Neutrality is the Answer - They Didn't Attack Switzerland

How have I ever implied that their are only two types of Muslims, ones who commit crimes and supporters of these crimes.

I said that I dislike those who engage in terrorist activities, and those who condone, and encourage it with their silence. Then you implied that my dislike of those two groups of people meant that I had a specific dislike of muslisms as if there were only the two kinds.

You've taken my last quote, twisted it and made it go against my main point in this debate, that most Muslims DON'T SUPPORT TERRORISM AND THAT THEIR SILENCE ISN'T SUPPORT.

But you are quite wrong in this. In courts of law all over the earth, long legal precedent has been established that silence implies concent.

As for your brand of conservatism, I am saying that you are just as filled with hate for religions, races and cultures as a lot of violent Muslims are, but rather than blowing stuff up you just sit behind a computer and ***** and moan because you havn't got any balls to change the world. You don't want the world to change, except for it to get more traditionally American. Your thinking is backward.

The only change that I could make that would offer me any sort of safety from islam is to bow to mecca 5 times a day. I am not prepared to do that so I remain an infidel and an enemy of islam. Not because I choose to be their enemy, but because anyone who doesn't bow is their enemy as defined by their own religion. I am not the problem, islam is the problem.

And how do I not even know the basics of conservatism.

If you had an understanding of the basics of conservativism, you would know that there are 6 tenets that all conservatives agree on and to dissagree with any one is to make one something other than a conservative. The second tenet is to appreciate the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.

I appreciate all cultures and all religions, but that doesn't require me to attempt to befriend one, or apologize for one that actively wants to see me dead. It is islam that has declared war on me, not the other way around.
 
Werbung:
I said that I dislike those who engage in terrorist activities, and those who condone, and encourage it with their silence. Then you implied that my dislike of those two groups of people meant that I had a specific dislike of muslisms as if there were only the two kinds.

Ok, sorry, misunderstanding. There are more than two types of Muslims, killers, and supporters of killing, and most Muslims fit into neither category.


But you are quite wrong in this. In courts of law all over the earth, long legal precedent has been established that silence implies concent.

Everyday life is not a courtroom.


The only change that I could make that would offer me any sort of safety from islam is to bow to mecca 5 times a day. I am not prepared to do that so I remain an infidel and an enemy of islam. Not because I choose to be their enemy, but because anyone who doesn't bow is their enemy as defined by their own religion. I am not the problem, islam is the problem.

And once again you fail to mention the millions of Muslims who don't want you dead.



If you had an understanding of the basics of conservativism, you would know that there are 6 tenets that all conservatives agree on and to dissagree with any one is to make one something other than a conservative. The second tenet is to appreciate the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.


I appreciate all cultures and all religions, but that doesn't require me to attempt to befriend one, or apologize for one that actively wants to see me dead. It is islam that has declared war on me, not the other way around.

No, radical Islamic nutters have proclaimed war on you, not Islam as a whole. Your suspicious views on Islam have made you think it is a religion purely based on violence, but in reality it is no more violent than Christianity when it comes to its religious texts. Its just the way the US media portray it.
 
Christianity has been one of the MOST Violent religions the world has ever Known the Crusades show us Just how this works ...........
 
Don't get old palerider started on the crusades. Rather than admit it was as much a mindless slaughter as jihad he will pull out list after list of facts and figures that try and excuse the fact.
 
Your quotes are not findings, they are claims, nothing more. The only thing "shown" was that the swiss did business, a lot of business with the nazis.

No, you haven't shown that at all. For your argument to hold any weight, you have to show that the Swiss held and moved Nazi money that had a direct bearing on the war. What has been shown is that some of the money was stashed there from "spoils" and theft of jewish property - but that wasn't done by Hitler - that was done by the lessers, who in many cases were antipating defeat.

Then feel free to provide some PROOF that the report is wrong. Suggesting that data is wrong based on no more than where it comes from constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack.

What it shows is that one official report damning the Swiss to hell and back was COMPLETELY off the mark and discredited by the Jewish community - coupled with an admission by one of the Nurembourg prosecutors that he could find no Swiss involvement in his financial crimes investigations, says the problem really wasn't as wide spread as has been claimed. If I have time I may do some further research on the other reports.

It does not change the fact that the swiss didn't get attacked, because they were hitler's bankers.

Would you stop spouting your worthless speculation and opinion as fact? Are you completely insane or something? Seriously, I'd like to know if you're on any medication or have been diagnosed with a mental condition...

Again, you have to show that large sums of money were moved in and out of Switzerland that benefited the Nazis war efforts specifically.


They were providing him liquid assets for his war effort in exchange for looted gold.

He didn't need the Swiss to liquidate anything for him, you dolt. The Nazis had the power to print whatever money they needed. They didn't even have to turn in gold to their own banks to do that, but they usually did, having learned from the earlier hyperinflation in Germany in the 20's.
 
Further irrelavence since the topic of this thread isn't about the immigration policies of the US either.

You're the one attacking the character of the Swiss. Answer the question:

You're own source says 20,000 were allowed in while 25,000 were turned away. That's almost half allowed to safety. (Not to mention those aided by private swiss citizens who ignored their government's policy.) Seems like a very generous allowance during an all out war when every country around you has been conquered. Why are you avoiding my question, shetland pony rider? I'll ask it again: Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated?
 
:d :d :d ??????????


they didnt like my hot-link id guess!!!! wow DISTURBING!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry THEY CHANGED IT ILL RE-LOAD what I posted


I AM SORRY EVERYONE HOTLINKING WASNT ALLOWED THEY PUT A NASSSSSSSSSTY PHOTO IN ITS PLACE I CORRECTED IT

20040331-old-school-boer-met-shetla.jpg
 
http://jan.moesen.nu/



cmon.................................



ya gotta admit .......................................


It made you bust-a-gut, didnt it !!!!!!!!!!!!!





I couldnt resist, I had to get a visual going for everyone..........


sorry:D :D :D
 
did you see what i just saw!!!!!!!!!


Holy MACKEREL!!!!!

Sorry Bout that

whew


nasssssssty
 
I could have sworn there was a legit debate going on in this thread only a few hours ago...

EDIT: Oh wait...there was.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top