The first anti-Islamist music video...

[repiV]

I dont see everything as a partisan division between right and left like you do .......so no

Neither do I...I'm neither right-wing nor left-wing. Choosing between liberals and conservatives would be like choosing between gonorrhea and syphilis. I'm a libertarian, and slightly left-leaning at that. It doesn't stop RATM and Rise Against being hardcore leftist music, because that's exactly what it is.
On the other hand, you predictably blame America or Britain for everything wrong with the world and absolve our enemies of any blame and hold the mistaken belief that always batting for the other team constitutes being "fair and balanced".

was that a direct quote or were you paraphrasing? when's the last time you did something for your political convictions?

Paraphrasing, obviously.
As to your second question, how is that relevant and what does it matter to you? So a bunch of misguided delusional "artists" who probably couldn't hold down a job for more than a month in the corporate world decide to make music expressing their foolish delusions...that somehow makes them more righteous?

 

[CptStern]

Neither do I...I'm neither right-wing nor left-wing. Choosing between liberals and conservatives would be like choosing between gonorrhea and syphilis. I'm a libertarian, and slightly left-leaning at that.

lol left leaning ..not from what I've seen

It doesn't stop RATM and Rise Against being hardcore leftist music, because that's exactly what it is.

I dont understand what differentiates "left" and "leftist" ..anti-war in iraq?

On the other hand, you predictably blame America or Britain for everything wrong with the world and absolve our enemies of any blame and hold the mistaken belief that always batting for the other team constitutes being "fair and balanced".

when it comes to the war in iraq the US and the coalition is to blame ..it wasnt a mistake it was intentional, therefore they hold resposibility for their actions ..you cant seem to understand that

Paraphrasing, obviously.
As to your second question, how is that relevant and what does it matter to you? So a bunch of misguided delusional "artists" who probably couldn't hold down a job for more than a month in the corporate world decide to make music expressing their foolish delusions...that somehow makes them more righteous?

lol sounds like a sermon on the evils of elvis circa 1959 .. the point is at least they're doing something about their convictions ..it's easy to be an armchair critic when there's no consequences to your actions

 

[repiV]

lol left leaning ..not from what I've seen

You've seen something that suggests I don't value civil liberties over economic freedom (both of which I value) ever so slightly? Most interesting.

I dont understand what differentiates "left" and "leftist" ..anti-war in iraq?

Yes, it must be anti-war in Iraq. Considering that RATM were evidently formed in 2001...

when it comes to the war in iraq the US and the coalition is to blame ..it wasnt a mistake it was intentional, therefore they hold resposibility for their actions ..you cant seem to understand that

Oh, but all the terrorists that intentionally kill civilians are just clumsy. There you go again with your "fair and balanced" commentary.

lol sounds like a sermon on the evils of elvis circa 1959 .. the point is at least they're doing something about their convictions ..it's easy to be an armchair critic when there's no consequences to your actions

So what the hell are you, if not an armchair critic?

 

[CptStern]

You've seen something that suggests I don't value civil liberties over economic freedom (both of which I value) ever so slightly? Most interesting.

I've yet to see you defend a civil liberty ..all I see is a by the playbook cookie cutter support for the war on terrorism regardless of right or wrong

Yes, it must be anti-war in Iraq. Considering that RATM were evidently formed in 2001...

ummm no rage started in 1991 ..so what is it then?

Oh, but all the terrorists that intentionally kill civilians are just clumsy.

again you side step the issue by trying to steer the conversation to terrorism ..no invasion = no terrorism in iraq

So what the hell are you, if not an armchair critic?

I've put my money where my mouth for longer than some of you have been alive

 

[repiV]

I've yet to see you defend a civil liberty ..all I see is a by the playbook cookie cutter support for the war on terrorism regardless of right or wrong

Why would I need to defend a civil liberty? Has anyone been arguing against civil liberties here?
Preaching to the choir serves no purpose. Incidentally, my support of civil liberties is one of the main reasons I don't want Islam in my country. This is pretty basic, common sense stuff. Liberals who defend Islam are hypocrites by definition.
Cookie cutter support for the war on terrorism? That's funny, considering I've stated on multiple occassions that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

ummm no rage started in 1991 ..so what is it then?

