHRED of proof.
How about the LEADER OF THE UN saying the war is illegal? Is THAT not enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Saddam had no power/money/knowledge to develop nuclear weapons.
What the hell are you talking about? The Iraqis used weapons and money supplied from the United States against the war with Iran. I proved this with the link I posted a few posts back. What part of this widely accepted fact do you disagree with? They're not being used today, of course. Who knows where decades old machine guns are? On the battlefield? Destroyed? Who the hell knows. The point I'm making is that the US supplied Saddam with weapons and money to defeat Iran in their war.
I don't think that at all. I think Hitler was Christian because of his great relationship with the Pope, his Christian like policies against homosexuals, etc. I don't rely on quotes or baptism to prove my point, much unlike you.
What does this have to do with me making Hitler quotes up? My point is that making up false quotes is ridiculously easy. You cannot, however, make up documented life-events of another person, unless they're true.
No, I said they were the most successful Islamic empires because they leaned the closest to their religion. I never said they were "AWESOME!" or "perfect reflections of Islam".
Your "humor" is getting tiresome.
Geoff, I'm thinking it's a total waste of time even discussing this stuff anymore. They are in denial. They personal attack and call us names. They PM us VILE messages. They defend "radical" Islam. They applaud the killings of our soldiers who are trying to bring democracy to Iraq. They don't want democracy. They want to continue their violence. Maybe trying to help the Middle East is a waste of time too?
sandy: Are you implying that I PM you "VILE" messages? If I'm not mistaken, I've PMed you once in my life, and it was about global warming. To add to that, I was extremely courteous and respected your opinion. Where was I vile? (I apologize if you weren't referring to me, but you must admit, it seems like it's directed towards me).
Yes, of course I "applaud" dead American soldiers. Why is this so wrong? In times of war, everybody applauds somebody's death.
Yes, of course I "applaud" dead American soldiers. Why is this so wrong? In times of war, everybody applauds somebody's death.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Granty or madanthony, please answer the other two questions I posed.
READ POST #122.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
I have read that, however I am referring to the other two questions I posed.
Good lord. I'll start you off slow.
Done and done.
That's interesting. Is the UN a feudal oligarchy? Some would actually say yes, but I think that sort of thing goes to a committee rather than the supreme UberKanzler. And in fact, it does. You should read your own sources.
But:
So - up in the air. Not quite illegal, not quite not.
Are you dense, or do you just really like scarecrows (i.e. straw men)? I did not say he developed his own, I said he was trying to buy nuclear weapons from North Korea.
For your further edification, this is from a book, which is a squarish-looking thing filled with sheet of white paper. Some books have things written in them, and it is the writings of Mahdi Obeidi and Kurt Pitzer in this book that Christopher Hitchens is commenting on, above. I add this only so that later you cannot say "but there's no link!" later on.
Repost, little fellow, repost. Bring your proofs if ye are truthful.
Oooh - argument from popularity. You're hitting them all today.
Oh, but they are. Witness if you will:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Jang.jpg[img]
The caption reads: "Iranian soldiers and Iraqi tanks on the battlefield". Ergo, the tank is [I]Iraqi[/I]. It appears from my hazy memory to be a T-64 (although I bet Buffalo could call it easily). Don't believe me? OK. Let's examine the "order of battle" for Iraq during the war. ("Order of battle" is a fancy term for "army". K?)
