I found this video today and it is intriguing. It is only four minutes long, so it is watchable. I don't know if some may find it offensive and present it for comments. It is a modern Muslim woman arguing a traditional. The woman with her face hidden rejects sharia. The woman with the full make up wants to cut off hands.. How Bizzaro World. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LChGfJMur5o |
|
|
|
Is it my imagination or do most liberal / conservative discussions consist of LOGICAL ERRORS (liberal) debating LOGIC (conservative)?
Sure does seem that way.
I don't know what you mean by liberal, I don't consider myself as a liberal. But it's not your imagination, conservatives having absolutely no argument (at least they don't bother bringing them up) they can only point out the logical inaccuracy with a zero tolerance like we were debating about Quantum Physics and not about social science and studies. Arguing would need to have arguments, evidence and to be able to think, which it seems they're not able to do. On the other hand I tend to sometimes go a bit too fast in my reasoning or to misunderstand/misinterpret some things. I consider it's better to go forward while not perfectly in the good direction than to don't move. And you might have never though about it but not the whole world is English native, so it might be hard to be perfectly accurate... Well that's a reasonable explanation. I think everyone here has allowance for poor translations and such. Sometimes (as above) I pose a question in a rhetorical sense. That means it is for discussion, not that I have revealed my personal view. And there are many arguments about Quantum Physics. Show me some strings. (Lol...) |
|
|
|
If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink  In other news -> You dont need anything to be clarified, Im a Christian and i love you. I'm scared of the Wink Wink Wink Wink part. I stole the Wink Wink Wink Wink part, from the original thread inspiration "Why Do People hate Islam". I give full credits to the original Wink Wink Wink Wink poster.  May Wink Be Unto You. I found this video today and it is intriguing. It is only four minutes long, so it is watchable. I don't know if some may find it offensive and present it for comments. It is a modern Muslim woman arguing a traditional. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LChGfJMur5o |
|
|
|
If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink In other news -> You dont need anything to be clarified, Im a Christian and i love you. I'm scared of the Wink Wink Wink Wink part. |
|
|
|
Lol, that's one decent way to look at it.
But we know that he would have he certainly considered himself Muslim, fighting the valiant cause of Jihad. As did millions of people.
Yeah for sure. But it doesn't really matter, I'm still convinced terrorism is a bit a Global plot for industries and banks to control us  (See how here I use really conditional and biased vocabulary, not saying it is, just saying I believe it is ^^) Terrorism do to little damage, they could do 10000 times more damage if they wanted to. Terrorism is by definition, the creation of terror. This is a different thing than, say, creating mass death or disease or whatever. I like the conditional and biased approach, no problem with that at all. As opposed to someone saying "IT IS TRUTH THAT....", lol... But the problem with the OP, aside from the fact it shouts in all capitals, is that really, using the Arafat example it is this... MUSLIMS (who I define as muslims meaning they are peaceful not as they define themselves) ARE NOT TERRORISTS (because I have defined msulim so that he is not terrorist) You get the picture. It's a total bullshit assertion and the proof of it is also total bullshit. |
|
|
|
If you look at every religion there is social unrest somewhere along the lines but overall there is peace in all religions, Islam is just one which happens to be in the limelight right now.
One more time. No, there is not "peace in all religions." If so then a religion that required human sacrifice or cannibalism would be a religion of peace. It's more like no religion is a religion of peace.... Cause cannibalism is also in the Bible and the Torah as it's in the old testament. Not sure for the human sacrifice though ^^ What's actually happened is that we've exterminated all the truly violent and horrible religions, such as those that engaged in human sacrifice. But then it can't be said that "religion is peace." Because we are exterminators. |
|
|
|
Lol!
When you have no proof just show shocking pictures xD
That's really low, it shows how dumb people are... Nobody should buy a shitty magazine like this one...
