A poll of representative Muslims...

[j2k4]

...indicates reason for concern, I think.

BTW-

Yes, Tony Blankley is a conservative, but no, it has no particular bearing on this piece.

A Rising Tide of Fury
By Tony Blankley
Wednesday, May 2, 2007


Whenever I refer to the threat of radical Islam, I am inundated with e-mails chastising me for unjustified alarmism (that is the polite description of the missives). This week, even the esteemed and often accurate British Economist accused me, by name, of overestimating the threat and being alarmist on the topic.

Not only do I hope they are right, but I regularly monitor the news for evidence of my error; for I have long taken to heart and applied to myself the advice that Oliver Cromwell gave to the Scottish Presbyterians: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Nonetheless, while Muslim attitudes across the world are dynamic, and subtle inflections of thought are not easily captured by polling, the news continues to be not encouraging.

Last week, the respected University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), released its most recent survey of Muslim attitudes on America, terrorism and related topics. They surveyed attitudes in four representative Muslim countries: Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco.

On the question of America's influence in the world, from a low of 60 percent in Indonesia to a high of 89 percent in Egypt, they answered that most or nearly all of what happens in the world is controlled by the United States. And how do the world's Muslims see (what they believe to be) our all-powerful objectives?

From a low of 73 percent in Indonesia to a high of 92 percent in Egypt the Muslims believe that America's goal is "to weaken and divide the Islamic world." Fairly assuming that these four countries' populations represent worldwide Muslim views in Islamic countries, in other words, about 80 percent of the 1.4 billion Muslims or about a billion souls see America as hostile or an enemy to Islam.

Between 61 percent and 67 percent of the polled Muslims also thought that America's goal was to spread Christianity in the Middle East. Given that Islam teaches that Muslim converts to other religions must be executed, this purported American objective is probably not well received.

What do they think is our primary goal in the war on terror? Between 9 percent-23 percent believe it is to protect ourselves from terrorism. Between 53 percent-86 percent believe it is to weaken, divide and dominate the Islamic religion and people.

What percentage of the polled Muslims is in favor of terrorism attacks on civilians (and note the question doesn't say American civilians -- which presumably would be more popular than attacks on even Muslim civilians -- as the general form of the question suggests)?

To varying degrees, 27 percent of Moroccans, 21 percent of Egyptians, 13 percent of Pakistanis and 11 percent of Indonesians approve of terrorism attacks on civilians -- and not just American civilians. Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims.

Of course, as the study points out, "Large majorities (57 percent-84 percent) in all countries oppose attacks against civilians for political purposes and see them as contrary to Islam." We must be grateful for such mercies. But when, to fairly extrapolate these numbers, about a quarter of a billion Muslims are in favor of civilian terrorist attacks, I think prudent people are entitled to be alarmed at the magnitude of the threat.

[MaxOverlord]

My cause of concern is the people who don't have a cause for concern.

Ignoring the problem,thinking that Islamic terrorists won't strike those who stay out of "things",and turning a blind eye and a numb brain to things certainly won't solve anything will it?

The terrorists are in this for the long haul. This is something that they believe has been pre-ordained by Allah. They are not afraid to die for Jihad. In fact it is the tantamount idea. That and killing Westerners. This is a war of religion.
That is a fact. I'm not advocating it,I'm stating it as I see it. Islam is the factor for their dying and fighting. They want Jews and Christian exterminated.

What is this if not a war of religious beliefs? We will say we are fighting for Western Civilization. Does that include Judeo-Christian philosophy?
It certainly does by my point of view.

Religion will always fire up the most excitement in those who feel they are dying for their God. This is a fact. The main difference between US and Them is They want death. They celebrate death. For us the goal is the continuation of life and freedom. They are not interested in freedom unless it is under the hand of a "representative" of Allah. This is a guise for oppression. Death is the answer...it is the freedom they seek.

We must ask ourselves which is stronger? The desire to perpetuate life or the seeking of death? This is a core component and should not be under-estimated.

[vidcc]

If this poll was taken in say 1999 do you think the same amount would believe Americas goal is "to weaken and divide the Islamic world." If the same question was asked today of American Christians what they thought the goal of Islam is I'm guessing the result would be similar.

The article in this thread alone is a shining example.

If we want to confront/reduce terrorism and the reasons for it then it doesn't matter what we think we are doing. It matters what they think we are doing.

