EPTWhy does someone that says "zerg imba roflstomp" or something equally obnoxious gets banned, yet someone that links a retarded conspiracy video trying to prove a point that opposes common sense and goes against whatever is considered humane is still allowed to try and make his point?
NYC Taxi Driver Stabbed for Being a Muslim - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
news
892 Posts
Why does someone that says "zerg imba roflstomp" or something equally obnoxious gets banned, yet someone that links a retarded conspiracy video trying to prove a point that opposes common sense and goes against whatever is considered humane is still allowed to try and make his point? | ||
|
Nilrem
United States3684 Posts
| ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
On August 26 2010 16:11 News wrote: I think you should be giving out warnings not just on the basis of not abiding by forum etiquette but also for being retarded and failing at an argument. Some of the posters above are really atrocious no matter how nice they act. Why does someone that says "zerg imba roflstomp" or something equally obnoxious gets banned, yet someone that links a retarded conspiracy video trying to prove a point that opposes common sense and goes against whatever is considered humane is still allowed to try and make his point? The thing is many people here can and do rightly call themselves SC experts. They can speak with some authority on the subject and know that something like "zerg imba roflstomp" is just garbage. By the same token, I highly doubt there are any here who can rightly call themselves foreign policy or political analysis experts so more leeway is allowed. Of course, the truly ridiculous stuff should still be frowned upon but that threshold is quite low, as I'm sure you've noticed by now. | ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
Anyhow, if you watch certain "news channels" (more like opinion channels), the people there try to influence the public opinion towards discrimination against Islam. That has been gping on for some years now, and, bluntly speaking, its a wonder that it has taken such a long time until the first idiot thinks he is doing his country a servive by attacking a Muslim. Xenophobia, nurtured by politically motivated media = not good. Yet, some people still just don't get it. Also, they miss some crucial parallels in history. If you do a little research you will find that antisemitism started in a similar way and - contrary to what most people know nowadays - it was generally accepted throughout most european countries, as was the idea of social darwinism. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On August 26 2010 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Keith Olbermann is an idiot. He said the mosque isn't an insult to 9/11 family members, yet those family members themselves disagree. Strawman. Some of those faimly members have agreed, and some have disagreed. He then states that the "community center" isn't even a mosque because a mosque is "only" used for worship (entirely wrong, and a strawman). It's a semantic argument, aimed at combating the somewhat commonly held perception of Park51 as a giant mosque with domes and crescents directly overlooking the base of the WTC. We can debate semantics, but in any case, it isn't a strawman. He then ignores mosques here in the US that have supported terrorism by calling up one with a pipebomb (omission of truth). He then says the pipebomb would have killed all 60 worshipers. I wasn't aware he was a ballistics expert (another strawman). His point isn't that no mosque in the US supports terrorism. (strawman argument lol) His point is that you can't say that because something is a mosque, it supports or can be associated with terrorism. You don't need to be a ballistics expert to say that a bomb would have killed people. Yes, it's possible that they might have survived (people even survive gunshot wounds to the head) but it's a reasonable assertion that being in a small room when a bomb goes off will, in the vast majority of cases, result in death. He then says islamic men and women face a greater threat of being murdered, without any evidence (another strawman). That's not what strawman means. It's called conjecture. He then omits that Cordoba was indeed conquered by muslims, just skips it and jumps to later on when the Ottoman empire crushed it (another omission). He then says that the mosque was turned back into a church, which is wasn't, a church was built inside the mosque (another omission). This segment is kinda moot now that the center is being called Park51, rather than the Cordoba House. Looks like the center's planners are sensitive to reasonable criticism. He then brings up another strawman, other places or worship are closer (because they were there before 9/11). Actually, that isn't a strawman either. When the Muslims built "monuments to victory" in cities they conquered, these obviously weren't in places where mosques already existed or where Islam was being practiced in peace with other religions. Comparing NYC in 2010 or 2001 to Cordoba in 929 is comparing apples and oranges. NYC was attacked, but it was not conquered. Furthermore, when