I was being sarcastic.

again you side step the issue by trying to steer the conversation to terrorism ..no invasion = no terrorism in iraq

Sidestep? It's beyond absurd to blame one party for the actions of another. I say we release all criminals and let them roam free, because their parents were clearly the ones at fault.

I've put my money where my mouth for longer than some of you have been alive

This makes your position more legitimate how?
You come here to discuss politics...and then complain when people do so. Right.

 

[CptStern]

Why would I need to defend a civil liberty? Has anyone been arguing against civil liberties here?

it was you who brought up civili liberties:

You've seen something that suggests I don't value civil liberties over economic freedom

Preaching to the choir serves no purpose.

didnt you recently say you hang out at an uber right wing political forum? ...for what purpose? recipe trading?

Incidentally, my support of civil liberties is one of the main reasons I don't want Islam in my country. This is pretty basic, common sense stuff.
Cookie cutter support for the war on terrorism? That's funny, considering I've stated on multiple occassions that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

so? you havent accepted your country's and the US' blame for it either

I was being sarcastic.

just answer the question: what makes them "leftist"?

Sidestep?

yes sidestep .. you're very good at it: posing questions in response to questions, cherry picking sentences, often out of context in an attempt to steer the coversation in your favour: they're all such rudimentary methods that it's very transparent

It's beyond absurd to blame one party for the actions of another.

yet you seem to hold no such considerations when it comes to the colation: they can do no wrong, regardless if it's clearly illegal/immoral or a travesty of justice it's merited because the opposite side does the same thing ..you're a hypocrite

I say we release all criminals and let them roam free, because their parents were clearly the ones at fault.

appeal to redicule logical fallacy ...take the most rediculous claim possible and argue that's waht your opponent is in fact arguing

This makes your position more legitimate how?

you asked, I aswered, dont try to put words into my mouth because that's not what I said ..but you know that, it's a learned tactic in debating ..also very see to see through so long as you know what you're looking for

You come here to discuss politics...and then complain when people do so. Right.

again putting words in my mouth, not once did I "complain"

 

[repiV]

it was you who brought up civili liberties:

No, actually it was you.

didnt you recently say you hang out at an uber right wing political forum? ...for what purpose? recipe trading?

There's a difference between "predominantly" and "uber". In any case, initially I argued against them, but then over time I realised just how right they were. My views, like those of most liberals, were based off some fantasy conception of the world rather than any kind of reality.

so? you havent accepted your country's and the US' blame for it either

Bullshit. That's just an outright lie. Your "So? You..." counter is also an admission that you hold the terrorists as blameless in all this - a viewpoint which is ignorant and prejudiced at best and bordering on treasonous at worst.

just answer the question: what makes them "leftist"?

They're actually anti-American communists as opposed to just left-leaning.

yes sidestep you're very good at: posing questions in response to questions, cherry picking sentences, often out of context in an attempt to steer the coversation in your favour: they're all such rudimentary methods that it's very transparent

Of course.

yet you seem to hold no such considerations when it comes to the colation: they can do no wrong, regardless if it's clearly illegal/immoral or a travesty of justice it's merited because the opposite side does the same thing ..you're a hypocrite

Again, an outright lie.

appeal to redicule logical fallacy ...take the most rediculous claim possible and argue that's waht your opponent is in fact arguing

That argument uses the exact same logic that you are using - that certain parties are not to blame for their own actions because someone else set a ball rolling that would one day lead to them taking that course of action.

you asked, I aswered, dont try to put words into my mouth because that's not what I said ..but you know that, it's a learned tactic in debating ..also very see to see through so long as you know what you're looking for

again putting words in my mouth, not once did I "complain"

Why did you ever bring it up in the first place if you weren't trying to make some kind of point?