As I listen to the neo-cons posture about the need for more military action against the middle east I wonder what difference in the minds there is between the demands of these people using the huge military might of the USA and the opinions of those that don't have a huge military but view what we call terrorism as military action to achieve their respective aims.

What stands out most for me about the article is that he makes no effort to try to understand why they felt as they did.


Giuliani got the applause at the debate, but Paul was correct.

[ilw]

[
On the question of America's influence in the world, from a low of 60 percent in Indonesia to a high of 89 percent in Egypt, they answered that most or nearly all of what happens in the world is controlled by the United States. And how do the world's Muslims see (what they believe to be) our all-powerful objectives?

I'd have difficulty agreeing with the question as it is posed there, but its not a million miles off, as i reckon the United States has a significant influence/impact on the domestic and foreign of pretty much every nation in the world.


From a low of 73 percent in Indonesia to a high of 92 percent in Egypt the Muslims believe that America's goal is "to weaken and divide the Islamic world." Fairly assuming that these four countries' populations represent worldwide Muslim views in Islamic countries, in other words, about 80 percent of the 1.4 billion Muslims or about a billion souls see America as hostile or an enemy to Islam.

Again if asked i wouldn't have agreed with that statement but its not miles off. Whereas it says that its America's goal i think its more a possible strategy towards achieving a more lofty goal. As to whether America is currently using said strategy i'm uncertain.



Between 61 percent and 67 percent of the polled Muslims also thought that America's goal was to spread Christianity in the Middle East. Given that Islam teaches that Muslim converts to other religions must be executed, this purported American objective is probably not well received.
I'd have agreed with that if asked. I do believe that America sees Christianity as a force for good and a potential way of building bridges and I believe the US is encouraging its spread


What do they think is our primary goal in the war on terror? Between 9 percent-23 percent believe it is to protect ourselves from terrorism. Between 53 percent-86 percent believe it is to weaken, divide and dominate the Islamic religion and people.

I believe its to protect yourselves from terrorism and to a certain extent thats acceptable, but to my way of thinking, you over value you're own security and are too content to increase it at the expense of other peoples security


What percentage of the polled Muslims is in favor of terrorism attacks on civilians (and note the question doesn't say American civilians -- which presumably would be more popular than attacks on even Muslim civilians -- as the general form of the question suggests)?
To varying degrees, 27 percent of Moroccans, 21 percent of Egyptians, 13 percent of Pakistanis and 11 percent of Indonesians approve of terrorism attacks on civilians -- and not just American civilians. Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorism attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims.

American victims? BS, try Israeli victims. of course muslims are going to be sympathetic to palestinian suicide bombers. In fact if you'd asked Irish people during the troubles I doubt their response would have been a million miles off 27%. A significant % of Irish-Americans would probably have agreed, why do you think they donated? F*king hypocrites.

[ilw]

They want Jews and Christian exterminated.

Do they really want jews and christians exterminated, or an end to judaism and christianity? If you convert i'm sure they'll be fine with you carrying on living...
Quite frankly i want an end to judaism and christianity too (and islam...)



What is this if not a war of religious beliefs? We will say we are fighting for Western Civilization. Does that include Judeo-Christian philosophy?
It certainly does by my point of view.

I don't want us to fight for judeo-christian philosophy, its mostly 2nd hand, 2nd rate and self-contradictory.



Religion will always fire up the most excitement in those who feel they are dying for their God. This is a fact.
quoi?


We must ask ourselves which is stronger? The desire to perpetuate life or the seeking of death? This is a core component and should not be under-estimated.
we must also ask ourselves who has a bigger military budget,

[thewizeard]

The truth is; sooner or later, The Islam will try to propagate their religion to the whole world, By peaceful means or by jihad.

In Christian areas Mosques are rising against the backdrop of green fields and cows chewing the Grass.

Sooner or later..this religion, slowly spreading as a cancer, to a God, that has long forgotten mankind. With enticing offers of worldly pleasures in Paradise for killing innocent men, women and children, robbing them from a right to freely worship the God of their own choice One thing is for sure, Allah will be less pleased with this ideology than certain rebels think.

I think also if a Muslim wishes to pay his respects to Allah or worship in a Mosque..good OK, go and do that in Islamic country.

We don't want your blood and fear taking root in our precious soil. It's time to act firmly, yet resolutely.