Park51 opponents claim that building that Islamic center is offensive, surely they don't mean that the construction process if offensive. They mean that going to the area around the WTC and seeing a Muslim place of worship right there is offensive. But if that's true, then it doesn't matter if the building was constructed in 1970 or in 2010. It's the use of the building that is offensive, so whether the mosque is 40 years old or brand new, it's equally offensive. Disregarding any arguments about which view is right for a moment, it is inconsistent to allow the Masjid Mosque to continue their worship but not allow the congregation of Park51 to worship in the same part of town. Another strawman, an incoherent sentence about free business and enterprise. And then another omission, and jumping to a completely random thing, why we went into Iraq. That's easy, because Saddam pays islamic terrorists, just like Iran, Yemen, and other countries in the region. And then another strawman, ignoring that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people (a man after Hitlers own heart), and instead saying we went there to free "muslims", making the assumption that we only free what, jewish people? The Iraq-Al Qaeda link was discredited years ago, as was the argument that Iraq had nuclear weapons. The only remaining official reason for us to go to war (ie, not claims that we did it over oil) was that we were liberating Iraqis from the iron fist of the Saddam Hussein regime. No assumption was made that we only free Jewish people. He's arguing that it is illogical to fight a war in Iraq in the name of freedom for Iraqi Muslims while at the same time not allowing Muslims to freely worship in the US. If we don't care about the liberties of Muslims here, why should American soldiers be dying in Iraq to protect the liberties of Muslims there? We could have killed Saddam Hussein and any terrorists in the region by just nuking them... but we didn't, and we've clearly lost a lot of lives and dedicated a lot of resources to trying to give Iraq a stable democracy. If Muslims are all evil and don't deserve the same freedoms that you and I have, this seems like a colossal error. And another omission, that all of our previous generations fought for freedom (that most certainly isn't true of the Democratic Party). Um what? I mean, you are aware that this country fought both World Wars under Democratic leadership, right? In fact during the 30s it was FDR who wanted to get involved in Europe while the Republicans favored a policy of isolationism. Actually having some knowledge of our nation's history, I find the assertions that only one party is patriotic, or only one party fights for freedom, etc, moronic beyond what I thought was even possible. And another strawman, trying to claim that the purpose for stopping the mosque is the same as what the terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers wanted; "to change America". It's reasonable to disagree with his statement here (disagreeing with his assertion of either what the terrorists or the opponents of Park51 want), but again that is not what "strawman argument" means. Again, it is more like conjecture... and noting the previous support from conservatives (even Fox News reporters) that the Cordoba House had as recently as December 2009, and now with elections coming up that tone has changed and Park51 is being presented as one of the greatest threats to America, I think it's fair game to make conjecture as to why that stance would change so suddenly. And then another strawman, finding some random person with an equally random idea against Islam and quoting it as if there is some master plan to wipe all islamic faith from the country. Again this is an argument of his that you are welcome to disagree with, and again it is not a strawman argument. I'm getting the feeling that "strawman argument" is a phrase you've recently learned and you're trying to apply it to debate whenever possible. Easy on that. If anything, it's a "slippery slope" argument - arguing that by siding with the opponents of Park51, we would be strengthening the movement to wipe the Islamic faith from America. (Given that, according to Time's poll last week, a majority of Park51 opponents would also be opposed to building a mosque within 2 blocks of their own home, I find his argument plausible. Sadly, these "random ideas" have a fair amount of supporters.) He then ends with a famous strawman, that our founders stopped intolerance. That wasn't true until the Republican Party was created to oppose the (racist) Democratic party. If you want to critique him for claiming that our founders stopped intolerance, when in fact intolerance still existed after the founding of our country, then you can't immediately afterward claim that intolerance wasn't stopped "until the Republican Party was created[...]" since intolerance exists even to this day. Additionally, any implication that the parties today hold the same values that they had 150 years ago is being intellectually dishonest. The party that freed the slaves was also the party that opposed the 60s civil rights movement. [/QUOTE] | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On August 26 2010 13:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: LOL To think of all the times in history when the bible was taken literally. As all to many chistians (and others) have proven you dont need specific instructions to pick out the worst parts of your book and follow them. If you are violence oriented you will practice violent religion. Like the video itself admits you gravitate towards what you know. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 26 2010 16:51 Draconizard wrote: By the same token, I highly doubt there are any here who can rightly call themselves foreign policy or political analysis experts so more leeway is allowed. We're here, but the nature of free politics is that everyone's opinion (and everyone has them) can be heard, even if most are incredibly wrong. To be honest, the cab driver thing is a non-issue (not a non-story, however) on the national level. Drunk man attacks cab driver isn't exactly a rare occurrence in all of New York. The motivations are simply speculation at this point as painted by the media. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 26 2010 16:55 Electric.Jesus wrote: Muslim Taxi Drivers getting stabbed is the result you get when you start building up Islam as a global enemy. In fact the first sign was Samuel Hintungton's Clash of Civilizations where he predicts that Western culture and Islamic culture will batlle it out in the 21th century. I wonder if that is a self fulfilling prophecy. It is in some sense. The worst consequence of Clash of Civilizations isn't simply the hit to Huntington's academic career (he's completely wrong) but the fact that a polarizing argument like that alienates everyone in the middle ground (which is the vast majority of people) and legitimizes claims from fanatics. In reality, the conflicts are political, economical and secular in nature, but in order to gain support, terrorists paint it as ideological. Then you get a leading American scholar making the exact same stupid argument. In the academic world, Huntington rightfully gets killed for having written that article but unfortunately it still holds weight among the public. | ||
|
Tar-Moridin
Netherlands21 Posts
I find it ludicrous that these Christians (local and abroad) who mutilate Muslims in the name of their God are allowed places of worship in Islamic countries. Tear down all their churches I say Anyone who mutilates another person in any way, physically or verbally is so far distanced from christianity.. Saying you belong to a religion does not make you a sincere follower, neither does visiting a church or mosque. I will not speak for Islam, but someone who does this is NOT a christian, whatever he or she may claim. I feel offended to be categorised together with such a person, hope this does not derail the thread. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On August 26 2010 21:57 Tar-Moridin wrote: Anyone who mutilates another person in any way, physically or verbally is so far distanced from christianity.. Saying you belong to a religion does not make you a sincere follower, neither does visiting a church or mosque. I will not speak for Islam, but someone who does this is NOT a christian, whatever he or she may claim. I feel offended to be categorised together with such a person, hope this does not derail the thread. Being Christian simply means accepting Jesus as your savior. Saying that somebody isn't a Christian because, while they believe in God and in Christ, they don't follow certain laws of the Bible, or they don't follow the spirit of the religion, or they do things that secular society considers bad, etc, is making the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Whether that person dedicates their life to working for charity or becomes a mass murderer has nothing to do with whether they have accepted Christ or not. In fact one of the central beliefs of that religion is that no matter how you have sinned, faith in Christ guarantees salvation. I don't think the person you are quoting meant what he said literally, but rather was making an analogous argument to demonstrate the flaws in the way (some) people are judging Islam - looking at its worst members, and claiming that they are representative of the entire group. Often they will quote a passage of the Quran where Muslims are told to kill in the name of their faith. Contrary to what is often claimed, there are parts of the Bible where Christians are commanded to kill in the name of theirs. For example, people who quote Leviticus 18 as an argument against homosexuality should be aware that Leviticus 20 clearly spells out that the punishment for homosexuality is death... it would be difficult to argue that somebody who kills a gay man because "it is sin" wasn't following the Bible. However, the majority of Christians are civilized people and would never actually do that... similarly, the majority of Muslims are civilized and wouldn't commit acts of terrorism, even if right-wing groups can cherry-pick passages from the Quran to make it appear otherwise. Any belief system - that is, any religion, or belief systems that are not theistic - can be used for good or for evil. What we should be promoting is tolerance, understanding, and respect. | ||