 

[Nemesis6]

A video on the same topic: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=268395414333521428&q=Yalla+ya

 

[CptStern]

No, actually it was you.

reading comprehension: it was you

me: "lol left leaning ..not from what I've seen"

you: "You've seen something that suggests I don't value civil liberties over economic freedom"

There's a difference between "predominantly" and "uber". In any case, initially I argued against them, but then over time I realised just how right they were. My views, like those of most liberals, were based off some fantasy conception of the world rather than any kind of reality.

you're either lying or incredibly weak minded ..I mean to completely make an about face and then develop an unrational hatred of anything "liberal" is the stuff of the easily swayed/manipulated/brainwashed ...not that I dont think you're like that ( ) it's just I dont think you developed it over night ...btw I'm curious as to what uber-conservative group is ..I have a few ideas but I'll leave it at that

Bullshit. That's just an outright lie.

so you have admitted that your country lied about their reasons for invading Iraq?

Your "So? You..." counter is also an admission that you hold the terrorists as blameless in all this -

why would I do that if it's not true? I'm not lying to placate your sense of self-righteousness

a viewpoint which is ignorant and prejudiced at best and bordering on treasonous at worst.

please, dont talk to me about prejudiced or ignorance ....and treasonness to whom? canada? the west? the white race?

They're actually anti-American communists as opposed to just left-leaning.

so now they're treasoness commies? you're delusional ..BO there's a commie right behind you ..you'll be jumping at shadows soon enough

Again, an outright lie.

nope, not as I see it ..not once have I seen you blame the occupation on the lies of your government/US

That argument uses the exact same logic that you are using - that certain parties are not to blame for their own actions because someone else set a ball rolling that would one day lead to them taking that course of action.

nope it makes perfect sense ..you just dont understand cause and effect

Why did you ever bring it up in the first place if you weren't trying to make some kind of point?

I thought the point was pretty obvious ..at least they're doing something with their convictions. there is no other underlying point

 

[repiV]

reading comprehension: it was you

me: "lol left leaning ..not from what I've seen"

you: "You've seen something that suggests I don't value civil liberties over economic freedom"

WTF do you think "left leaning" means, then? Do you understand political terminology? Oh, wait, obviously not...

you're either lying or incredibly weak minded ..I mean to completely make an about face and then develop an unrational hatred of anything "liberal" is the stuff of the easily swayed/manipulated/brainwashed ...not that I dont think you're like that ( ) it's just I dont think you developed it over night ...btw I'm curious as to what uber-conservative group is ..I have a few ideas but I'll leave it at that

I don't have an irrational hatred of everything "liberal". If I did, I wouldn't be much of a libertarian, would I?
I have a perfectly rational hatred of the total hypocrisy, naivete and idiocy of the typical liberal mindset on foreign policy, defence, immigration and the Middle East.
You won't have heard of it, it has less than a thousand members and less than fifty regular posters. And I never said it was overnight.
There's a massive difference between being easily swayed and having the ability to listen to reason. It should be obvious that I don't fit the profile of someone who is easily influenced.

so you have admitted that your country lied about their reasons for invading Iraq?

I've never claimed anything but. Only an idiot would believe they were telling the truth. But that doesn't excuse placing the blame for everything on the Americans/British and essentially giving the seal of approval to jihadi ****sticks.

why would I do that if it's not true? I'm not lying to placate your sense of self-righteousness

What? So you really think the terrorists are blameless?

please, dont talk to me about prejudiced or ignorance ....and treasonness to whom? canada? the west? the white race?

You are extremely prejudiced. You're prejudiced against Americans and you're prejudiced against the military.
The West.

so now they're treasoness commies? you're delusional ..BO there's a commie right behind you ..you'll be jumping at shadows soon enough

I didn't say they were treasonous, I said they were anti-American. There's a difference.

From Wikipedia:

Rage Against the Machine was a highly influential American rock band noted for their pioneering blend of rap, hard rock and funk as well as their vocal revolutionary socialist beliefs.

Revolutionary socialists are anti-American by definition.

nope, not as I see it ..not once have I seen you blame the occupation on the lies of your government/US

I don't tend to discuss the initial causes of the occupation, since that was five years ago, and all I'd do is agree with what everyone else is saying anyway - which is pointless. What's relevant is what's happening now.

nope it makes perfect sense ..you just dont understand cause and effect

Evidently, neither do you. A parent raises their child badly and the child becomes a criminal adult.