[lynx]

Those who are wielding weapons will never convince others that armed conflict doesn't work.

What's more, the more you use those weapons, the more your opposition will be convinced that they are pursuing the right course.

[MaxOverlord]

Do they really want jews and christians exterminated, or an end to judaism and christianity? If you convert i'm sure they'll be fine with you carrying on living...
Quite frankly i want an end to judaism and christianity too (and islam...)



What is this if not a war of religious beliefs? We will say we are fighting for Western Civilization. Does that include Judeo-Christian philosophy?
It certainly does by my point of view.
I don't want us to fight for judeo-christian philosophy, its mostly 2nd hand, 2nd rate and self-contradictory.



Religion will always fire up the most excitement in those who feel they are dying for their God. This is a fact. quoi?


We must ask ourselves which is stronger? The desire to perpetuate life or the seeking of death? This is a core component and should not be under-estimated.we must also ask ourselves who has a bigger military budget,

The conversion and extinction argument is one in the same. I'm very interested in what your 1st rate philosophy would be. You completely missed my point with your military budget response. It has nothing to do with money.

[j2k4]

If this poll was taken in say 1999 do you think the same amount would believe Americas goal is "to weaken and divide the Islamic world."

You mean during the Clinton administration?

What if the poll was "taken" in 1998? 1997? 1996? 1995? 1994? 1993? 1992?

How about 1990? 1985?

Or very late 1979...maybe early 1980?


If we want to confront/reduce terrorism and the reasons for it then it doesn't matter what we think we are doing. It matters what they think we are doing.

Does it matter what we think they are doing?


What stands out most for me about the article is that he makes no effort to try to understand why they felt as they did.

If his intent was to publicize the polling data, what possible use would his "understanding" have served, other than to assuage your concern?


Giuliani got the applause at the debate, but Paul was correct.

Right as to Giuliani, wrong as to Paul, who is a simplistic ass.

Before you respond to this post, vid, revisit your opening salvo in which you question the validity of the poll's conclusions based on when it was taken, thence proceed to state Ron Paul was "correct". :whistling

[j2k4]

We must ask ourselves which is stronger? The desire to perpetuate life or the seeking of death? This is a core component and should not be under-estimated.
we must also ask ourselves who has a bigger military budget,

Ah, but then we have to ask how we came to afford such a big military budget, you see?

The argument becomes circular in short order. ;)

[thewizeard]

hmf, the eagle has decended on it's pray, with talons clutching and piercing soft pink flesh.

[Biggles]

I rather liked that piece J2. It was actually less alarmist and rather more readable than some pieces you have directed us to. :)

I am not surprised by the findings but I think they require some careful analysis. What percentage of the US population would have supported the actions of the US in Abu Graib or the blowing up of offices in Gaza in which both Hamas and civilian Palestinians die?

Reactionary responses to polls and actually carrying violent acts are quite different.There is quite a step from having a gut reaction to a poll question and strapping explosives to oneself.

The extremists do exist and although small in number they are a real threat and we must interdict their plans. However, part of that interdiction is to not to alienate the wider Muslim population. Also part of that fight is not to let them alter our lifestyle. The less impact a terrorist group has on our lives the less they are deemed to be a torch bearer for that cause. The more we flap about their aims and actions the greater justification they feel they have for their insane acts.

Edit: as an afterthought I should say I watched a programme last night about women in Afghanistan. It was rather depressing to see that so little has been achieved and that only about 30% of the promised aid ever materialised. It would seem that we had a plan for Afghanistan that in part involved unseating the Taliban and in part recovering the country from the position of a failed State. I am not sure whether we just bit off more than we could chew, took our eye off the ball with Iraq or simply never intended to keep our promises but such events play into the hands of the radicals. If we had done one job well we might have more credibility.

[MaxOverlord]

Reactionary responses to polls and actually carrying violent acts are quite different.There is quite a step from having a gut reaction to a poll question and strapping explosives to oneself.

The extremists do exist and although small in number they are a real threat and we must interdict their plans. However, part of that interdiction is to not to alienate the wider Muslim population. Also part of that fight is not to let them alter our lifestyle. The less impact a terrorist group has on our lives the less they are deemed to be a torch bearer for that cause. The more we flap about their aims and actions the greater justification they feel they have for their insane acts.


I think your first point is a good one. That being said...