|
thesighter
United States347 Posts
Good article regarding Islam and its views of the Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." <- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him." www.historyofjihad.org <- the spread of Islam and its wars | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam. Good article regarding Islam and its views of the Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." <- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him." www.historyofjihad.org <- the spread of Islam and its wars How convenient. We also know the Rapture won't come until the Jews are all rounded up in Israel and then slaughtered in a great war. | ||
|
thesighter
United States347 Posts
What is being taught in Saudi Arabia today. I'm not even talking about Palestine. FIRST GRADE " Every religion other than Islam is false." "Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________." SIXTH GRADE "Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power." EIGHTH GRADE "As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus." God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did." "They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]." "Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God." TENTH GRADE "Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.). "Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel." ELEVENTH GRADE "The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others." "If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims." "Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect." TWELFTH GRADE "Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God." | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Yeah, so your links are absolutely terrible. Thanks for teaching us all through Wikipedia! Any tips on when I should invest in gold?Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam. Good article regarding Islam and its views of the Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." <- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him." www.historyofjihad.org <- the spread of Islam and its wars Just like the Bible and the Torah, the Quran has many contradictory elements that don't fit together (because they're all man made.) You can cite parts that condemn Jews just as you can cite parts that praise them. Mohammed himself was taught by Jewish teachers and he interacted heavily with them. It's absolutely true that Islam is/was an aggressive religion, just as Christianity and Buddhism are/were. Your argument continues to be selective bullshit that totally ignores the histories and contexts of everything you're talking about. If you want to make an argument about the historical violence of Islam, then you need to include Christianity as well, which was far more violent during the Crusades (against Jews as well) and in which every major empire has treated Jews much worse than their Muslim counterpart empires. If you want to bring up contemporary violence, which is no more connected to ancient scriptures than the Serbian slaying of Bosnians was connected to St. Lazarus, then you can't leave out Serbo-Christianity or even Judaism and its influence on the incredibly violent early Zionist movements. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On August 27 2010 01:19 thesighter wrote: Not all religions are created equal. Through human history, some eastern religions have been much more peaceful than Islam. Good article regarding Islam and its views of the Jews http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." <- hadith (action/saying attributed to Muhammad), often quoted by Hamas From another hadith, "A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him." www.historyofjihad.org <- the spread of Islam and its wars I wonder why the Muslims under Mohammed let the Israelis live peacefully after conquering Israel in the 7th century. Jews and Christians in Persia and Jews and Monophysites in Syria were dissatisfied and sometimes even welcomed the Muslim forces, largely because of religious conflict in both empires.[2] In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before been reacquired from the Persians, and had not been ruled by the Byzantines for over 25 years. It may have had something to do with the practice of accepting "people of the the book" which was used in both the initial Muslim conquests and the Ottoman Empire. The millet system included all conquered peoples as subjects of the nation, but not Muslim faith meaning religious laws did not apply to non-Muslims. Non-Muslims normally were required to pay a tax however (in keeping with the practice of alms-giving, known as zakat). You're welcome to debate Islam as a hateful religion. I did my history thesis on Israel and the various peoples who ruled the area. If Mohamed wanted to annihilate the Jews he very well would have when Israel was conquered, but he let them live as peaceful subjects of the empire. + Show Spoiler + Sunni and Shia reference different collections of the Hadith. The Sunni Haddiths were wriiten over 200 years after the death of Mohammed and their authenticity as actual works of Mohamed have been debated by Sunni scholars. Shia Hadiths were written by the "three Mohameds" so, yes, you can attribute their sayings to "a" Mohamed. Shia scholars have admitted there is not complete authenticity in any Hadith. Wahhabists are a Sunni sect. | ||
