What did I learn from TIME today...?

[Joe]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. That and nothing more.

Oh, fuck off.

I am very glad I am not alone in the "opinion" that delightful practices such as female genital mutilation are morally sound.

So the Qu'ran disencourage respect, tolerance and understandning? You really mean that? A holy book of one of the world greatest religions promoting such a message, and followed by millions of people for hundreds of years? That seems rather unbeliavable to me, and i have read it two times. Believe what you will about i, i, and some hundred million muslims throughout the world would happen to disagree.

The Old Testament promotes a similar message. It's nothing to be surprised at.

Oh yes, they are. About 99% of them only wants to mind their own buisiness, and maybe have a little share of our enormous material wealth. But they want to retain their own culture and morality, and your strange, almost rasistic perspective off time has nothing to do with it.

That's right, accuse me of "rasisticism", you worthless palm-fucker. My beef is with their religion, not their race. It's a hateful creed that encourages violence, treats women like subhumans, and promises paradise to murderers. The hell with it.

[RogueIce]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. That and nothing more.

So it's ok to opress women, beat children, and kill non-believers??

So the Qu'ran disencourage respect, tolerance and understandning? You really mean that? A holy book of one of the world greatest religions promoting such a message, and followed by millions of people for hundreds of years? That seems rather unbeliavable to me, and i have read it two times. Believe what you will about i, i, and some hundred million muslims throughout the world would happen to disagree.

If it's anything like I remember of what Wong's site says about the Bible...yes.

Just because it's a "holy book" and followed by millions of people doesn't make everything in it right. Especially since you can probably interpret it either way to suit your needs.

I'll refrain from further commentary, however, on the grounds that I've never read it.

Oh yes, they are. About 99% of them only wants to mind their own buisiness, and maybe have a little share of our enormous material wealth. But they want to retain their own culture and morality, and your strange, almost rasistic perspective off time has nothing to do with it.

No, it has more to do with the one percent trying to blow us up...

During Bushs time as governor in Texas, there was some great protests against a women being death sentenced on poor grounds. Bush used that argument to justify her execution, although i cannot qoute exactly what he said.

Source?

If i had it in reach i would have quoted him exactly, wouldn't i?

Then kindly fuck off. Thank you.

- Ymir, who thinks that death sentences have nothing to do in a democracy

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. That and nothing more."

[fgalkin]

Source, please.

If i had it in reach i would have quoted him exactly, wouldn't i?

- Ymir, think it was some documentary about Bushs career

Well, then, find another source. If you can't find it, that means that the "documantary" is bullshit.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

So the Qu'ran disencourage respect, tolerance and understandning? You really mean that? A holy book of one of the world greatest religions promoting such a message, and followed by millions of people for hundreds of years? That seems rather unbeliavable to me, and i have read it two times. Believe what you will about i, i, and some hundred million muslims throughout the world would happen to disagree.

Are you familiar with the basic principles of logic? You are employing a fallacy known as the "appeal to popularity", which takes the form of "many people think so, therefore it's true". The fallacious nature of this argument should be obvious, and you have utterly failed to defend it in a rational fashion. If a hundred million people thought cyanide was good for your health, would you go along with that too?

As for the specifics of the Koran, I would like to know how a document which exhorts people to fight and kill for God and promises them rewards for doing so can be considered a source of respect, tolerance, and understanding.

IX. 5-6: “Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

Oh sure, "respect, tolerance, and understanding."

[fgalkin]

Peacenik logic at its best.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[RogueIce]

So the Qu'ran disencourage respect, tolerance and understandning? You really mean that? A holy book of one of the world greatest religions promoting such a message, and followed by millions of people for hundreds of years? That seems rather unbeliavable to me, and i have read it two times. Believe what you will about i, i, and some hundred million muslims throughout the world would happen to disagree.

Are you familiar with the basic principles of logic? You are employing a fallacy known as the "appeal to popularity", which takes the form of "many people think so, therefore it's true". The fallacious nature of this argument should be obvious, and you have utterly failed to defend it in a rational fashion. If a hundred million people thought cyanide was good for your health, would you go along with that too?

As for the specifics of the Koran, I would like to know how a document which exhorts people to fight and kill for God and promises them rewards for doing so can be considered a source of respect, tolerance, and understanding.

IX. 5-6: “Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

Oh sure, "respect, tolerance, and understanding."

Thanks for the support!

BTW, where did you happen to get the quotes? A web-version of it or something you have at home? I'd like to read up on it a bit, given current events and the way this thread is going.