I know your not suggesting we ignore actions. However, in order to adapt you must alter your lifestyle to whatever degree needed in order to adjust to new and impending threats. This does not mean living in constant fear of course. I do agree we should not alienate the larger Muslim population.

This does not include pandering to whatever "rights" they feel are being manipulated. We live in a free and open society and the opportunity to manipulate these freedoms is a powerful thing. This is a very smart enemy and they will use our freedoms of speech and expression and so on and so forth against us.

[vidcc]

You mean during the Clinton administration?

What if the poll was "taken" in 1998? 1997? 1996? 1995? 1994? 1993? 1992?

How about 1990? 1985?

Or very late 1979...maybe early 1980?
You can take any point before the pre-emptive on a hunch policy started. I chose that date as being close to before that point. The date or president doesn't matter as long as it's before that point. You can set the date to just before we went into Iraq if you like.


Does it matter what we think they are doing?
Yes it does, so it's important that we actually try to figure out why they are doing it, even if we don't think the reason is justified. I hold us to a higher standard than everyone else.




If his intent was to publicize the polling data, what possible use would his "understanding" have served, other than to assuage your concern?
Because he gave opinions on the results. The design was to not just inspire fear of terrorist, but to demonise all Muslims. This is akin to putting you on a terror watch list because of Eric Rudolf being a Christian and many Christians sympathized with the reasons he did what he did.


Right as to Giuliani, wrong as to Paul, who is a simplistic ass.
Nutshell
Rudy: "they attacked us because we have religious freedoms" (So it was our fault?)
Ron: "they attacked us because we were in their land" (Osama even gave this as a reason)

Rudy is using propaganda, pure and simple. The same propaganda the radical islamist use against us. They may not like our religious beliefs or our culture, but that's NOT why they attacked us. And if we continue to refuse to acknowledge their reasons, agree with them or not, then we will solve nothing.

Propaganda inspires emotions, I'm not looking for that, I'm looking for solutions.



Before you respond to this post, vid, revisit your opening salvo in which you question the validity of the poll's conclusions based on when it was taken, thence proceed to state Ron Paul was "correct". :whistling

Ron Paul wasn't saying he agreed with their reason, he wasn't saying we deserved it, he was pointing out what their reason was. It doesn't matter that you think we were justified doing what we were doing, or even that you don't feel they were justified doing what they did. The fact remains that those were their reasons.

And my "opening salvo" was in regards to how ordinary Muslims feel about America now as opposed to then, NOT how the extremists (who use religion as a tool garner empathy for their deeds) felt about us. I was not questioning the validity of the responses at all, I was questioning the difference between then and now.

[thewizeard]

The truth is; sooner or later, The Islam will try to propagate their religion to the whole world, By peaceful means or by jihad.

In Christian areas Mosques are rising against the backdrop of green fields and cows chewing the Grass.

Sooner or later..this religion, slowly spreading as a cancer, to a God, that has long forgotten mankind. With enticing offers of worldly pleasures in Paradise for killing innocent men, women and children, robbing them from a right to freely worship the God of their own choice One thing is for sure, Allah will be less pleased with this ideology than certain rebels think.

I think also if a Muslim wishes to pay his respects to Allah or worship in a Mosque..good OK, go and do that in Islamic country.

We don't want your blood and fear taking root in our precious soil. It's time to act firmly, yet resolutely.


Any one who disbelieves me, should check the coming "Honor Killing" thread..concerning a young innocent, beautiful young child of 17 years, filled with dreams...
So it's time to act, not time to talk any more. Stem the tide, in 5 years it could be your daughter being stoned and kicked to death by religious young followers of Mohammad's Allah.

[ilw]

We must ask ourselves which is stronger? The desire to perpetuate life or the seeking of death? This is a core component and should not be under-estimated.
we must also ask ourselves who has a bigger military budget,

Ah, but then we have to ask how we came to afford such a big military budget, you see?

The argument becomes circular in short order. ;)

not quite sure i follow, i was just being facetious because i thought the comment about good overcoming evil was a bit...



