the problem of Muslims

[Friendindeed]

Palerider and Lily, round two I see.

For what it is worth, yes, nazis were more honorable than muslims who go about hiding within a civilian population, and killing women and children in the name of their god. Both were scum, but as scum goes, nazis were a more honorable variety of scum. At least they identified themselves as combatants and didn't use women and children for shields.

I can't even believe you are defending Nazis.

southside made a good point about the uniforms, that was the objection you raised before. Now you seem to be changing your complaint.

And I won't apologize for my language. If it offends, then perhaps you should re-examine your postion. And of course you are apologizing for the terrorists. Attempting to make light of the differences between uniformed combattants and terrorists is just one more example of your apologetics.

No body here has apologized for acts of terrorism, not southside and not Lily.
You do not see any of the acts of terror that have been done against Muslims, you only look at their offences. That is too one-sided.

 

[southside]

okay palerider, i am not going to continue this insane arguements. it is stupid to argue against some extremeist like yo

 

[Koios]

Just remember to keep your cool guys.

Soutside, while palerider made a very bold statement, if that is truly his belief I think he is entitled to it. However I do not think he elaborated enough so it didn't really strengthen his argument and instead just came out as an offensive statement.

 

[usaisthegreatest]

Yes, you guys need to keep it cool. Palerider, I think your statement is a little too aggressive. Although I agree with your views, I think you can elaborate a little more about your reasoning, not just calling someone a terrorist. Southside, I think you should not take Palerider's statement too personally. This is just a political debate after all.

 

[palerider]

I can't even believe you are defending Nazis.

Does saying that nazis were a more honorable sort of scum than terrorists constitute defending them? Identifying oneself as a combattant is more honorable than pretending to be a civilian among civilians until the killing begins.

Honor is defined as having honesty and fairness in ones actions. The nazis may have been wrong, but they were honest about who they were. Muslim terrorists aren't.

southside made a good point about the uniforms, that was the objection you raised before. Now you seem to be changing your complaint.

Nope. I am not changing my complaint. Just adding. One is allowed to have multiple problems with a group like this.

No body here has apologized for acts of terrorism, not southside and not Lily.
You do not see any of the acts of terror that have been done against Muslims, you only look at their offences. That is too one-sided.

I see acts of terror done against muslims. I have pointed out that all through history they have been as violent against themselves as they have been against everyone else. I also pointed out that it is their own holy books that tell them to kill muslims who are not following allah's order to wage war with all of mankind until no one is worshipped but allah.

Apologizing for muslims who are not publicly apologizing for themselves is like being the child of a violent and drunken father who has had fights with practically everyone in town. How sad is it for a child to tell people that his father really isn't like that once you get to know him when everyone has seen the same child walking to school with a broken arm and black eye that surely came from his father.

Your apology for a group of people who aren't apologizing for themselves is meaningless. Sites such as the ones lilly directed me to are not even apologies, they are simply there suggesting that I close my eyes to reality and agree with them that islam is a nice guy once you get to know them and I am supposed to ignore the fact that they are telling me this in such a way that the real islam doesn't ever find out who the infidel is is that is telling me what islam is like.

And of course terrorists have been apologized for here. Any talk that suggests that any outside government interference is just cause, or any cause for that matter, for their actions is an apology.

People who apologize for others when they have no real power to effect the actions of those they are apologizing for are enablers. You do no favor for the theoretical majority of peaceful muslims by apologizing for them. If they disapprove and truely believe that islam is meant to be a religion of peace (in spite of its entire history) then they need to take it away from the terrorists and make it what they claim it is. Presently, silence implies concent.

 

[palerider]

Yes, you guys need to keep it cool. Palerider, I think your statement is a little too aggressive. Although I agree with your views, I think you can elaborate a little more about your reasoning, not just calling someone a terrorist. Southside, I think you should not take Palerider's statement too personally. This is just a political debate after all.

further elaboration here.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3110&postcount=35

 

[palerider]

okay palerider, i am not going to continue this insane arguements. it is stupid to argue against some extremeist like yo

Interesting that is you who is actually calling names isn't it? Extremist? Care to prove that? I have laid out my arguments and rather than tear them down and show their error, you call names.

 

[palerider]

Interesting article by an ex islamic terrorist:

Clip:

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009890

 

[Eternal]

the Nazi's used their uniform to justify their actions and attempted to keep their true intentions secret for as long as possible so i'm not too sure they were any better

 

[palerider]

the Nazi's used their uniform to justify their actions and attempted to keep their true intentions secret for as long as possible so i'm not too sure they were any better

I am not suggesting that they were good old boys. They were the scum of the earth, but at least you could see them coming and you could identify them as your enemy. For what it is worth, that is more honorable, and far less cowardly, than hiding within the civilian community.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I am not suggesting that they were good old boys. They were the scum of the earth, but at least you could see them coming and you could identify them as your enemy. For what it is worth, that is more honorable, and far less cowardly, than hiding within the civilian community.

He's right. I don't see what's all that offensive. Their goals and aspiration were equally reprehnsible, but at least they wore uniforms, had military infrastructure, didn't hide in "sacred" religious institutions, etc.

 

[Friendindeed]

But you are wrong about that palerider, because the Nazi's represented themselves as something they were not. They said they were Christians and they said they were democratic.
So the only way they fit what you are saying is they wore uniforms.

 

[Friendindeed]

Palerider, before you started asking about the Jordan Lily asked you a question in post 21.
Here was the question,

I suggest that the US should test the premise on which you base your attitude, before "doing all we can to introduce as many of them to their God as possible" ?

Let's see what happens if we refrain from manipulating their affairs financially or politically, overtly or covertly.

Let's see if they still wish to kill us after a few years of our having exited from out of their business.

Does that sound fair ?

I would like to see you answer that.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, before you started asking about the Jordan Lily asked you a question in post 21.
Here was the question,
I would like to see you answer that.

Sure. Let me answer it with a clip from an article that I posted today.

Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

 

[palerider]

But you are wrong about that palerider, because the Nazi's represented themselves as something they were not. They said they were Christians and they said they were democratic.
So the only way they fit what you are saying is they wore uniforms.

Sorry, I am not wrong. Nazis identified themselves. When they walked down the street, one knew that a nazi was walking down the street. When they walked into a market, everyone knew that a nazi was there. Even if early on, people didn't know what nazis really were, they could look at them and know that that person there in the uniform, isn't necessarily the same as me. He isn't pretending to be just like me. He isn't trying to blend in as if he were ashamed of being identified for what he is.


Apologize to someone else.