I thought the point was pretty obvious ..at least they're doing something with their convictions. there is no other underlying point

Well, while they're busy doing that, I'm happily living the capitalist's life...

 

[CptStern]

WTF do you think "left leaning" means, then? Do you understand political terminology? Oh, wait, obviously not...

I know enough to know that's it's not solely "civil liberties" ..in any event how does that change the fact that you brought it up?

I don't have an irrational hatred of everything "liberal". If I did, I wouldn't be much of a libertarian, would I?
I have a perfectly rational hatred of the total hypocrisy, naivete and idiocy of the typical liberal mindset on foreign policy, defence, immigration and the Middle East.

ah generalisations ..because liberal mindsets are typical ...hmmm where have I heard that before?

lol you love to label people; it's all so black and white, right and left etc it's like you live within this narrowly defined handbasket of issues that are indicative of the side you support regardless if universal logic supports it or not

You won't have heard of it, it has less than a thousand members and less than fifty regular posters.

indulge me

And I never said it was overnight.

whether or not it was overnight isnt as telling as the fact that it's a complete about face

I've never claimed anything but. Only an idiot would believe they were telling the truth. But that doesn't excuse placing the blame for everything on the Americans/British and essentially giving the seal of approval to jihadi ****sticks.

who is giving the seal of approval? I've yet to ever defend the actions of terrorists

What? So you really think the terrorists are blameless?

when did I say that?

You are extremely prejudiced. You're prejudiced against Americans and you're prejudiced against the military.
The West.

hmm seeing as how I live in Canada I must be a self-loathing westerner ..and no I'm not prejudiced against americans ..I have american relatives and have traveled extensively throughout the eastern seaboard ..my beef is with american foreign policy ..I've said as much countless times

I didn't say they were treasonous, I said they were anti-American. There's a difference.

how are they anti-american? they're american, because they criticise american foreign policy? is that what passes for unamericanism these days?

From Wikipedia:

you said they were commies ..which is going to be? communism =/= socialism

Revolutionary socialists are anti-American by definition.

nope:

The term revolutionary socialism refers to Socialist tendencies that advocate rapid fundamental social change, i.e. revolution, as a strategy to achieve a socialist society. The term is used in contradictory sense towards reformism.

Historically the phrase was used by members of the left wing tendency of the Second International ? such as Vladimir Lenin, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg ? to distinguish themselves from evolutionary socialists such as Eduard Bernstein. This tendency became widely identified with Communism following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the founding of the Third International.

Some revolutionaries outside of the Marxist tradition, such as libertarian socialists or anarchists have described themselves as revolutionary socialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_socialism

I don't tend to discuss the initial causes of the occupation, since that was five years ago

4 years ago (not quite) ..march 2003

and all I'd do is agree with what everyone else is saying anyway - which is pointless. What's relevant is what's happening now.

you cant discuss the here and now without discussing what led to it in the first place ..it's not like they've seen the error of their ways and have attempted to rectify their injust occupation

Evidently, neither do you. A parent raises their child badly and the child becomes a criminal adult.

you mean like how the US created/nurtured/supported Saddam during his darkest days?

Well, while they're busy doing that, I'm happily living the capitalist's life...

yes because they're commies, they give all their money to charity

?Music and the arts feed our souls, but a decent wage puts food on the table. Musicians, fans of music, and grassroots political organizations are a potent force to fight for social justice.? - Tom Morello

 

[repiV]

I know enough to know that's it's not solely "civil liberties" ..in any event how does that change the fact that you brought it up?

Technically, left-wing and right-wing refers to degrees of social and economic freedom, respectively. Nothing else.
By claiming I'm not a left-leaning libertarian, you brought it up. Seemingly without realising it.

ah generalisations ..because liberal mindsets are typical ...hmmm where have I heard that before?