Edit: as an afterthought I should say I watched a programme last night about women in Afghanistan. It was rather depressing to see that so little has been achieved and that only about 30% of the promised aid ever materialised. It would seem that we had a plan for Afghanistan that in part involved unseating the Taliban and in part recovering the country from the position of a failed State. I am not sure whether we just bit off more than we could chew, took our eye off the ball with Iraq or simply never intended to keep our promises but such events play into the hands of the radicals. If we had done one job well we might have more credibility.
Biggles, correct me if i'm wrong as i didn't see the programme, but is this not more a tribal/cultural thing than a muslim thing? ditto to the honour killing. Not saying that the occurrence of these things isn't coincidental (literal meaning) with a muslim majority population, but that argument is lacking the cause/effect path to islam.


As to the spread of islam mentioned by max & wizeard, i totally don't understand where you're coming from in implying that its sinister as i doubt either of you would think the same of christianity. however, the pope just went to brazil to try and stamp out the alternative religions which are gathering momentum there and catholics are pushing hard to spread their religion in growing markets such as Africa and Asia. Personally the growth of religion is a bit depressing to me, but both christianity and islam are proselytising religions i.e. they have put an onus on their believers to try and save others by persuading them to see the light. Naturally if these religions are unconstrained they will spread like bacteria (cancer?) along an exponential growth path.

[MaxOverlord]

we must also ask ourselves who has a bigger military budget,

Ah, but then we have to ask how we came to afford such a big military budget, you see?

The argument becomes circular in short order. ;)

not quite sure i follow, i was just being facetious because i thought the comment about good overcoming evil was a bit...



Edit: as an afterthought I should say I watched a programme last night about women in Afghanistan. It was rather depressing to see that so little has been achieved and that only about 30% of the promised aid ever materialised. It would seem that we had a plan for Afghanistan that in part involved unseating the Taliban and in part recovering the country from the position of a failed State. I am not sure whether we just bit off more than we could chew, took our eye off the ball with Iraq or simply never intended to keep our promises but such events play into the hands of the radicals. If we had done one job well we might have more credibility.
Biggles, correct me if i'm wrong as i didn't see the programme, but is this not more a tribal/cultural thing than a muslim thing? ditto to the honour killing. Not saying that the occurrence of these things isn't coincidental (literal meaning) with a muslim majority population, but that argument is lacking the cause/effect path to islam.


As to the spread of islam mentioned by max & wizeard, i totally don't understand where you're coming from in implying that its sinister as i doubt either of you would think the same of christianity. however, the pope just went to brazil to try and stamp out the alternative religions which are gathering momentum there and catholics are pushing hard to spread their religion in growing markets such as Africa and Asia. Personally the growth of religion is a bit depressing to me, but both christianity and islam are proselytising religions i.e. they have put an onus on their believers to try and save others by persuading them to see the light. Naturally if these religions are unconstrained they will spread like bacteria (cancer?) along an exponential growth path.


Never said good verses evil(your words).
Last I checked the Pope didn't threaten beheading or the exercise of self-martyrdom to kill the infidels. Bit of a difference there.
I suppose if you despise all religion you would see no good in any practice.

[j2k4]

...both christianity and islam are proselytising religions i.e. they have put an onus on their believers to try and save others by persuading them to see the light. Naturally if these religions are unconstrained they will spread like bacteria (cancer?) along an exponential growth path.

In case you've missed it, Ian, Christianity has done away with the sundry tortuous physical impositions (including the death-dealing), and only the odd bit of proselytizing survives here and there, while Islam perpetuates the idea that "death to the infidel" (infidel defined as anyone who does not embrace Islam) is part and parcel of their religion.

As has been noted, beheadings have become the signature of those who are carrying the Islamic "ball" these days, yet people such as yourself continue to play the "moral equivalence" card in order to attack the U.S. (whose foreign policy is not tied to Christianity, I think you'll find) and excuse/omit mention of the barbarities committed by portable Islam's leading edge.

It is one thing to observe such a failing in a run-of-the-mill Muslim, but a non-religious person failing to notice the difference in order to concentrate his consternation on one side and avoid criticizing the other is, well...curious.

[MaxOverlord]

...both christianity and islam are proselytising religions i.e. they have put an onus on their believers to try and save others by persuading them to see the light. Naturally if these religions are unconstrained they will spread like bacteria (cancer?) along an exponential growth path.

In case you've missed it, Ian, Christianity has done away with the sundry tortuous physical impositions (including the death-dealing), and only the odd bit of proselytizing survives here and there, while Islam perpetuates the idea that "death to the infidel" (infidel defined as anyone who does not embrace Islam) is part and parcel of their religion.