[QUOTE][B]Iraqi Army (1980)[/B]
1st Army Corps (sector between Rawanduz and Marivan)
7th Infantry Division (HQ Soleimaniyah, Iraq)
11th Infantry Division (HQ Soleimaniyah, Iraq) (-) (113th Infantry Brigade)
2nd Army Corps (sector between Qassre-Shirin, Ilam, and Mehran, armor deployed between Mehran and Dezful)
6th Armored Division (HQ Baqubah, Iraq) 300 [B](T-62) (BMP-1) [/B]
9th Armored Division (HQ Samavah, Iraq) 300 [B](T-62) (BMP-1)[/B]
10th Armored Division (HQ Baghdad, Iraq) 300 [B](T-62) (BMP-1)[/B]
2nd Infantry Division (HQ Kirkuk, Iraq)
4th Infantry Division (HQ Mawsil, Iraq)
6th Infantry Division (HQ Baqubah, Iraq)
8th Infantry Division (HQ Arbil, Iraq)
3rd Army Corps (HQ al-Qurnah, Iraq) (Sector between Dezful and Abadan)
3rd Armored Division (HQ Tikrit, Iraq) 300 [B](T-62) (BMP-1)[/B]
10th Armored Division (HQ Baghdad, Iraq) 300 [B](T-62) (BMP-1) [/B]
12th Armored Division (HQ Dahuoq, Iraq) (Held in Reserve) 300 [B](T-62) (BMP-1)[/B]
1st Mechanized Division (HQ Divaniyeh, Iraq) 200 [B](T-55) (Czech OT-64 APC/BTR-50 APC) [/B]
5th Mechanized Division (HQ Basrah, Iraq) 200 [B](T-55) (Czech OT-64 APC/BTR-50 APC)[/B]
31st Independent Special Forces Brigade (-) (2 battalions) (one was attached to 5th MD, another to 3rd AD),
33rd Independent Special Forces Brigade
10th Independent Armored Brigade [B](T-72) (BMP-1)[/B]
12th Independent Armored Brigade [B](T-62) (BMP-1)[/B]
113th Infantry Brigade (Detachments) (From 11th Infantry Division) [/QUOTE]
BMPs, T-55s, 62s and 72s are [I]Soviet [/I]vehicles, you dunderhead. As in: not built by the Yanks. FFS.
Let's read further.
[QUOTE]Iraq's army was [B]primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade[/B]. During the war, it purchased [B]billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviet Union, France,[32] as well as from the People's Republic of China[/B], Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including Europe and facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). [/QUOTE]
So, again: weapons not supplied by the US. How odd.
[QUOTE]"Who knows where decades old machine guns are? On the battlefield? Destroyed? Who the hell knows."[/QUOTE]
You know, I think "argument from ignorance" is a real logical fallacy. I really think it is. If it isn't, then I hereby declare it to be one. Also known as "playing dumb."
[QUOTE]"The point I'm making is that the US supplied Saddam with weapons and money to defeat Iran in their war."[/QUOTE]
Mmm-hmm. The problem is: you're [I]wrong[/I]. That wraps up that part.
[QUOTE]I don't think that at all. I think Hitler was Christian because of his great relationship with the Pope, his Christian like policies against homosexuals, etc. I don't rely on quotes or [B]baptism[/B] to prove my point, much unlike you.[/QUOTE]
For crying out loud. [I]You were the one that brought up his fucking baptism[/I]. My points indicate his actual identity, and not his overt political maneuvering. [I]Why [/I]did he feel the need to propagandize against public sentiment that his movement was anti-religious? Why did he believe religion was a crock? Why are all your "proofs" from the 1930s? FFS.
[QUOTE]What does this have to do with me making Hitler quotes up? My point is that making up false quotes is ridiculously easy. You cannot, however, make up documented life-events of another person, unless they're true.[/QUOTE]
You don't get it. You just don't understand, or won't. You don't have the education or comprehension. Amazing.
[QUOTE]No, I said they were the most successful Islamic empires because they leaned the [I]closest[/I] to their religion. I never said they were "AWESOME!" or "perfect reflections of Islam".[/QUOTE]
OK, then they were "most successful" by being great for muslims. For non-muslims, not so much. But do you even care? I'm betting: not.
[QUOTE]Your "humor" is getting tiresome.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I'm just getting started.
Well, ladies and gentlemen: that's the Geoff Roundup for today. We'll be back about the same time tomorrow or Monday, or even sooner if my article and genetics in general pisses me off too much.
Sorry about the poundings: it's just my vicious nature. To paraphrase: if God had intended me to be nicer about it, he could have willed it so.
Ta!
Sorry about the poundings: it's just my vicious nature. To paraphrase: if God had intended me to be nicer about it, he could have willed it so.
Ta!