[SirNitram]

Hey, dipshit. You got any rebuttals for me yet, or are you just hiding? If I'm wrong, and your snide remarks in your signature say you think I am, you better be able to prove it.

[RogueIce]

Hey, dipshit. You got any rebuttals for me yet, or are you just hiding? If I'm wrong, and your snide remarks in your signature say you think I am, you better be able to prove it.

I don't think he's responded to half of the stuff thrown at him (though given the sheer numbers involved, maybe it's not too surprising). He's being rather picky it seems.

Not that it seems to be helping him any.

[SirNitram]

Hey, dipshit. You got any rebuttals for me yet, or are you just hiding? If I'm wrong, and your snide remarks in your signature say you think I am, you better be able to prove it.

I don't think he's responded to half of the stuff thrown at him (though given the sheer numbers involved, maybe it's not too surprising). He's being rather picky it seems.

Not that it seems to be helping him any.

Of course it doesn't. He's similar to Darkstar in some efforts, while not being quite so titanically stupid(Well, I think). Throw up a whole lot of shit and selectively reply so you can make it look like you have some ground to stand on.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh sure, "respect, tolerance, and understanding."

From Al-Islam.org:

[W]ar is natural and instinctive and man cannot do without it. ... [A] religion, a perfect religion, unlike Christianity, recognizes the necessity of warfare. Christendom superficially claims that there must be no war. ... They relate what they think are the words of Christ, If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer the other cheek. Has it been so in practice? Where have all these wars come from in this world? ... The purpose of warfare, Islam says, is so religion, all of it, is for Allah. ... If it is a true religion, it must take up the sword and advance.

[Vympel]

Don't you hate it when an 8 page thread pops out of nowhere in the space of the day- and it's so fucking long you can't even begin to participate? Ah fuck it ...

[Colonel Olrik]

Don't you hate it when an 8 page thread pops out of nowhere in the space of the day- and it's so fucking long you can't even begin to participate? Ah fuck it ...

Yes

[RedImperator]

Wow. It's turned from a liberal self-congratulation session into an old-fashioned hippie beating. Kinda like a New York peace protest if Guliani were still mayor. I'm sorry I found this thread so late I'd be vulturing if I jumped in.

[Eleas]

Don't you hate it when an 8 page thread pops out of nowhere in the space of the day- and it's so fucking long you can't even begin to participate? Ah fuck it ...

Hey, my apologies, man. I didn't imagine this thread would balloon so fast.

Wot be friends for, sucka?

Why, exploitation, of course. Isn't that right? Bonjour.

"Mantua..."

"Oh Mantuan, I am Sordello of your own town..." Dante, in a time of strife and uncertainty, could pack in two short sentences all the emotion and intensity and explaination of the world.

So you see, Eleas, so many people here on ASVS, on SD.net - who seemed to be my friends - Yourself, included - they have come out so strongly against the war. And I must sigh, and shudder, at the vehemence, and know something is lost.

I am sorry that you feel that way. Even more so, I am saddened by the fact that you seem to say that I, by voicing a different opinion to your own, in some way have hurt you personally.

For even as your opposition, even as the polarization here, dims something, I have made many friends with my stance - Mostly Americans. Which is why I thought of Canto VI. In times like these, the nation-state as with the city-state binds us. Your country is drawn to a certain orbit, mine forges its own destiny, which I must support to the bitter end.

Except for the fact that my opinions aren't necessarily those espoused by my country. I don't particularly adore Sweden. Don't get me wrong - in the event of an invasion, I would be fighting along with the rest. But I can look upon my own country with critical eyes, as opposed to blank adulation.

And so I have something uniquely in common with anyone who can say their name, and utter in addition to it "I am an American", than with so many around the world. And I pity it, because something is lost in that. But I'm also reassured, because that bond of the citizens of a country has always been there, and so as I read what you have written, I am not angered, or surprised. You will do as your nation does, and I will do as mine does, and we will maintain the faith of each other's courses in opposition. Your friend is Ymir, and mine are those I have made among those who hold America's course.

I don't understand.

Ymir is my friend, that's true. But his opinions aren't my own, either. They aren't even slightly like those of most Swedes I've met. And so it is with all of my friends. They are my friends because while we may argue, we also respect each others' right to hold opinions. We like to debate because it's an exercise of the mind, and because it's just plain fun.

Whereas what you seem to be saying is that you're retreating from people with different allegiances and opinions, in favor of people who think exactly like you.