As has been noted, beheadings have become the signature of those who are carrying the Islamic "ball" these days, yet people such as yourself continue to play the "moral equivalence" card in order to attack the U.S. (whose foreign policy is not tied to Christianity, I think you'll find) and excuse/omit mention of the barbarities committed by portable Islam's leading edge.

It is one thing to observe such a failing in a run-of-the-mill Muslim, but a non-religious person failing to notice the difference in order to concentrate his consternation on one side and avoid criticizing the other is, well...curious.


j2k4. You can't argue with the elite!;)

[MaxOverlord]

hmf, the eagle has decended on it's pray, with talons clutching and piercing soft pink flesh.


Sounds like something John Ashcroft might sing.:yup:

[j2k4]

In case you've missed it, Ian, Christianity has done away with the sundry tortuous physical impositions (including the death-dealing), and only the odd bit of proselytizing survives here and there, while Islam perpetuates the idea that "death to the infidel" (infidel defined as anyone who does not embrace Islam) is part and parcel of their religion.

As has been noted, beheadings have become the signature of those who are carrying the Islamic "ball" these days, yet people such as yourself continue to play the "moral equivalence" card in order to attack the U.S. (whose foreign policy is not tied to Christianity, I think you'll find) and excuse/omit mention of the barbarities committed by portable Islam's leading edge.

It is one thing to observe such a failing in a run-of-the-mill Muslim, but a non-religious person failing to notice the difference in order to concentrate his consternation on one side and avoid criticizing the other is, well...curious.


j2k4. You can't argue with the elite!;)

ilw is normally a very sensible guy, however it seems he has a jaundiced eye when discussing matters with religious import.

It is also difficult to use the tactic of weighting the relative actions of opposing sides without running headlong into the tag of moral equivalence (an inherently religious cognition) when it is kept properly at hand.

I normally keep it in my wallet, or, failing that, a vest pocket. :)

[lynx]

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

[MaxOverlord]

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

[thewizeard]

hmf, the eagle has decended on it's pray, with talons clutching and piercing soft pink flesh.


Sounds like something John Ashcroft might sing.:yup:

Do you mind, in the future, adding a link to the source, as now, instead of you egocentrically concentrating on a comment, referring to yourself; while like me, you should be at the front, stemming this bloody tide, that threatens to overwhelm us and our civilization ( if thats what one wishes to call it).

Now you waste my time Googling to see if there is any significance to you words, or are you totally wasting my time. For that we have the Lounge.

[MaxOverlord]

Sounds like something John Ashcroft might sing.:yup:

Do you mind, in the future, adding a link to the source, as now, instead of you egocentrically concentrating on a comment, referring to yourself; while like me, you should be at the front, stemming this bloody tide, that threatens to overwhelm us and our civilization ( if thats what one wishes to call it).

Now you waste my time Googling to see if there is any significance to you words, or are you totally wasting my time. For that we have the Lounge.


I'm not going to do the research for you WizEard. If you don't know what I'm refering to that is not my fault. I'll try to leave you out from now on. K?

P.S you may be in front,as you say, but that leaves nothing for me to see but An Ass!!

[thewizeard]

Do you mind, in the future, adding a link to the source, as now, instead of you egocentrically concentrating on a comment, referring to yourself; while like me, you should be at the front, stemming this bloody tide, that threatens to overwhelm us and our civilization ( if thats what one wishes to call it).

Now you waste my time Googling to see if there is any significance to you words, or are you totally wasting my time. For that we have the Lounge.


I'm not going to do the research for you WizEard. If you don't know what I'm refering to that is not my fault. I'll try to leave you out from now on. K?

P.S you may be in front,as you say, but that leaves nothing for me to see but An Ass!!

Not at all, and there is no question of "fault"when you mention some person, that perhaps everyone knows about except for me. Then you go and mock me? If you wish to cross metaphorical swords with me no problem. If you are going to quote people and not the source or what you mean. Then you are trying to hoist yourself above me. The fall could be painful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M789kRvbziM

well now I have seen it; it's an insult and repetitive too.
The point is, sarcasm, actually is the last refuge, for the empty of mind that's in full retreat

[MaxOverlord]

I'm not going to do the research for you WizEard. If you don't know what I'm refering to that is not my fault. I'll try to leave you out from now on. K?