Show me a liberal who supports the idea of maintaining a strong military presence, opposes multiculturalism and loosely controlled immigration, and denounces Islam and I'll show you a conservative who believes in the centrally planned economy.

indulge me

Nope. It's not a public forum, and I'm not overly interested in mixing these two places. It was created due to excessive moderation on another site for members of that site.

whether or not it was overnight isnt as telling as the fact that it's a complete about face

It's not a complete about face. I'm not a conservative, and nor do I support American or British foreign policy.

who is giving the seal of approval? I've yet to ever defend the actions of terrorists

But you do tend to avoid speaking out against the terrorists. Every goddamn thread is about how evil America is.

have I ever made that assertation?

What you said there sounded like you were acknowleding that you had.

hmm seeing as how I live in Canada I must be a self-loathing westerner ..and no I'm not prejudiced against americans ..I have american relatives and have traveled extensively throughout the eastern seaboard ..my beef is with american foreign policy ..I've said as much countless times

Your jives about Americans would indicate otherwise.

how are they anti-american? they're american

"American" is an ideology as much as it is a nationality. An ideology that is in complete opposition to revolutionary socialism. You cannot be far-left without being anti-American.

you said they were commies ..which is going to be? communism =/= socialism



Revolutionary socialists are anti-American by definition.

nope:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_socialism

According to your very own link, "This tendency became widely identified with Communism following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the founding of the Third International."

4 years ago (not quite) ..march 2003

you cant discuss the here and now without discussing what led to it in the first place ..it's not like they've seen the error of their ways and have attempted to rectify their injust occupation

Do you think just running away would help? Do you really think that would make things better?
If they'd have done it properly in the first place, we might even have a stable and secure Iraq now. The way to **** things up best is to do things half-heartedly and without properly committing to the task.

you mean like how the US created/nurtured/supported Saddam during his darkest days?

Yes, like that.

yes because they're commies, they give all their money to charity

?Music and the arts feed our souls, but a decent wage puts food on the table. Musicians, fans of music, and grassroots political organizations are a potent force to fight for social justice.? - Tom Morello

I'm not even remotely interested in the left-wing conception of "social justice".

 

[Kadayi]

Radical Islam is a relatively new thing (post World War 2). I highly recommend watching the BBC documentary series 'The power of nightmares'. It's available legally via bitTorrent or you can view it at google video. Check here for details:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares#Video

it's quite enlightening regarding the rise the islamic extremists. It also covers the rise of the Neo-Conservatives in America.

 

[repiV]

Radical Islam is a relatively new thing (post World War 2). I highly recommend watching the BBC documentary series 'The power of nightmares'. It's available legally via bitTorrent or you can view it at google video. Check here for details:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares#Video

it's quite enlightening regarding the rise the islamic extremists. It also covers the rise of the Neo-Conservatives in America.

Radical Islam began with the birth of Mohammed. It's not new, it was just out of our lives for some time.

Incidentally, a good article. Irrelevant to the topic that is directly at hand, but good nonetheless.

 

[Kadayi]

Here's a thought RepiV, why not download and watch the documentary? Given that you can't distinguish between Islam and radical Islam you might learn a thing or two. I think you'll find that it's as distinct a condition as being jewish over being a zionist.

 

[repiV]

Here's a thought RepiV, why not download and watch the documentary? Given that you can't distinguish between Islam and radical Islam you might learn a thing or two. I think you'll find that it's as distinct a condition as being jewish over being a zionist.

I'm quite capable of distinguishing between Islam and radical Islam, thankyou. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Kadayi]

As Muhammed was the founder of the faith, you can't really class him as being a radical version of himself, he can only be himself.

 

[repiV]

As Muhammed was the founder of the faith, you can't really class him as being a radical version of himself, he can only be himself.

Huh?
My point is that Islam has always been radical. It demands that Muslims conquer the world and instate Sharia law, subjecting all who do not convert to dhimmitude.
Mohammed himself spread Islam by the sword.

Little has changed.

 

[Kadayi]

So where exactly are all the Muslim missionaries? How come they aren't going door to door like the Jehovahs or Mormons, or hanging out at the Airports like the Hari Krishnas? If Islam is as extreme as you say, given that there are already 1.7 billion muslims out there, I'd expect to have bumped into a few on my travels who'd try to convert me. So far, nothing. What gives?

 

[Nemesis6]

RepiV is right again. All religions, except maybe for Buddhism are, at heart, radical. Islam especially since it has not changed over the ages, meaning that unlike the Bible, it has not been rewritten, and has not been reinterpreted, because the message it has is crude and simple: If you're not a Muslim, pay the Jizzya tax, convert, or die at the hands of the people of Allah.

I do see things as black and white when it comes to Islam, because Islam is just as political as it's spiritual, if not more.

Kadayi, are you saying that Jews aren't/can't be Zionists?

 

[repiV]

So where exactly are all the Muslim missionaries? How come they aren't going door to door like the Jehovahs or Mormons, or hanging out at the Airports like the Hari Krishnas? If Islam is as extreme as you say, given that there are already 1.7 billion muslims out there, I'd expect to have bumped into a few on my travels who'd try to convert me. So far, nothing. What gives?

Here's some Mormon missionaries for you.

Pretty harmless fellows. Annoying, but harmless. Much like Jehovas Witnesses and Hari Krishnas.

Here's your Muslim missionaries...

 

[repiV]

RepiV is right again. All religions, except maybe for Buddhism are, at heart, radical. Islam especially since it has not changed over the ages, meaning that unlike the Bible, it has not been rewritten, and has not been reinterpreted, because the message it has is crude and simple: If you're not a Muslim, pay the Jizzya tax, convert, or die at the hands of the people of Allah.

I do see things as black and white when it comes to Islam, because Islam is just as political as it's spiritual, if not more.

Kadayi, are you saying that true Jews aren't/can't be Zionists?

Not that I disagree about other religions except Buddhism being radical, Islam is also the only religion that mandates a political system to be used in order to rule the world. That calls for the destruction of all other systems of belief.
Equating Jesus with Mohammed is ludicrous - Jesus was essentially a pacifist - a deluded lunatic, but a pacifist, whereas Mohammed was a genocidal maniac.
Buddhism is cool though. I like Buddhism.

 

[Kadayi]

Kadayi, are you saying that Jews aren't/can't be Zionists?

What I'm saying is that not all Jews are necessarily Zionists in the political sense. Just as there are plenty of moderate peace loving Muslims throughout the world, there are also plenty of moderate peace loving Jews. To think otherwise is a fallacy.

 

[PvtRyan]

As for radical Islam being "small", here's some numbers for ya:

These are the results of a survey held in 2002:
What the world thinks in 2002

It's the answer to this question, posed only to Muslims:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people beliee that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

However, these results are skewed, "rarely justifed" is lumped in with "never justified". Which means that even if it's rarely justified in their opinion, blowing up innocent children is thought to be acceptable in some cases, which is just as bad.

Add 'rarely justified' to Yes and it looks more like:

Is it [i]ever[/i] justified?
Country       Yes    No
Lebanon       82     12
Ivory Coast   73     27
Nigeria       66     26
Jordan        65     26
Bangladesh    58     23
Mali          54     35
Senegal       47     50
Ghana         44     43
Indonesia     43     54
Uganda        40     52
Pakistan      38     38
Turkey        20     64

Remember, that's moderate countries. There's no Iraq, Iran, Syria in that list.

That's 2002, before Iraq, before Lebanon, I doubt it has improved. I find that scary.

 

[Nemesis6]

Kadayi, are you then trying to hint that the Jews who ARE Zionists are not peaceful?

 

[CptStern]

Kadayi, are you then trying to hint that the Jews who ARE Zionists are not peaceful?

no, they're not always peaceful

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think the main point folks are trying to put across in this thread, Nemesis and Rapey-V, is that no matter how just the cause, being inarticulate about it doesn't help anyone.

Few people disagree that Islam, unchecked by secularism, is dangerous; but it's also important to acknowledge those secular muslims that do no direct harm are at least attempting to be good, even if you may (justifiably) chasise them for their tacit support or general inaction.

Basically, you need understand your opponent before you can successfully counter them. That's why I read the bible: any religion that allows evil to happen (AKA all religions) must have some fundamental flaw in their scripture that is actvely ignored.
All scriptures have an internal logic, regardless of magical monsters. It's fruitless to debate them without understanding that logic.
The bible's flaw is Paul of Tarsus. I suggest you read the Qua'ran and find his equivalent.

People are only as flawed, after all, as what they think their religion commands. My advantage lies in knowing more about those commands than they do.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Mohamed? Seriously though, Mohamed hardly the "pacifist" to say the least.
If anything I'd think the guy was simply a Great general who linked his success to a new religion.

 

[Nemesis6]

Only problem with you quite interesting analogy is that I think a general should do his best to actually NOT harm civilians, which we know Muhammed was not too keen on to say the least!

 

[CptStern]

Only problem with you quite interesting analogy is that I think a general should do his best to actually NOT harm civilians, which we know Muhammed was not too keen on to say the least!

yes because israeli generals would never harm civilians

 

[Ome_Vince]

Uhm, I'm confused, weren't we talking about the prophet Muhammed nincompoop. Where does Israel fit in 1300 years prior to its creation? :/


O, and on the King David Hotel Bombing, I doubt Israeli's had generals back then, since in 1946 there also was no Israel yet.

 

[CptStern]

yes I realise that, I'm trying to get nemesis to acknowledge the fact that zionists can also be terrorists

and no they were not religious fanatics ..they were just fanatics or terrorists. Members included: Benjamin Netanyahu and Menachem Begin ...so yes they had "generals" as members

 

[Nemesis6]

Zionists can most certainly be terrorists, but the thing I'm getting at is that loonies have a tendency to say that all Zionists are.

 

[MultiVaC]

Here's some Mormon missionaries for you.

Pretty harmless fellows. Annoying, but harmless. Much like Jehovas Witnesses and Hari Krishnas.

Here's your Muslim missionaries...

What you just did was compare the most harmless example of one religion with the most violent and horrible example of another. It's easy.

Here's one religion:

Here's another:

My point is that Islam is not inherently worse than Christianity (they both suck equally), the problem is with people who choose to take it to a destructive level. Those Muslims in your picture weren't missionaries. They were terrorists. Islam does have a much larger amount of extremists, but you could also say that ethnic minorities have higher crime rates in the United States. It doesn't mean that there's something worse about that group of people, or their religion, it means there is a problem that's more prevalent in that group than others.

 

[CptStern]

Zionists can most certainly be terrorists, but the thing I'm getting at is that loonies have a tendency to say that all Zionists are.

let me guess ...the looney left?

but no that's not what you were trying to get at ..you clearly said:

are you then trying to hint that the Jews who ARE Zionists are not peaceful?

you're implying ALL zionists are peaceful when that clearly isnt the case e...the very fact that some of israel's past leaders were zionist terrorists suggests that many zionists support violence not peace

 

[Ome_Vince]

Most Zionism was always relatively harmless, but the problem with a lot of modern-day Zionism in Israel, is that its almost become the equal counter-part of Hamas, in their claims to have religious rights to in a lot of cases Muslim and Christian land.

 

[CptStern]

Most Zionism was always relatively harmless, but the problem with a lot of modern-day Zionism in Israel, is that its almost become the equal counter-part of Hamas, in their claims to have religious rights to in a lot of cases Muslim and Christian land.

well some of israel's past leaders are/were zionists ..and not of the harmless kind

 

[Ome_Vince]

Heh, naturally true, even some of the past Dutch leaders not so long ago were also not of the friendly kind

 

[CptStern]

terrorists?

 

[Ome_Vince]

You mean the leaders? I consider ordering the slaughtering of 500.000 Indonesian people as an act of terrorism? Especially since as far as i can remember nobody has been prosecuted afterwards.
Though, if you look at the forming of countries, most countries who've had to fight for their independence have had leaders who were at some point a member or leader of a resistance/terrorist organization.