That sounds like voluntary isolation. It sounds like hiding from diverging opinions. And I'm not sure that it's such a good idea.

Of course, I do not mean to a sunder a friendship - but where such vehemence is found on issues of life or death, a coolness arises. And so it is today.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I still consider you a friend, and I'm afraid that's not going to change just because of what's politically convenient to say.

Perhaps it was a bit Ad Hominem. Apologies, I wasn't in the best mood perhaps.

It was a textbook ad hominem, but no harm done. Just make sure in the future not to attack before you have your bearings (and your arguments) straight.

However, I'd like to see you try and explain how I was in the least bit wimpy :rolleyes:

Your insults were tame, pathetic, and dime a dozen. Lacking in any spark of creativity whatsoever, they were a textbook example of how we talk to each other on ASVS and, to a lesser extent, on SD.net...

...when we're not debating, that is.

If you want to learn how to flame, quit being a sycophantic wannabe. Get thee hence to ASVS and spend a few years there. That stay should serve as a primer, at least.

Ah yes, and by the way, you still have not backed up your earlier statement :rolleyes:

You didn't specify a statement for me to back up, remember? You instead elected to commit a rhetorical seppuku.

And Dalton, Flaming is my perogative. Especially in this forum, I would think.

You just never learn, do you, kid? Your "perogative" to flame is worth fuck all against Rob's PREROGATIVE, which is to ban. So get off his back, little monkey, before you by some incredible chance manage to annoy him.

[Axis Kast]

I diden't. I just happen to believe that the logic in that would be like China forcing USA to hand over the persons responsible for that missil that happened to hit their embassy in Belgrad, or else they would declare war. Yes, the Taliban regime housed Al-Qaida, but there isen't one trace of evidence that the talibans knew anything about Al-Qaidas plans against USA. If the terrorists had been german communists, such an ultimatum would never have been given to Germany.

There’s a league of difference between your examples and my own. Assuming the terrorists had been German communists, that government would have acted quickly to incarcerate those responsible and break up similar organizations. The Taliban did nothing. In fact, as a government, they continued to offer safe haven to Osama Bin Laden and his lackeys even after it had been confirmed that they were indeed responsible for September 11th.

And stop with the red herrings. The Taliban were an obvious threat to the national security of the United States of America. They were providing sanction for terrorist organizations who had hit and still intended to hit civilian targets. In that case, regimé-change was fully justified.

On this board, you get a rather different view on that. In this thread i have seen people talking seriously about attacking North Korea and Saudi Arabia, and that scares me as hell.

I seriously doubt whether we’ll ever invade North Korea. Better to contain Kim until he drops dead and the country self-destructs. Even given South Korean and Chinese aid, the DPRK is on its last leg.

Saudi Arabia? I personally believe that Saudi Arabia will escape retribution and regimé-change – even if deserved.

Of course France and co. wanted to protect their own interests, everyone wants that. But there is a line on how far you should go, and the US crosses that line all the time. Like right now in Iraq.

So it’s okay to shield a merciless dictator that represents a clear threat to the national security of his neighbors as long as there isn’t a shooting war that offends your idealistic sensibilities?

At least not by a solution that gives birth to more conflicts. And that so-called 'solution' are war. Maybe an acknowledged Palestinian state would be a good start?

We’re trying to move toward the Palestinian state. The problem is that we’ve not been able to harness the political side of this situation – the one that forces Arafat and Sharon into a never-ending circle of violence. At least Washington has now done some footwork toward Palestinian statehood.

“Gives birth to more conflicts?” You think letting Hussein and the Taliban stick around would be less dangerous?

Yeah, but i'm also familiar with the christian term 'Crusade', a term president Bush seems to like a lot. They are practically the same thing.

We’re not trying to eradicate Islam. There will still be an Iraq – albeit different – once we’re finished.

And what gives you, with a president that uses the same arguments as popes in the 14th century (they'll get their judgement by god if they are innocent, so let's kill them now), to judge another as more primitive than yourself? What in the whole world gives you any kind of right to express such an opinion about another culture? How do you know that they are not interested in your respect, tolerance, or understanding? If they want to stay in the 10th century, which they obviously not do (they should be in the 13th by now, according to islamic calendar), why not simply let them?

They killed our people or intend to do so. That means we’ve got to do something about it even if it messes with your idealistic outlook on the globe.

[meNNis]

Ah yes, and by the way, you still have not backed up your earlier statement :rolleyes:

You didn't specify a statement for me to back up, remember? You instead elected to commit a rhetorical seppuku.

Sigh...If I had more patience, perhaps I would ask you, for a third time, to prove your claim that the U.S. does not care about the rest of the world, but alas, it is painfully obvious that you either cannot or will not, so I give up. You win, are you happy? I don't have the time for this endless exchange of differences in our opinions anyways it seems.

DURANDAL: Cleaned up quoting. Deleted post complaining about quoting.

[Durandal]

IX. 5-6: ?Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them?

IV.76: ?Those who believe fight in the cause of God?

VIII.39-42: ?Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God?s.?

IV.74: ?Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God?s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.?

I'd really like to see the Skeptics Annotated Bible take on the Qua'ran, especially in light of this "Islam is a religion of peace" bullshit.

[meNNis]

Appreciated, Durandal.

And yes, anyone that knows anything about Islam knows that it is far from a religion promoting Peace and Tolerance. But then again, the bible is the same way....

[Eleas]

Sigh...If I had more patience, perhaps I would ask you, for a third time, to prove your claim that the U.S. does not care about the rest of the world, but alas, it is painfully obvious that you either cannot or will not, so I give up.

Well, that's a relief, because that way I don't have to refer you to the prelude of the Iraqi invasion, where the US just ran over the opinions of the rest of the world, no matter what they were.

You win, are you happy? I don't have the time for this endless exchange of differences in our opinions anyways it seems.

Not really happy, no, just ticking off the list. Was there ever any doubt?

And yes, anyone that knows anything about Islam knows that it is far from a religion promoting Peace and Tolerance. But then again, the bible is the same way....

Yep. Too bad, but such is life, I guess.

[Axis Kast]

Eleas, you quesiton what right we have to disregard the opinions of the rest of the world.

But what right does the rest of the world have to disregard our own concerns? Nobody save Israel really shares our apprehension over war with Iraq.

[RogueIce]

Not really happy, no, just ticking off the list. Was there ever any doubt?

Isn't that just a tad bit concieted? That's not quite a flame in what I've seen of them, so much as "I'm smarter than you, so of course I won!"

Just my opinion, anyway. Maybe I interpreted it wrong.

[Queeb Salaron]

To Eleas and Marina:

I know I have no place in your discussion. But I wanted to interject a little bit. It seems to me that one of you is willing to end an otherwise good friendship over political differences. Simply put, that's ludicrous. I've had a friend for years, a girl I love dearly, who is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. She's the kind of girl that voted for Bush only because Buchanan wasn't running; you know the type. And I'm a leftist "commie pinko" pacifist, just left of Lenin. We bump heads more often than not, but we don't see the other as either unpatriotic (in my case) or peacenik scum (in her case). Regardless of our political agendas, we're both just people with personalities. We are not comprised of our beliefs, though they are important to us. You can't hate someone because they believe something different than you. Judge them on what they do, what they say, how they say it, how they come off... Don't hate each other because of the political spectrum. That's just too complicated.

[/intrusive rant]

[Durandal]

But what right does the rest of the world have to disregard our own concerns? Nobody save Israel really shares our apprehension over war with Iraq.

Our "concerns" about Iraq are hardly justifiable.
Initially, Shrub turned his attention there because he claimed that Iraq had terrorist connections.

They don't. He never proved that they did.

Then, he started bitching about how Iraq was defying UN resolutions, and yet Israel has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions, and we give them billions of dollars in military support every year.

Now, we're going over there to free the Iraqi people, like that was our intent all along. Shrub used the mere accusation of terrorism connections to focus on Iraq, and then he started harping about weapons of mass destruction so everyone would forget that he never justified his initial concern over Iraq in the first place. Then he leapt off that basis over to the "free the Iraqi people" one because inspectors didn't find a whole lot of weapons of mass destruction, and found nothing that Saddam could possibly directly threaten the United States with.

So, we have to justify our concern over Iraq first, and Shrub did an utterly piss-poor job of it. That is why the rest of the world can feel free to ignore our professed concerns with Iraq.

[Dalton]

And Dalton, Flaming is my perogative. Especially in this forum, I would think.

Flamage and ad hominims without argument is still TROLLING.

[MKSheppard]

Well, that's a relief, because that way I don't have to refer you to the prelude of the Iraqi invasion, where the US just ran over the opinions of the rest of the world, no matter what they were.

Then how do you explain all the diplomatic work that was being done
in the UN the last couple of months? If the US didn't give a shit about
world opinion, like you claim, we would have gone to war about 3 months
ago.