P.S you may be in front,as you say, but that leaves nothing for me to see but An Ass!!

Not at all, and there is no question of "fault"when you mention some person, that perhaps everyone knows about except for me. Then you go and mock me? If you wish to cross metaphorical swords with me no problem. If you are going to quote people and not the source or what you mean. Then you are trying to hoist yourself above me. The fall could be painful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M789kRvbziM

well now I have seen it; it's an insult and repetitive too.
The point is, sarcasm, actually is the last refuge, for the empty of mind that's in full retreat

What would your sword be a metaphor for?
I will admit fault in one instance. I hadn't noticed you are not from the U.S.
If you were you would have known my reference to John Ashcroft.
I was not trying to hoist myself above you nor will I lower myself to you.
As for my Ass comment. Gems like those musn't be let go.
I'll leave the mythological speak to you.

Sarcasm in the right situation can be quite powerful.
We've become terribly off topic. After your volley I shall stop jabbing at you.

[ilw]

...both christianity and islam are proselytising religions i.e. they have put an onus on their believers to try and save others by persuading them to see the light. Naturally if these religions are unconstrained they will spread like bacteria (cancer?) along an exponential growth path.

In case you've missed it, Ian, Christianity has done away with the sundry tortuous physical impositions (including the death-dealing), and only the odd bit of proselytizing survives here and there, while Islam perpetuates the idea that "death to the infidel" (infidel defined as anyone who does not embrace Islam) is part and parcel of their religion.

As has been noted, beheadings have become the signature of those who are carrying the Islamic "ball" these days, yet people such as yourself continue to play the "moral equivalence" card in order to attack the U.S. (whose foreign policy is not tied to Christianity, I think you'll find) and excuse/omit mention of the barbarities committed by portable Islam's leading edge.

It is one thing to observe such a failing in a run-of-the-mill Muslim, but a non-religious person failing to notice the difference in order to concentrate his consternation on one side and avoid criticizing the other is, well...curious.

not trying to give any sort of moral equivalence between the religions or trying to justify attacks on the US. i was just pointing out that its hypocritical to complain about the fact that muslims are trying (and succeeding?) to spread their religion unless you are happy to complain about christians trying to spread. However i couldn't agree more with complaining about the methods some muslims are willing to use to make their religion number 1.

Underlying that i suppose is my belief that all religions are basically equal, i.e. christianity isn't superior to islam. The best you can say is that christianity better aligns with our cultural morality (but considering we live in essentially christian countries thats a bit circular).

[thewizeard]

Christianity is far more superior that Islam, but is still crap, Islam is not only crap, but cancerous and should be eliminated at all costs.
Best is Buddhism where one learns to respect the rights of others to exist., even when they don't agree with you.
The job ahead, is to make one/(all) aware of the fact, that God really doesn't exist. Then we move forward from there together.

[MaxOverlord]

Christianity is far more superior that Islam, but is still crap, Islam is not only crap, but cancerous and should be eliminated at all costs.
Best is Buddhism where one learns to respect the rights of others to exist., even when they don't agree with you.
The job ahead, is to make one/(all) aware of the fact, that God really doesn't exist. Then we move forward from there together.


Try reading what you posted above.

You canceled your Best is Buddhism line by the ones above it.

How can you say Buddhism is best because it teaches to respect the rights of others to exist and before that say Islam should be eliminated because it is crap and cancerous?

You say to respect the rights of others and then say we all need to believe what you believe.

And if God doesn't exist why did you capitalize God in your sentence?

[vidcc]

I've been viewing thewizeards post (some of them) as being parody :unsure:

Forgive me if I am mistaken

[Busyman™]

I've been viewing thewizeards post (some of them) as being parody :unsure:

Forgive me if I am mistaken

Yeah ok but Max called his post quite nicely.:lol:

[MaxOverlord]

I've been viewing thewizeards post (some of them) as being parody :unsure:

Forgive me if I am mistaken


Your probably right. I hope your right(fixed).

[ilw]

I've been viewing thewizeards post (some of them) as being parody


you clearly haven't read the synchronicity thread...

[Busyman™]

I've been viewing thewizeards post (some of them) as being parody


you clearly haven't read the synchronicity thread...

Yup, sometimes it's that a person needs somore responsibilties, a woman, or a job, cuz they have too much time on their hands.:no: