Terrorism

[Arraya]

[quote=surveyor]/
—

some tin foil hats for you, Arraya.[/quote]

Come on slick, you can do better than that. Falling back on the old “conspiracy” as a derogatory statement. Do you know the definition of “conspiracy”. It is the nature of power, which Adam Smith knew quite well. No doubt, I show evidence that makes you uncomfortable.

I show data and draw conclusions. Unlike you, who rely on belief over data. Like when I showed you multiple rabbi’s calling for violence which you never replied to. You discard all evidence that does not fit you beliefs. You just ignore it. Please show me more verses from the Koran as proof. hahaha For muslim induced religious violence is only one tiny facet of the global drama unfolding, while you ignore a myriad of other forces. You have a beef with the devil and are fighting for God, aren’t you? Just like the Jihadists. Mirrors are sometimes uncomfortable, I know?

What have I presented in my posts that is inaccurate? I did not claim anything. I show dots(evidence) and draw pictures. You rely on pictures pre-drawn mostly of your own cultural bias and spoon fed data. Completely ignoring things that just don’t fit.

You have no insight or analyitical ability. With nothing more enlightening than I could read on world net daily.

Energy and currency systems are the reigns of power in the world today. However, I don’t think you understand either of them.

Onward christian soldier, into the see of internet thought, and come back when you are more learned.

[Arraya]

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

[Arraya]

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

[Arraya]

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

[Arraya]

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

[Arraya]

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[Author]

Posts