I can smell the objectivity and the reliability of the articles from here xD
That's an idiotic objection. Your sense of smell needs to be directed to the proof in the article you say without reading has no proof. Underlining the element of choice Europe has had in accepting the migrant crisis, the article cites the early signs of extreme violence perpetrated by migrants — in this case on each other. Recalling an asylum centre riot in Germany also reported on by Breitbart London in August where inmates part-demolished their own taxpayer funded homes because of a dispute over the Koran and attacked police officers while screaming “Allahu Akhbar”, Ms. Rybinska also recounted the fates of Christian asylum seekers beaten by their Muslim counterparts. The article lists dozens of recorded sex attacks from the past few weeks, often visited upon under-age Europeans, but it is not just migrants who come in for criticism from wSieci. The magazine also had strong words for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who it accuses of listening more to the German industrial lobby which it claims campaigns for cheap labour from outside the European Union. Idiotic objection? I don't think so. The look is important, and having such a cover shows the magazine just hopes to create a polemic around its image. It's like Charlie Hebdo, basic useless illustration but well that's my point of view. I prefer clean illustration than those splashy headlines. My words were a bit strong that's right, but I hardly associate such thing to reliable journalism. If a magazine makes illustration as great at the Sun it shouldn't be surprised to be judged the same way. Again I just think immigration is not a problem. It's a symptom. You don't treat the fever, you treat the disease. Of course if the fever is too high you might have to react and I have nothing against that. But only if you also treat the disease, otherwise it's useless. Well, the cover is what sells the mag. That's all it's about. What I mean is idiotic is to say "no proof" when right there they state their "proofs," clear as day. As for the symptom and the problem, let me give you an example. Say the Europeans follow the immigration policy of Saudi Arabia. Do you have the right to complain? About their not working the problem but the symptom? I think not. Not at all. But they don't, or are not currently. |
|
|
|
FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST
The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith.
So... TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS? But that's not what the OP wants us to believe, is it? He does not want your precise definition. He simply wants people to believe that terrorists are not muslims.... So the terrorists blowing themselves in suicidal attacks are in fact doubly condemned to Hell is they're Muslims xD Was Yassir Arafat a Muslim? I don't. Yeah maybe... Anyway my answer was here mostly to under light the contradictions of terrorists. It was not a way to defend them.I understand, no problem. But you understand the problem in answering about Arafat. If you say yes, then all of his terrorists actions were Muslim. If you say no, then a major Muslim leader and hero is admitted to be Not A Muslim. And that's the problem in a nutshell. In logic it's called the "True Scotsman" logical fallacy. Meanwhile in the real world, Arafat damn sure was a Muslim and was responsible for hundreds of bombings and terrorist actions. Difference with the true Scotman logical fallacy is that here there is a sacred text explaining that Arafat was going to go to hell if he was a Muslim. So he maybe believed he was a Muslim but he was probably too dumb to even understand what it meant ^^ Lol, that's one decent way to look at it. But we know that he would have he certainly considered himself Muslim, fighting the valiant cause of Jihad. As did millions of people. |
|
|
|
If you look at every religion there is social unrest somewhere along the lines but overall there is peace in all religions, Islam is just one which happens to be in the limelight right now.
One more time. No, there is not "peace in all religions." If so then a religion that required human sacrifice or cannibalism would be a religion of peace. |
|
|
|
Who says the one that gets the treasure is the Western power, when the people do not?
Hussain built a whopping lot of palaces.
Many, many other examples of dictators and corrupt governments who did not give wealth to the people but kept it selfishly.
Western countries go into countries and BUILD the infrastructure to bring the oil out. Then years later people get mad at them. But otherwise they'd have nothing right? Deals can and should be made that benefit everyone. If that does not happen whose fault is it? Who should be hated?
Yes, Hussain built palaces but anyway he was far better than so-called western demecracies. Look at Irak now , how is it now and how it was then. Look at African countries that have oil or gold or etc. How are they now?What have the western countries done to there yet? Just damage all the infrastructure and make the people kill each other. The western countries have two faces ; one is humanism that is in use only in their countries and the other is imperialism that is used for African , Latin and Muslim countries.You see the first one in your country or in your media. "Look at Irak." Well, look at it. What does it have to do with your anti-capitalist assertions? You tell me because I don't see the connections. Well, let's look at South Africa. Lots of infrastructure - oil, mines, refineries. All built locally with guidances and engineering from abroad. That's the way you do it. "Damage all the infrastructure and make the people kill each other?" Nope. Imperialism has many faces, faces of communism, fascism, dictator, capitalism. Are YOU NOT SEEING CHINESE IMPERIALISM? |
|
|
|
Lol!
When you have no proof just show shocking pictures xD
That's really low, it shows how dumb people are... Nobody should buy a shitty magazine like this one...
I can smell the objectivity and the reliability of the articles from here xD
That's an idiotic objection. Your sense of smell needs to be directed to the proof in the article you say without reading has no proof. Underlining the element of choice Europe has had in accepting the migrant crisis, the article cites the early signs of extreme violence perpetrated by migrants — in this case on each other. Recalling an asylum centre riot in Germany also reported on by Breitbart London in August where inmates part-demolished their own taxpayer funded homes because of a dispute over the Koran and attacked police officers while screaming “Allahu Akhbar”, Ms. Rybinska also recounted the fates of Christian asylum seekers beaten by their Muslim counterparts. The article lists dozens of recorded sex attacks from the past few weeks, often visited upon under-age Europeans, but it is not just migrants who come in for criticism from wSieci. The magazine also had strong words for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who it accuses of listening more to the German industrial lobby which it claims campaigns for cheap labour from outside the European Union. |
|
|
|
FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST
The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith.
So... TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS? But that's not what the OP wants us to believe, is it? He does not want your precise definition. He simply wants people to believe that terrorists are not muslims.... So the terrorists blowing themselves in suicidal attacks are in fact doubly condemned to Hell is they're Muslims xD Was Yassir Arafat a Muslim? I don't. Yeah maybe... Anyway my answer was here mostly to under light the contradictions of terrorists. It was not a way to defend them.I understand, no problem. But you understand the problem in answering about Arafat. If you say yes, then all of his terrorists actions were Muslim. If you say no, then a major Muslim leader and hero is admitted to be Not A Muslim. And that's the problem in a nutshell. In logic it's called the "True Scotsman" logical fallacy. Meanwhile in the real world, Arafat damn sure was a Muslim and was responsible for hundreds of bombings and terrorist actions. |
|
|
|
if we can understand what is islam mean we will see islam is a religion of peace.
Yes, Islam is basically a religion of peace but some extremists whose needs are not meant either politically or religiously resort to extreme measures, this is the minority of people I am talking about not all the people of Islam followers. This minority of people should not overwhelm your judgement of the muslim community as a whole, it is pure ignorance to judge the whole community by someone else's actions. But unfortunately this type of mis-judgement is only happening everyday all over the world. That would depend on whether that militant minority was supported by a fair fraction of the total community. This is like saying "Should we judge a 70 year old Muslim lady because a 34 year old Muslim from her town blows up a cafe full of innocent tourists?" Yes, if she supports his efforts. Yes, judge the entire town, if they support his efforts. |
|
|
|
Islam don't hate! It just have tendencies to be spread.
People involved deep in radical Islam are dangerous,
and there are many of them right now they are flourish!
So do these radicals kind of clear the fields, so that Islam can spread and flourish? They go first, and then the others come? |
|
|
|
Topics like "why do atheists hate christians","why do atheists hate religious people", etc.. should stop. I mean, I don't know about the rest of you but topics like these are stupid regarding the religious hate, and people who are seriously starting these, no one really "hates" anyone just because of their religion. I mean, that's my opinion and view on it nad seriously hating someone because of his religion is stupid. There are a lot of muslim guys that I know that are completely ok and some orthodox christians that are on the edge of grabbing a sword and running around killing people. So please, stop with that shitposting.
Bullshit. Question of "why hate" is very basic. Although an atheist, let me remind you that Jesus said "Don't hate." Asking about the meaning, or lack of, of hate is meaning itself. |
|
|
|
I've never seen someone shot where I live. We don't have people roam with guns on the street. Maybe that's something isn't it?
I've never seen a polar bear where I live. But I have heard rumors that some people have seen them where they live. |
|
|
|
FACTS:
All terrorists are of their own branch of religion.
Ones who call themselves Muslim are EXTREMIST MUSLIMS or EXTREMIST
The term EXTREMIST is the only way to describe their religion and they believe themselves to be a member of the Muslim faith.
So... TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS? But that's not what the OP wants us to believe, is it? He does not want your precise definition. He simply wants people to believe that terrorists are not muslims.... So the terrorists blowing themselves in suicidal attacks are in fact doubly condemned to Hell is they're Muslims xD Muslim - one who searches for peace (a representation of peace) Islam - the search for peace Jihad - a search for justice (technically more of freedome) All Religioins that believe in God/Allah believe that their life belongs to God, He is the only thing who can give it or take it. TERRORISTS ARE NOT (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS AND (NON EXTREMIST) MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS?
Extremism refers to a branch of a religion that is extreme. The belief that one should force a religion or force death or marriage is, for me, by definition: extremism. I just asked a simple question. (bolded) |
|
|
|
if we can understand what is islam mean we will see islam is a religion of peace.
So why can't we understand as someone else who sees it as a peaceful religion does? but I think we all see how it is. Would it be because the acts and attempted acts of Islamic terrorism move from happening in other countries, then to 150 miles away, then 1200 miles away, then 450 miles away, then 300? |
|
|
|
Lot of people do not study this religion on more than a superficial level. Its been repackaged for the Western world.
Meditation is great but beyond that...its not for me.
Yeah. Always beware of the "repackaging for the Western World." |
|
|
|
Ahah!
It I work for such a company. I work for an international energy company so I know how it works. They're nothing like "apolitical", they'r the plague of this world xD
You're talking like they're making equal deals, they're not. We're slowly killing each and everyone not being part of the company, that's just how it works...
Oh I'm glad for the job for sure, but I'm ready to leave it and take weapons at the first sight of a revolution. But it won't happen cause people are like you, they think it's normal that big companies and banks control the world cause "they're good, they're skilled and have incredible potential and they help the people" not they don't.
Yeah they pay me, and rather well, but they reap the whole world apart.
I don't mind though, people are too dumb to understand it. So this world is going to be raped by thos banks and companies. I don't care I don't have children...
i agree with you bro. I don't understand this kind of talk. Obviously you've seen another side of the issue in some particular situations. By the way, revolutions seldom turn out the way they were intended, and they seldom turn out good.
ı agree with you bro in this case , it was corrected in libya , the war and the arab revolution showed us and to libyan people how a good guy kaddafi was for his people . because he gived free homes and money from the oil his country had. And his people was deceived by western countries and they made a socalled revolution.and what is happening in libya now. They are the most free country now ; everyone can kill anyone anytime because there is not an authority. Why it has occurred? Because kaddafi didnt give anything from his country's oil etc. to western companies.If he had done it , give the oil to companies , he would be a good guy for western side and his people would die from hungry like happened in some other arabic, african and latin countries. Imo Kaddafi was same with Chavez. Who says the one that gets the treasure is the Western power, when the people do not? Hussain built a whopping lot of palaces. Many, many other examples of dictators and corrupt governments who did not give wealth to the people but kept it selfishly. Western countries go into countries and BUILD the infrastructure to bring the oil out. Then years later people get mad at them. But otherwise they'd have nothing right? Deals can and should be made that benefit everyone. If that does not happen whose fault is it? Who should be hated? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