|
thesighter
United States347 Posts
On August 27 2010 01:54 Jibba wrote: Yeah, so your links are absolutely terrible. Thanks for teaching us all through Wikipedia! Any tips on when I should invest in gold? Just like the Bible and the Torah, the Quran has many contradictory elements that don't fit together (because they're all man made.) You can cite parts that condemn Jews just as you can cite parts that praise them. Mohammed himself was taught by Jewish teachers and he interacted heavily with them. It's absolutely true that Islam is/was an aggressive religion, just as Christianity and Buddhism are/were. Your argument continues to be selective bullshit that totally ignores the histories and contexts of everything you're talking about. If you want to make an argument about the historical violence of Islam, then you need to include Christianity as well, which was far more violent during the Crusades (against Jews as well) and in which every major empire has treated Jews much worse than their Muslim counterpart empires. If you want to bring up contemporary violence, which is no more connected to ancient scriptures than the Serbian slaying of Bosnians was connected to St. Lazarus, then you can't leave out Serbo-Christianity or even Judaism and its influence on the incredibly violent early Zionist movements. Modern interpretations of the Quran are heavily antisemitic. I can find plenty of examples of antisemitic remarks made by prominent Islamic preachers. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/allahs_special_little_apes_and.html The Imam of the Al—Haram mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abd Al—Rahman Al—Sudayis, explained in one of his sermons: Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies . . . the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs . . . These are the Jews — an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption . . . At the same link, Sheikh Muhammad Al—Saleh Al—'Athimein said in a sermon at the Great Mosque in Al—'Unayza, Arabia: O Muslims, the Jews are treacherous and deceitful people over whom lies the curse and anger of Allah. They permitted what Allah forbade, with the lamest of excuses; therefore, He cursed them and turned them into apes and pigs. Allah sentenced them to humiliation anywhere they might be . . . .� Buddhism in India was destroyed by Islam, don't even mention it in the same vein as Islam. www.historyofjihad.org <- history of Islamic conquests | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On August 27 2010 02:04 thesighter wrote: www.historyofjihad.org <- history of Islamic conquests I thought you had no issues with Islam as a religion. Linking to an anti-Islamic hate-site isn't going to do anything to help your case. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 27 2010 02:04 thesighter wrote: Modern interpretations of the Quran are heavily antisemitic. I can find plenty of examples of antisemitic remarks made by prominent Islamic preachers. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/allahs_special_little_apes_and.html The Imam of the Al—Haram mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abd Al—Rahman Al—Sudayis, explained in one of his sermons: Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies . . . the scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs . . . These are the Jews — an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption . . . At the same link, Sheikh Muhammad Al—Saleh Al—'Athimein said in a sermon at the Great Mosque in Al—'Unayza, Arabia: O Muslims, the Jews are treacherous and deceitful people over whom lies the curse and anger of Allah. They permitted what Allah forbade, with the lamest of excuses; therefore, He cursed them and turned them into apes and pigs. Allah sentenced them to humiliation anywhere they might be . . . .� Buddhism in India was destroyed by Islam, don't even mention it in the same vein as Islam. www.historyofjihad.org <- history of Islamic conquests First of all: stop posting links to ridiculous, fanatical, hate mongering blogs. That's a warning. Second, you're citing a Saudi Imam, which is in no way indicative of Islam as a whole. It's equivalent to condemning American Protestants for comments made by a Greek Orthodox priest. The culture of Saudi Arabia is what dictates its religion, not the other way around. Furthermore, the statements you're "citing" are again, in response to a political, secular conflict. If you think Buddhism is a historically peaceful religion, then you know nothing about it. | ||
|
thesighter
United States347 Posts
On August 27 2010 02:09 Offhand wrote: I thought you had no issues with Islam as a religion. Linking to an anti-Islamic hate-site isn't going to do anything to help your case. Not an Islamic hate site. It exposes the history of Islam. I like how Muslims label anything critical of their religion as Islamaphobia | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
| ||
