1. I don't think any of those wars and conflicts you mention were fought specifically because the US soldiers were Christian. And given the US has the separation of church and state written into the constitution (something they have to keep fighting, I admit) then you'd be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise.
2. My examples of Islamist aggression is based on things that's happened in the last 5 years, not 50 years.
3. Why do you feel the need to jump to Islam's defence every time someone criticises it? Yes, a lot of criticism it gets is really just opportunistic racists hijacking the debate but I've defended Muslims from the vitriol they usually get on here as much as criticise the religion itself. I seem far more objective. Did you mistake my post as a veiled attack on all Muslims?
4. You've never been so swift, nor as eager to defend Christians when people have made sweeping attacks, jokes and jibes regarding peodophiles and priests. Does Islam deserve special privileges according to you?
5. Why have you made this a "my dad is better than your dad" type debate? One should always be able to point out flaws in something or someone without the need of a comparison to something else (sometimes it is warranted of course). Not that you have, really because you failed -see point 1- but that was your intention.
boston bombs
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
1. I don't think any of those wars and conflicts you mention were fought specifically because the US soldiers were Christian. And given the US has the separation of church and state written into the constitution (something they have to keep fighting, I admit) then you'd be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise.
There is a misapprehension implicit in this comment i.e. US solders fight for state whereas "Muslim" soldiers fight for their faith. There are many examples where "Muslim" soldiers are little more than mercenaries rather than fighting for their religion in the same way as there are many US soldiers who are in the army because it gives them a regular meal and a level of pay they might not get elsewhere.
2. My examples of Islamist aggression is based on things that's happened in the last 5 years, not 50 years.
Correct. Maybe you should consider the extent to which "Muslim" fighting results from endless interventions from the West into their countries over many decades. Start by talking to an Iranian with a sense of history.
3. Why do you feel the need to jump to Islam's defence every time someone criticises it? Yes, a lot of criticism it gets is really just opportunistic racists hijacking the debate but I've defended Muslims from the vitriol they usually get on here as much as criticise the religion itself. I seem far more objective. Did you mistake my post as a veiled attack on all Muslims?
"Did you mistake my post as a veiled attack on all Muslims?"
More a sarcastic attack on the religion when you finish with "None of it is the fault of Islam because Islam is a religion of peace".
4. You've never been so swift, nor as eager to defend Christians when people have made sweeping attacks, jokes and jibes regarding peodophiles and priests. Does Islam deserve special privileges according to you?
No. You understand the reason already. "Yes, a lot of criticism it gets is really just opportunistic racists hijacking the debate " There is the occasional anti-Christian remark but nothing remotely similar to the level of criticism of the Muslim religion.
5. Why have you made this a "my dad is better than your dad" type debate? One should always be able to point out flaws in something or someone without the need of a comparison to something else (sometimes it is warranted of course). Not that you have, really because you failed -see point 1- but that was your intention.
You gave a list, so did I. It is an effective debating mechanism whether you accept that or not.
There is a misapprehension implicit in this comment i.e. US solders fight for state whereas "Muslim" soldiers fight for their faith. There are many examples where "Muslim" soldiers are little more than mercenaries rather than fighting for their religion in the same way as there are many US soldiers who are in the army because it gives them a regular meal and a level of pay they might not get elsewhere.
2. My examples of Islamist aggression is based on things that's happened in the last 5 years, not 50 years.
Correct. Maybe you should consider the extent to which "Muslim" fighting results from endless interventions from the West into their countries over many decades. Start by talking to an Iranian with a sense of history.
3. Why do you feel the need to jump to Islam's defence every time someone criticises it? Yes, a lot of criticism it gets is really just opportunistic racists hijacking the debate but I've defended Muslims from the vitriol they usually get on here as much as criticise the religion itself. I seem far more objective. Did you mistake my post as a veiled attack on all Muslims?
"Did you mistake my post as a veiled attack on all Muslims?"
More a sarcastic attack on the religion when you finish with "None of it is the fault of Islam because Islam is a religion of peace".
4. You've never been so swift, nor as eager to defend Christians when people have made sweeping attacks, jokes and jibes regarding peodophiles and priests. Does Islam deserve special privileges according to you?
No. You understand the reason already. "Yes, a lot of criticism it gets is really just opportunistic racists hijacking the debate " There is the occasional anti-Christian remark but nothing remotely similar to the level of criticism of the Muslim religion.
5. Why have you made this a "my dad is better than your dad" type debate? One should always be able to point out flaws in something or someone without the need of a comparison to something else (sometimes it is warranted of course). Not that you have, really because you failed -see point 1- but that was your intention.
You gave a list, so did I. It is an effective debating mechanism whether you accept that or not.
Re: boston bombs
Porn Baron wrote:
> Many people are saying it's the British that started all
> this???? Don't know the truth but Interesting read for me
>
>
I'm not "many" people are saying this. Well, unless you are one of David Icke's followers/believers/disciples.
> Many people are saying it's the British that started all
> this???? Don't know the truth but Interesting read for me
>
>
I'm not "many" people are saying this. Well, unless you are one of David Icke's followers/believers/disciples.
-
Porn Baron
- Posts: 993
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: boston bombs
I read lots of political/news forums and we are hated by so many. Trying to understand why they hate us with such bile. And why these two young men turned on Americans who gave them an education and a chance of a better life.
-
Porn Baron
- Posts: 993
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: boston bombs
Did arrogance and complacency override the warnings Russia gave to the U.S about these two?