PDA

View Full Version : What Happened To



the_phoenix612
12-29-2010, 10:08 PM
My 5 Islamic Misconceptions thread? I was awful proud of those posts! If one of y'all threadbombed it imma be mad atchoo.

yankee
12-29-2010, 10:20 PM
suicide bomber got it...

Favpack
12-29-2010, 10:21 PM
The Aspen Laser?

the_phoenix612
12-30-2010, 12:20 AM
Who f'd it?

rwilleby
12-30-2010, 03:36 AM
Dang it... I was enjoying the conversation and was in the middle of a response... I've been out making money and I come back and ZAP!

pied
12-30-2010, 08:23 AM
suicide bomber got it...

Great line, ou still sucks.

Thread was some pretty good conversation in my opinion. Didn't see anything to zap.

cyfallsbooster2
12-30-2010, 09:43 AM
suicide bomber got it...

must have been muslim.:rolleyes:

DrEdward
12-30-2010, 09:53 AM
Same thing happened to the mosque thread, so there was no doubt that it would eventually happen to the suicidal targeted one. There was some good stuff in that one as well.

Dawg Fan
12-30-2010, 12:44 PM
I thought it was a pretty good thread with many good points on both sides. Sorry to see that one go.

FRS90
12-30-2010, 01:12 PM
My 5 Islamic Misconceptions thread? I was awful proud of those posts! If one of y'all threadbombed it imma be mad atchoo.

cool story bro.

CrusaderDidz
12-30-2010, 02:37 PM
The last post I saw was one of mine and none of the posts ahead of it had racial slurs or anything like that. I came back later (about 3 hours) to respond to a longer post i didn't have enough time to earlier and it was gone. I didn't see any reason to shut it down unless i missed something in that three hours.

slorch
12-30-2010, 03:10 PM
obviously, it was beheaded...:heli:

slcdragonfan
12-30-2010, 03:49 PM
only think I can think of was a certain reference to male genitalia and religion. And no, I didn't report it...

the_phoenix612
12-30-2010, 04:29 PM
only think I can think of was a certain reference to male genitalia and religion. And no, I didn't report it...
haha my bad then

rwilleby
12-30-2010, 04:31 PM
It makes it tough to have a serious conversation when people have to insert their childish images and comments, many of which have nothing to do with the topic... One of the things I like about the Yard is the varied points of view... That's how people learn and form opinions about topics they might not have had an opportunity to discuss... Maybe if the red dot of "The Laser" sight would hit some of these kids they might be more considerate of people wanting to talk "outside" their normal sphere... Just saying...

mad_fan
12-30-2010, 06:50 PM
I commented on OPs P E N I S POST...
:)

mad_fan
12-30-2010, 06:52 PM
It makes it tough to have a serious conversation when people have to insert their childish images and comments, many of which have nothing to do with the topic... One of the things I like about the Yard is the varied points of view... That's how people learn and form opinions about topics they might not have had an opportunity to discuss... Maybe if the red dot of "The Laser" sight would hit some of these kids they might be more considerate of people wanting to talk "outside" their normal sphere... Just saying...

I just commented on images...so I still has virgins coming???
:rolleyes:

BDB
12-30-2010, 06:56 PM
It makes it tough to have a serious conversation when people have to insert their childish images and comments, many of which have nothing to do with the topic... One of the things I like about the Yard is the varied points of view... That's how people learn and form opinions about topics they might not have had an opportunity to discuss... Maybe if the red dot of "The Laser" sight would hit some of these kids they might be more considerate of people wanting to talk "outside" their normal sphere... Just saying...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldie64xJz91qaddy4.jpg

mad_fan
12-30-2010, 07:02 PM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldie64xJz91qaddy4.jpg

Yep...

mad_fan
12-30-2010, 07:04 PM
obviously, it was beheaded...:heli:

But it got stoned first...:cool:

rwilleby
12-30-2010, 08:18 PM
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldie64xJz91qaddy4.jpg

Ha! No, I don't get mad... Those little red dots... Stand still now... wait for it... wait for it...

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2010/07/predators-laser-dots-scene.jpg

BDB
12-30-2010, 08:23 PM
Ha! No, I don't get mad... Those little red dots... Stand still now... wait for it... wait for it...

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2010/07/predators-laser-dots-scene.jpg

this is me caring >>> http://nannerpuss.ytmnd.com/

BDB
12-30-2010, 08:26 PM
Ha! No, I don't get mad... Those little red dots... Stand still now... wait for it... wait for it...

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/uploads/2010/07/predators-laser-dots-scene.jpg

also broken link is broken.

rwilleby
12-30-2010, 10:10 PM
also broken link is broken.

You must have a PC... Works fine over here...

BDB
12-31-2010, 04:32 AM
You must have a PC... Works fine over here...

broken link is broken.

Mong Hu
01-04-2011, 05:30 PM
My 5 Islamic Misconceptions thread? I was awful proud of those posts! If one of y'all threadbombed it imma be mad atchoo.

I thought the admins got rid of it because the article you posted was so full of misinformation and fallacies that they deemed it not worthy for consumption in the Yard and that's sayin' something.:D

the_phoenix612
01-04-2011, 09:09 PM
I thought the admins got rid of it because the article you posted was so full of misinformation and fallacies that they deemed it not worthy for consumption in the Yard and that's sayin' something.:D
:rolleyes: You wanna pick up where rwilleby left off? There was some good old-fashioned @ss-kicking going on there.

LR46
01-04-2011, 10:01 PM
:rolleyes: You wanna pick up where rwilleby left off? There was some good old-fashioned @ss-kicking going on there.

That an a drunk Irishman will get you killed every time. :yes: Someone with some sanity put a pin in it and it went booooom. :cool:

CrusaderDidz
01-05-2011, 11:29 AM
:rolleyes: You wanna pick up where rwilleby left off? There was some good old-fashioned @ss-kicking going on there.

fallacies? what fallacies the article said they were tolerant to other religions and they were. When they conquered southern spain unprovoked (200+ years before crusades) they were nice enough to demolish the old cathedral build a fancy new mosque. The same thing happend with jews the temple mount had not been rebuilt for hundreds of years so the religiously tolerant muslims build a place of worship right on top of the most holy place for jews.

slcdragonfan
01-05-2011, 12:52 PM
fallacies? what fallacies the article said they were tolerant to other religions and they were. When they conquered southern spain unprovoked (200+ years before crusades) they were nice enough to demolish the old cathedral build a fancy new mosque. The same thing happend with jews the temple mount had not been rebuilt for hundreds of years so the religiously tolerant muslims build a place of worship right on top of the most holy place for jews.

kinda similar to what Christians did in Jerusalem. and many other places. Seems it was the thing to do back then. :)

Anyone remember what happened to the Maya/Inca/etc civilizations, with their language being destroyed and written word destroyed as well? Seems it was the thing to do....

Blaming anyone for what happened 5-10 centuries ago or further back seems ludicrous to me, how about you?

the_phoenix612
01-05-2011, 02:15 PM
fallacies? what fallacies the article said they were tolerant to other religions and they were. When they conquered southern spain unprovoked (200+ years before crusades) they were nice enough to demolish the old cathedral build a fancy new mosque. The same thing happend with jews the temple mount had not been rebuilt for hundreds of years so the religiously tolerant muslims build a place of worship right on top of the most holy place for jews.
If you continue to look at this ethnocentrally, you're never going to see the big picture. Christians have been waging war on other religions far longer than any other big religion. Heck, after 435, non-Christians in the Roman Empire were hunted down and killed in the name of Christianity. Acknowledging this does not somehow make your religion useless, but ignoring it cheapens everyone's cultural history.

Decree of the Emperor Theodosius:
"We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of the sign of the venerable Christian religion."

Furthermore, the Moorish state you referred to is noted as an absolute high point in religious tolerance and the interdependence of the "Big Three". I really don't feel like teaching you history today, so go and read this. You might just learn something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Andalus#Society

Do you really truly believe that Christianity is somehow inherently better or more innocent of atrocity than other "major" world religions?

CrusaderDidz
01-05-2011, 02:29 PM
kinda similar to what Christians did in Jerusalem. and many other places. Seems it was the thing to do back then. :)

Anyone remember what happened to the Maya/Inca/etc civilizations, with their language being destroyed and written word destroyed as well? Seems it was the thing to do....

Blaming anyone for what happened 5-10 centuries ago or further back seems ludicrous to me, how about you?

I couldnt agree any more but article talked about how tolerant the muslim world was 5-10 centuries ago so me talking about things that happened that long ago were extremely relevant and i also never denied persecution by chrisitians in the middle ages or said people like Cortez were extremely Tolerant. The article tried to say that the muslims were extremely tolerant in the medival times which is why i posted the extremely intolerant actions made by muslims during this period. Some of my last posts talked about how more importantly christian majority countries today are far more tolerant than muslim majority countries today. Notre Dame was the best team in america 23 years ago but it doesnt make sense for me to say they are better than TCU today because of what they once were or in the Muslim tolerance example maybe were. In a chrisitian majority country like the USA you can be homosexual and say whatever you want about chrisitianity. In muslim majority country like pakistan there are anti blasphemy laws and in a muslim majority country like qatar homosexuality is a crime punishable up to five years in prison.

the_phoenix612
01-05-2011, 02:38 PM
I couldnt agree any more but article talked about how tolerant the muslim world was 5-10 centuries ago so me talking about things that happened that long ago were extremely relevant and i also never denied persecution by chrisitians in the middle ages or said people like Cortez were extremely Tolerant. The article tried to say that the muslims were extremely tolerant in the medival times which is why i posted the extremely intolerant actions made by muslims during this period. Some of my last posts talked about how more importantly christian majority countries today are far more tolerant than muslim majority countries today. Notre Dame was the best team in america 23 years ago but it doesnt make sense for me to say they are better than TCU today because of what they once were or in the Muslim tolerance example maybe were. In a chrisitian majority country like the USA you can be homosexual and say whatever you want about chrisitianity. In muslim majority country like pakistan there are anti blasphemy laws and in a muslim majority country like qatar homosexuality is a crime punishable up to five years in prison.
The religion has nothing to do with that. You're conflating backwards governments with religions other than yours. There are plenty of muslim majority countries with wonderful traditions of tolerance and individual liberties and plenty of christian majority countries with the opposite.

Your arguments are fallacious at best, poorly written and poorly formatted. Please start using the enter key so we can read your posts without getting a headache (well, at least without getting a headache from the formatting. The content still gives me a headache)

CrusaderDidz
01-05-2011, 02:54 PM
If you continue to look at this ethnocentrally, you're never going to see the big picture. Christians have been waging war on other religions far longer than any other big religion. Heck, after 435, non-Christians in the Roman Empire were hunted down and killed in the name of Christianity. Acknowledging this does not somehow make your religion useless, but ignoring it cheapens everyone's cultural history.

Decree of the Emperor Theodosius:
"We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of the sign of the venerable Christian religion."

Furthermore, the Moorish state you referred to is noted as an absolute high point in religious tolerance and the interdependence of the "Big Three". I really don't feel like teaching you history today, so go and read this. You might just learn something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Andalus#Society

Do you really truly believe that Christianity is somehow inherently better or more innocent of atrocity than other "major" world religions?

I dont think you read my posts fully. No I do not think Chrisitianty is an innocent religion that has never in world history commited or inpsired intolerance and has done nothing but good I clearly stated this already.

My main point is that extremist Islam is a far bigger problem TODAY then any other religious extremism has been. You continue to state things that happened happened long ago and are not problems today in this post you went back 1500+ years. Now before you say "well you posted old stuff too" that stuff was extremely relevant since you and the article were trying to say that the muslims were tolerant during that time period. I have never stated that the Christians under the roman emperor you quoted or any other historical things about christians being intolerhant were in fact tolerant. You and the article however said that people who destoryed relisgious buildings and built their own on top of them were tolerant.

Why do you continue to beat around the bush and ignore the facts. I say that Muslims who were unprovoked conquered christian lands, destoryed their place of worship, and then built their own on top of it and you call this a high point for religious tolerance. With your logic a chrisitian army can conquer southern Pakistan for no other reason than they want to take it over and make them think like them. After they are victourious in conquering the lands theycan tear down mosques and build cathedrals on top of them and you will consider these actions as a high point of religious tolerance. You also do not even mention the building of a mosque on top of the temple mount the most holy place for Jews. I guess if i build a big ole cathedral in the middle of Mecca i will be tolerant just like the Medival muslims.

CrusaderDidz
01-05-2011, 03:15 PM
The religion has nothing to do with that. You're conflating backwards governments with religions other than yours. There are plenty of muslim majority countries with wonderful traditions of tolerance and individual liberties and plenty of christian majority countries with the opposite.

Your arguments are fallacious at best, poorly written and poorly formatted. Please start using the enter key so we can read your posts without getting a headache (well, at least without getting a headache from the formatting. The content still gives me a headache)

I guess you didn't see the last post before the other thread got shut down. This is an internet forum not Rhetoric 1302 I quickly look over my posts for major errors (they slip through a lot but people still know what i am talking about) and do not go through them with a fine tooth comb. This is an irelavant and smart alleck remark and rather childish in my opinion (I offered to examine them more closely in the future if you were really wanted me too that badly but you never responded so i didn't).

I would also like for you to tell me how government decisions issued out by religious people and supported by local religious leaders have nothing to do with a religion. A governor in Pakistan recently fought against these laws and was killed. Several Imams have refused to perform is funeral for his oppostion to the laws so please tell me how Pakistans anti-blasphemy laws have nothing to do with religion.

Please also show me where the Qatari government said "We are a secular government and the anti-gay laws have nothing to do with the criticisms of homosexuality in the Quran". If they did say this then please tell me why they do have these laws since it has nothing to do with a religion and soley the government.

the_phoenix612
01-05-2011, 03:21 PM
I guess you didn't see the last post before the other thread got shut down. This is an internet forum not Rhetoric 1302 I quickly look over my posts for major errors (they slip through a lot but people still know what i am talking about) and do not go through them with a fine tooth comb. This is an irelavant and smart alleck remark and rather childish in my opinion (I offered to examine them more closely in the future if you were really wanted me too that badly but you never responded so i didn't).

I would also like for you to tell me how government decisions issued out by religious people and supported by local religious leaders have nothing to do with a religion. A governor in Pakistan recently fought against these laws and was killed. Several Imams have refused to perform is funeral for his oppostion to the laws so please tell me how Pakistans anti-blasphemy laws have nothing to do with religion.

Please also show me where the Qatari government said "We are a secular government and the anti-gay laws have nothing to do with the criticisms of homosexuality in the Quran". If they did say this then please tell me why they do have these laws since it has nothing to do with a religion and soley the government.
Religion offers small-minded, bigoted people an avenue to pursue policies of hatred and discrimination against historically mistreated minorities. When you combine poor, largely uneducated countries with overwhelming religious majorities with any of the various monotheistic religions, you create an almost irresistible environment for "evil" people to set up a regime. You see this time and again throughout history, and the fact that the current iterations are Islamic have little to do with Islam, as it is inherently no more violent or hate-filled than Christianity is.

That is to say, for reasonable people, neither is violent or hate-filled, but all organized religions foster an atmosphere of exclusivity that engenders violence against minorities that is usually either sanctioned or at least permitted by the majority religion.

Mong Hu
01-05-2011, 09:17 PM
:rolleyes: You wanna pick up where rwilleby left off? There was some good old-fashioned @ss-kicking going on there.

I don't know where rwilleby left off (he is more than capable of handling himself) but if you want to try and defend the academic bona fides of an article that was published on a website that is the remnant of a now defunct cheap knock off of MAD magazine that was written not by a paid staff writer but rather by a regular poster to that site who goes by the name of an obscure Italian Renaissance sculptor and has published other articles on that same said site by titles such as "The 6 Most Strangely Convincing Real-Life Curses" or "The 5 Most Inspiring Things Ever Accomplished (While Drunk)" then you go right ahead and make your case. :rofl:

In regards to the article in question lets just say the author has very little understanding of demographics, history, or religion but he does have the vocabulary of a Navy sailor. Anyone who can make their points demonstrating such a command of the modern English lexicon is certainly worthy of the respect of academics and layman alike I am sure.:rolleyes:

The first error the author makes is associating the veil in Islam with the burqa and later the niqab. The veil in Islam is much more commonly associated not with the either of the previous two garments which cover a woman from head to toe but rather with the hijab which is a scarf which covers the head and in some situations may be used to cover the face as well. The hijab is much more prevalent in the Muslim world. We have had girls at our school who have worn the hijab and I teach in a pretty white suburban school. The hijab, or the veil, is very common in the islamic world despite this authors attempt to associate the veil exclusively with the much less common burqa and niqab. He is being disingenuous and deceitful IMO.

The author further goes on to make the assumption that millions in the West think all Muslim women wear burqas or niqabs. I find it curious that he attacks Westerners for stereotyping Muslims by himself stereotyping Westerners. I personally find it offensive and I am sure you do as well given your finer Western sensibilities.

He then goes on to describe Thomas Jefferson's efforts to teach himself Arabic using his own copy of the Q'uran which is of course historically accurate and woefully incomplete. What he fails to mention is that Jefferson did this in an effort to understand better the Barbary Pirates who were raiding American ships in the Mediterranean and taking American sailors to be sold into slavery. What is further he neglects completely to mention the conclusions Jefferson comes to as a result of his study. His conclusions can be clearly seen in his first acts as President of the United States, declaring war on the Barbary states and sending the Marines to, as the song goes, the shores of Tripoli. Again the author is either ignorant or he is willfully manipulating the facts.

Jacopo then goes on to reference that first iftar dinner hosted by Jefferson. In actuality to call the dinner Jefferson hosted an iftar is to stretch the truth to its very limits. An iftar is an evening meal shared communally by Muslims to break the fast during the month of Ramadan after the sun has set. While Jefferson's dinner did take place after the sun had set during the month of Ramadan it was certainly not an observance by a Muslim religious community in any sense. In fact the dinner was originally scheduled for 3:30 and was a diplomatic overture to the envoy of the Bey of Tunis, Sidi Soliman Mellimelli. It seems that Mr. Mellimelli was sent here by the Bey of Tunis because the American Navy had seized one of his ships as it tried to run the blockade of Tripoli. The Bey of Tunis threatened war and demanded tribute. He only got one of the two.:D None the less to call this diplomatic dinner an iftar is a gross misrepresentation of historical fact by any fair-minded person's interpretation. It is more accurately described as an act of diplomatic courtesy in an effort to reach a peaceful end to a difficult diplomatic situation not a religious observance.

Jacopo's Adam's quote is also grossly misrepresented. Jacopo says Adams describes Muhammad as one of the great "inquirers after truth". In reality the full quote comes from Adam's Thoughts on Government and is as follows:


All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred have agreed in this.

The full quote is far less flattering of Mahomet that what Jacopo leads us to believe IMO.

Certainly after being told by Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman of Tripoli in 1786 while in London to discuss the difficulties the young country was having with the Barbary states that


[the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

both Adams and Jefferson had a very favorable impression of Islam.

I could go on to debunk his claim that 10% of the worlds Arabs are Christian using the CIA's world fact book data (the actual number is probably closer to 4%) or his claim that the Muslim scholar Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī f:Censor:g invented Algebra (in fact Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī's first book was titled Book on Addition and Subtraction after the Method of the Indians and as the name might suggest much of what he "developed" was learned from India). In fact algebra, while it certainly was developed further by the efforts of Muslim scholars such as Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī has roots in India, Greece, and the ancient Babylonians mathematical systems. To say that the Muslims invented algebra is again a gross misrepresentation.

Well I suppose this is enough for the night. Looking forward to your response if the admins don't zap the thread first. I don't think they like our discussions about the religion of peace and really who could blame them? Certainly not Theo van Gogh, Molly Norris, Daniel Pearlman, Salman Rushdie, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, or Jyllands-Posten.

the_phoenix612
01-06-2011, 12:10 AM
I don't know where rwilleby left off (he is more than capable of handling himself) but if you want to try and defend the academic bona fides of an article that was published on a website that is the remnant of a now defunct cheap knock off of MAD magazine that was written not by a paid staff writer but rather by a regular poster to that site who goes by the name of an obscure Italian Renaissance sculptor and has published other articles on that same said site by titles such as "The 6 Most Strangely Convincing Real-Life Curses" or "The 5 Most Inspiring Things Ever Accomplished (While Drunk)" then you go right ahead and make your case. :rofl:

In regards to the article in question lets just say the author has very little understanding of demographics, history, or religion but he does have the vocabulary of a Navy sailor. Anyone who can make their points demonstrating such a command of the modern English lexicon is certainly worthy of the respect of academics and layman alike I am sure.:rolleyes:

The first error the author makes is associating the veil in Islam with the burqa and later the niqab. The veil in Islam is much more commonly associated not with the either of the previous two garments which cover a woman from head to toe but rather with the hijab which is a scarf which covers the head and in some situations may be used to cover the face as well. The hijab is much more prevalent in the Muslim world. We have had girls at our school who have worn the hijab and I teach in a pretty white suburban school. The hijab, or the veil, is very common in the islamic world despite this authors attempt to associate the veil exclusively with the much less common burqa and niqab. He is being disingenuous and deceitful IMO.

The author further goes on to make the assumption that millions in the West think all Muslim women wear burqas or niqabs. I find it curious that he attacks Westerners for stereotyping Muslims by himself stereotyping Westerners. I personally find it offensive and I am sure you do as well given your finer Western sensibilities.

Lemme stop you right there. We've moved on from the article. It's an article from a humor site. Congratulations for showing off your knowledge of Muslim fashion, I hope it makes you sleep better tonight. The rest is a tl'dr that is totally off-topic from what we were talking about. We had some troll with crusaders in his name come in and post a bunch of rambling fictions cobbled together from hazy recollections of Fox News stories chain mail that were embarrassingly inaccurate.

Then rwilleby and I were talking about the relative merits of Christian-dominated lands and Muslim-dominated lands in the early 1000s and the relative levels of religious tolerance between them. I mentioned, as did pied, that Muslim lands in the Early to High Middle Ages were, in stark contrast to contemporary Christian lands, areas of notable religious tolerance and in fact produced some of the greatest scholarly works of the Jewish tradition.

There were also attempts made to clarify the motives behind the Crusades, away from crusaders' cries of "Dey tuk er jerbz! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobacks)" and toward a less ethnocentric view of border warring and an acknowledgment of the Church's attempts to grab power.

Then apparently rwilleby made a post before the thread was lazered. Who knows what was in there.

CrusaderDidz
01-06-2011, 04:55 PM
Lemme stop you right there. We've moved on from the article. It's an article from a humor site. Congratulations for showing off your knowledge of Muslim fashion, I hope it makes you sleep better tonight. The rest is a tl'dr that is totally off-topic from what we were talking about. We had some troll with crusaders in his name come in and post a bunch of rambling fictions cobbled together from hazy recollections of Fox News stories chain mail that were embarrassingly inaccurate.

Then rwilleby and I were talking about the relative merits of Christian-dominated lands and Muslim-dominated lands in the early 1000s and the relative levels of religious tolerance between them. I mentioned, as did pied, that Muslim lands in the Early to High Middle Ages were, in stark contrast to contemporary Christian lands, areas of notable religious tolerance and in fact produced some of the greatest scholarly works of the Jewish tradition.

There were also attempts made to clarify the motives behind the Crusades, away from crusaders' cries of "Dey tuk er jerbz! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobacks)" and toward a less ethnocentric view of border warring and an acknowledgment of the Church's attempts to grab power.

Then apparently rwilleby made a post before the thread was lazered. Who knows what was in there.

How are my quotes like foxnews conspiricies. Did I say that the Obama symbol was really a secret muslim symbol and that he and all the evil muslims (all of whom are terrorists of course) are gonna take over america and imposed sharia law on us? The answer is no i didn't say antyhing remotely close to that or any other opinionated conspiracy theory. All I said was that the mideval muslims were extremly intolerhant and not even close to being tolerant like you and the article say they were and that Muslim extremism is a far bigger problem today than christian or any other religious extremism. I used facts not opinion and definantly not things I made up to show that there are more civilian casualties by muslim terrorists than any other other religious terroists. I aso never stated that the christians of the middle ages were tolerant all I said was that the muslims were also not tolerant.

You on the other hand have tried to argue that people who conquered lands unprovoked and destroyed other religious buidlings were religiously tolerant and that government laws which specificaly are against blaspheming a specific religious figure has nothing to do with religion.

You have retored to name calling because your laughable excuse of an argument has failed. The only way you can save face is by discrediting me. If I said that the chrisitians were tolerant in the middle ages it would discredit me. It wouldn't make you right but it would make my argument flawed thus causing you to win or worse case scnario draw. If laughable conspiricies which had little or now merit to them were my argument then this would also discredit my argument and give the same possible outcomes. Your comparison to me of the people in that South Park episode are also false. If I had said things like "too many muslims are moving here we need to get them out before they take over" or "muslims in the world have too much power i think hard working chrisitians should have all the power" then it would be a fair comparison but i not only said nothing of muslim immigration to the US but didn't even mention muslims living in this country. I also did not mention muslim countries stepping up and having a lot more power then they did 50 years ago. You made equally false comparisons about some of the facts in the other thread and tried to pass them off as "christian equivalents" but they were in a different category. I wonder if you actually think these comparisons are equal or if you just make them up, throw some clever wording around them, and hope people are dumb enough to believe what you say. If you want to post facts(i notice you still haven't touched the temple mount one or my hypothetical non-muslim examples for it and the cordoba mosque) and argue with me thats fine and I will still have respect for you like I do for BDB even though he was completely against me. If you want to take the easy road and name call or claim I had arguments which I never even remotely had then I will lose all respect for you unless your profile lied you are only one year younger than me so please do not retort to childish things.

the_phoenix612
01-06-2011, 06:37 PM
How are my quotes like foxnews conspiricies. Did I say that the Obama symbol was really a secret muslim symbol and that he and all the evil muslims (all of whom are terrorists of course) are gonna take over america and imposed sharia law on us? The answer is no i didn't say antyhing remotely close to that or any other opinionated conspiracy theory. All I said was that the mideval muslims were extremly intolerhant and not even close to being tolerant like you and the article say they were and that Muslim extremism is a far bigger problem today than christian or any other religious extremism. I used facts not opinion and definantly not things I made up to show that there are more civilian casualties by muslim terrorists than any other other religious terroists. I aso never stated that the christians of the middle ages were tolerant all I said was that the muslims were also not tolerant.

You on the other hand have tried to argue that people who conquered lands unprovoked and destroyed other religious buidlings were religiously tolerant and that government laws which specificaly are against blaspheming a specific religious figure has nothing to do with religion.

You have retored to name calling because your laughable excuse of an argument has failed. The only way you can save face is by discrediting me. If I said that the chrisitians were tolerant in the middle ages it would discredit me. It wouldn't make you right but it would make my argument flawed thus causing you to win or worse case scnario draw. If laughable conspiricies which had little or now merit to them were my argument then this would also discredit my argument and give the same possible outcomes. Your comparison to me of the people in that South Park episode are also false. If I had said things like "too many muslims are moving here we need to get them out before they take over" or "muslims in the world have too much power i think hard working chrisitians should have all the power" then it would be a fair comparison but i not only said nothing of muslim immigration to the US but didn't even mention muslims living in this country. I also did not mention muslim countries stepping up and having a lot more power then they did 50 years ago. You made equally false comparisons about some of the facts in the other thread and tried to pass them off as "christian equivalents" but they were in a different category. I wonder if you actually think these comparisons are equal or if you just make them up, throw some clever wording around them, and hope people are dumb enough to believe what you say. If you want to post facts(i notice you still haven't touched the temple mount one or my hypothetical non-muslim examples for it and the cordoba mosque) and argue with me thats fine and I will still have respect for you like I do for BDB even though he was completely against me. If you want to take the easy road and name call or claim I had arguments which I never even remotely had then I will lose all respect for you unless your profile lied you are only one year younger than me so please do not retort to childish things.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uuCqsyqQObY/S9ZmqLeIlAI/AAAAAAAABEA/mHFRVjYAa2Q/s320/YouMad.jpg

:rofl:

BDB
01-06-2011, 07:32 PM
How are my quotes like foxnews conspiricies. Did I say that the Obama symbol was really a secret muslim symbol and that he and all the evil muslims (all of whom are terrorists of course) are gonna take over america and imposed sharia law on us? The answer is no i didn't say antyhing remotely close to that or any other opinionated conspiracy theory. All I said was that the mideval muslims were extremly intolerhant and not even close to being tolerant like you and the article say they were and that Muslim extremism is a far bigger problem today than christian or any other religious extremism. I used facts not opinion and definantly not things I made up to show that there are more civilian casualties by muslim terrorists than any other other religious terroists. I aso never stated that the christians of the middle ages were tolerant all I said was that the muslims were also not tolerant.

You on the other hand have tried to argue that people who conquered lands unprovoked and destroyed other religious buidlings were religiously tolerant and that government laws which specificaly are against blaspheming a specific religious figure has nothing to do with religion.

You have retored to name calling because your laughable excuse of an argument has failed. The only way you can save face is by discrediting me. If I said that the chrisitians were tolerant in the middle ages it would discredit me. It wouldn't make you right but it would make my argument flawed thus causing you to win or worse case scnario draw. If laughable conspiricies which had little or now merit to them were my argument then this would also discredit my argument and give the same possible outcomes. Your comparison to me of the people in that South Park episode are also false. If I had said things like "too many muslims are moving here we need to get them out before they take over" or "muslims in the world have too much power i think hard working chrisitians should have all the power" then it would be a fair comparison but i not only said nothing of muslim immigration to the US but didn't even mention muslims living in this country. I also did not mention muslim countries stepping up and having a lot more power then they did 50 years ago. You made equally false comparisons about some of the facts in the other thread and tried to pass them off as "christian equivalents" but they were in a different category. I wonder if you actually think these comparisons are equal or if you just make them up, throw some clever wording around them, and hope people are dumb enough to believe what you say. If you want to post facts(i notice you still haven't touched the temple mount one or my hypothetical non-muslim examples for it and the cordoba mosque) and argue with me thats fine and I will still have respect for you like I do for BDB even though he was completely against me. If you want to take the easy road and name call or claim I had arguments which I never even remotely had then I will lose all respect for you unless your profile lied you are only one year younger than me so please do not retort to childish things.

http://menversus.com/images/2d7yja0.gif

CrusaderDidz
01-06-2011, 08:37 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uuCqsyqQObY/S9ZmqLeIlAI/AAAAAAAABEA/mHFRVjYAa2Q/s320/YouMad.jpg

:rofl:

not really

you laughably call me a troll when you ignore factsI post, post irrelevant pictures which aren't even that funny, say tolerant people tear down buildings with different beliefs than theirs and that laws blatantly inspired by a certain religion have nothing to do with that religion (illogical arguments). I know i keep repeting these things but you refuse to give a logical answer to your reasoning behind either which is why I keep bringing it up.

If i am so wrong and you are an infallable genius then why don't you debunk all my arguments. If you do debunk them and I have none left i will admit your right and not post a bunch of lame pictures, name call, or say you said stuff you never remotely said to try and illegitmize your opinion (if i did do something like this it would probably mean i knew i was wrong or had nothing left but was too proud to admit i was;)).

BDB
01-06-2011, 11:08 PM
not really

you laughably call me a troll when you ignore factsI post, post irrelevant pictures which aren't even that funny, say tolerant people tear down buildings with different beliefs than theirs and that laws blatantly inspired by a certain religion have nothing to do with that religion (illogical arguments). I know i keep repeting these things but you refuse to give a logical answer to your reasoning behind either which is why I keep bringing it up.

If i am so wrong and you are an infallable genius then why don't you debunk all my arguments. If you do debunk them and I have none left i will admit your right and not post a bunch of lame pictures, name call, or say you said stuff you never remotely said to try and illegitmize your opinion (if i did do something like this it would probably mean i knew i was wrong or had nothing left but was too proud to admit i was;)).

your arguments are either pretty vague, not really unprovable, or spun the **** up. you're like a (i'm assuming) younger goowls. i'll most likely reply to your posts the same way i reply to his.

that being said...

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/412087_o.gif

did read lol

the_phoenix612
01-06-2011, 11:21 PM
not really

you laughably call me a troll when you ignore factsI post, post irrelevant pictures which aren't even that funny, say tolerant people tear down buildings with different beliefs than theirs and that laws blatantly inspired by a certain religion have nothing to do with that religion (illogical arguments). I know i keep repeting these things but you refuse to give a logical answer to your reasoning behind either which is why I keep bringing it up.

If i am so wrong and you are an infallable genius then why don't you debunk all my arguments. If you do debunk them and I have none left i will admit your right and not post a bunch of lame pictures, name call, or say you said stuff you never remotely said to try and illegitmize your opinion (if i did do something like this it would probably mean i knew i was wrong or had nothing left but was too proud to admit i was;)).
You don't post facts. You post assertions and then dare people to prove you wrong. I told you in the last thread that that is not a legitimate means of debate and I will not entertain it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uuCqsyqQObY/S9ZmupWCl4I/AAAAAAAABEQ/L37Cgv-8TPk/s400/you-mad-picture.png

CrusaderDidz
01-07-2011, 01:27 PM
I don't post facts?

Historical Fact: Muslims destroyed the Cordoba mosque in the middle ages, Historical fact: Muslims built a mosque on top of the temple mount. These are both proven historical facts which you can look up if you don't believe me. I also stated plenty of other facts in my earlier posts. Its funny cause in the other thread you criticized me for stated a blatant fact and then giving a small opinion, i think you called it the "lookie see I told you argument"(a very well worded attempt to discredit me, i do give you credit with your rhetoric skills). For most of my posts a give a clear cut opinion (IE Muslims were intolerant during the middle ages) and then state a true and relevant historical fact (IE temple mount mosque). I do not say "See I proved that some did something so therefore they're all evil and still are" and I do not try and find a small example of a stereotype and then generalize(IE "look here’s a picture of two Frenchman chain smoking, guess I was right and all or at least most of them do"). You and BDB on the other hand haven't posted any facts in awhile in fact I don't think you've posted any since I brought up the laws of Pakistan and Qatar to prove my whose more intolerant overall today argument. All you guys have posted is slanderous attacks and lame pictures.

My arguments are vague?

My two main arguments

MUSLIMS OF THE MIDDLE AGES WERE NOT RELIGOULSY TOLERANT.

HISTORIC FACTS TO SUPPORT MY STATEMENT (please look them up if you don't believe me): Muslim armies went in to Christian territory unprovoked and destroyed their religious buildings to build their own on top of them ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral%E2%80%93Mosque_of_C%C3%B3rdoba). Muslims built a mosque on top of the temple mount the most holy place for Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock) and beheaded every member of a Jewish tribe which had unconditionally surrendered to them(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza).

You claim that this is a high point in the history of religious tolerant but I see know evidence to support this. If you are trying to say that the Muslim invaders greatly influenced the language, culture, and technology of the Spanish kingdoms then i will agree with you but this is not religious tolerance. The Spanish later contribute a great amount to Central America’s language, culture, and technology but they were defiantly not tolerant to the indigenous religions (similar example).

MUSLIM EXTREMISM TODAY IS A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN CHRISITAN OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM.

More civilians are killed by Muslim terrorists than any other Religion's terrorist.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8308/pub_detail.asp

No before you go and say "Well that’s a bias right wing sight" I suggest you just look at the facts stated in the article and ignore the opinions. The attacks and number dead are drawn from legitimate media outlets (you can look them up if you think they lied about the number and made up half of the attacks).

Another main argument is the laws of majority Muslim countries and the laws majority Christian countries.

In Pakistan it is blatantly against the law to blaspheme the Prophet Mohamed not don't blaspheme Mohamed, Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Joseph Smith or any other religious figure but blatantly don't blaspheme the prophet of the Muslim religion.

In Texas (a pretty Christian and religious place) there are no such laws. You can say whatever you can pretty much say whatever you want about Jesus. Last spring there was a play which depicted the Christian prophet Jesus as a homosexual. This first of is claiming something false about Jesus but also claims that he did something blatantly against Christian teachings (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/25/texas-town-cross-plays-gay-christ/). This was perfectly legal in Texas were most people are at least somewhat religious and Christian. The same spring south park aired an episode in which Jesus snorting cocaine. This was also completely legal.

If someone in Karachi, Pakistan made a play about Mohamed being gay or made a cartoon with him using cocaine it would be illegal and he would be sent to jail if he’s not killed by one of the many extremists first.

These facts also illustrate how the extremist Muslims are a bigger problem. These two things happened in a majority Christian country and were extremely offensive to devout Christians (the play was on the bible belt) and yet no bombings or shootings. I’m sure they have had threats but that doesn't mean anything unless they at least try to carry it out. Meanwhile in the Countries of Sweden and Holland (neither of which are Muslim majority) cartoons are drawn of Mohamed. Explosions in Sweden and murder in Holland. There are many more examples of offended Muslims killing or exploding things over nonviolent attacks on their religion and plenty of examples of non violent attacks on the Christian or other religions in which there are not explosions or killings.

And please do not use the "well the Muslims were poor an uneducated". Yes i agree that many of the Muslims terrorists are extremely poor and uneducated but this is another misconception that all Muslim terrorists have these qualities and is the only reason there is so many Muslim terrorists. Two-thrids of the 9/11 hijackers were college educated (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/media/madrassa/NYTimes.htm). All except two came from Saudi Arabia an extremely rich Arab nation. One came from UAE another extremely rich nation (tallest building in the world and indoor skiing slope in the middle of a desert) and one was from Egypt (not on par with western world wealth and Saudi Arabia or UAE but still pretty development compared to rest of Muslim world and 95% of the other countries in Africa). These were all extremely smart people who lived pretty good not pissed of uneducated people jealous of air conditioning and HBO.

Some other points i have made but you have conveniently ignored

I DO NOT THINK ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS OR TERRORIST SYMPATHIZING

I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE ARE ZERO RELIGIOUS TERRORISTS AMONG CHRISTIANS, HINDUS, JEWS, SIKHS, OR BUHDISTS

I AM NOT INSECURE OR AFRAID OF A MUSLIM TAKING MY JEERB IVE NEVER MENTION MUSLIMS IN THIS COUNTRY JUST MUSLIMS IN MEDIVAL TIMES AND MUSLIMS EXTREMEISTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD

You haven't posted a relevant argument since a posted the blatantly intolerant and Islam inspired laws of the mid east, laws which are blatantly more intolerant to homosexuals or blasphemers than in any majority Christian country. The fact that I do not deny the Christian intolerance also takes ammunition away from you and takes away the moronic "well they both did it so its ok" and "well they were the lesser of two evils" argument.

This video pretty much sums up what i believe about the tolerance TODAY argument. The man is a Jewish raised atheist who is highly critical of the US so there is no bias towards them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmSz00dtXLc&feature=related

This is not a legitimate mean to debate?

Please explain, I also don't remember you saying this in the other (unless you’re referring to the troll comments). I posted way more controversial facts and opinions in the other thread and you still debated me then because you still had a lot of ammunition left. My posts are the same as yours (except no irrelevant pictures or slanderous remarks about you). I post a clear opinion a then post true and relevant facts. Sounds pretty legitimate to me oh wait but I post facts and arguments that show the medieval Muslims to in fact be intolerant which means Phoenix can't be right and therefore an illegitimate debate. I apologize.

Again if I am so wrong then tell me how the medieval Muslims are tolerant even though they tore down the religious buildings and tell me how Christian and all other extremisms are equal to Islamic extremism when the laws in Muslim countries are far more intolerant and more people are killed by Muslim terrorists.

I just put it through a quick spell/grammar check so if there's any sentences that aren't completely fluid feel free to spend another 15 minutes of your life sifting through it. If you do find some please have a hilarious nerdy comment next to them.

BDB
01-07-2011, 09:23 PM
I don't post facts?

Historicsl Fact: muslims destroyed the cordoba mosque in the middle ages, Historical fact: muslims built a mosque on top of the temple mount. during a time when there was not internetz or a mass media society they way we live today.

my arguments are vague? before this? a bit.

my two main arguments all eyes

MUSLIMS OF THE MIDDLE AGES WERE NOT RELIGOULSY TOLERANT. i won't argue that. but neither were the crusaders (lulz screen name)



MUSLIM EXTREMISM TODAY IS A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN CHRISITAN OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM. i'm not gonna link "la familia michoacana". google it. the cartel uses the bible, taliban uses the koran. both are drug runners.



Another main argument is the laws of majority muslim countries and the laws majority chrisitian countires. so.... instead of being tolerant and the land of opportunity, you want to us to snub muslims by acting the way the extremists do in countries where they have power? does. not. compute.


some other points i have made but you may have convinetly ignored

I DO NOT THINK ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS OR TERRORIST SYMPATHIZING cool story bro.

I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE ARE ZERO RELIGIOUS TERRORISTS AMONG CHRISTIANS, HINDUS, JEWS, SIKHS, OR BUHDISTS making sense

I AM NOT INSECURE OR AFRAID OF A MUSLIM TAKING MY JEERB IVE NEVER MENTION MUSLIMS IN THIS COUNTRY JUST MUSLIMS IN MEDIVAL TIMES AND MUSLIMS EXTREMEISTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD so bad people are bad?

lots of blahblahblah's

http://rlv.zcache.com/capslock_cruise_control_for_cool_postcard-p239655343994665456td81_210.jpg

the_phoenix612
01-08-2011, 12:29 AM
Historicsl ooh, close one there, buddy, but I'm sure it's a fluke and the rest of the post is better..
relivant starting to see a trend here.
generilze learn to spell?
heres not even close :)
RELIGOULSY uh oh, now he's angry
HISTORIC FACTS an historic occasion, historical facts. Learn the difference.
Chrisitan strike one on this one. It's a soft pitch too, you see it all the time.
religios tolerant religious is hard to spell!
but i see know evidence I see know dead people!
influnced lulz
definantly defiantly or definitely? Can't tell here.
indeginous you write like a child
bias right wing sight it's called a website, buddy. Not a websight.
I suggests you I suggests you learn to spell
legitmate You even type like an inbred redneck
blatanly hurr durr
agains just forgot a t here. I'll let it go
homoesexual. The word so scary you had to put in extra letters! Oh my!
This first of is claiming cracks me up
chirsitians Strike two. Again, you should know this one!
Meanqhile simple slip of the fingers, no biggie
muhmaed. derp
nonviollent I have this mental image of you, red-faced and pounding your keyboard you're so angry.
plany of example We have plany of examples of your illiteracy.
undeducated Yes you are.
misconption Misconception, or the conniption fit you're having?
two-thrids two-thrids of all americans can write better than you.
exepct except? Expect? Letters have meaning, you know...
buildin I can tell that you talk like this, too.
but still pretty develpoment Your post is still pretty stupoeid.
extremetly smart people something you know nothing about.
convinetly ignored or maybe just convinetly didn't read.
MEDIVAL angry again!
MUSLIMS EXTREMEISTS Muslim Extremists? No need for unnecessary pluralization here.
relavant This post is not relevant to grammatical construction or proper spelling.
intoerant Now the Muzlimz are in your toes! Look out!
intolerhant Is this the fourth time you've misspelled the same word?
chrisitian Hey look, strike three on YOUR OWN FREAKING RELIGION.
chrisitian OH NOES STRIKE FOUR! What shall we do now?
controvesial facts and opinions Spelling is not controversial.
medival muslims herp
ilegitimate derp
medival muslims Again with medieval! Doesn't your browser have a spell checK?
buildins Little red squiggles under your words are not bonus points. They mean you spelled it wrong.

tl'dfr.

Quoted for hilarity and slanderous behavior. :rofl:

CrusaderDidz
01-08-2011, 11:43 AM
http://rlv.zcache.com/capslock_cruise_control_for_cool_postcard-p239655343994665456td81_210.jpg

"during a time when there was not internetz or a mass media society they way we live today."

I only compared the medieval Muslims to the medieval Christians. The things they did back then have nothing to do with my opinion of them now unless it is something they have continually done since then. I also think you meant "the way we live today" i knew what you were saying and don’t care but grammar nerd Phoenix will throw a fit and laugh to himself.

"before this a bit"

at least your mature and don’t say "you don’t post facts and have vague arguments" when I do

"i won't argue that. but neither were the crusaders (lulz screen name)"

If you remember the article the whole thread was about "5 Islamic misconceptions" said the medieval Muslims were very tolerant people (phoenix refuses to let this go and say that they were intolerant). I don’t think the crusaders were tolerant people at all they pretty much killed everyone in Jerusalem when they got there and one group (or army) killed a bunch of Jews before they left Europe. The only reason crusaders is in my name is because my high school was the Archbishop Moeller Fighting Crusaders. Why they chose this name i don't know it was in my religion class there that they told me about the Jerusalem and Jew killing thing, they even told us the crusaders overall were a clear cut Muslim victory. I think they chose the name because a knight looked cool and

"so.... instead of being tolerant and the land of opportunity, you want to us to snub Muslims by acting the way the extremists do in countries where they have power? does. not. compute."

How am I being intolerant? Did I say don't let them build mosques in the US, burn them down if they do, or send them all back to Arabia or whatever country they originally came from? No I never said we should make our own anti-blasphemy laws about Jesus or any of the other of the intolerant laws in a lot of Muslims countries and implement them here to suppress non Christians or unreligious ones. My first point was the they were intolerant in the Middle Ages (article and phoenix said the opposite), my second point is that even if hypothetically they were the most tolerant people on earth at the time and the Christians were the most intolerant people on earth at the time does it really matter since far more intolerance is done in the name of Islam than Christianity today. All I’m doing is stating that there are some bad parts of the large religion of Islam and that those bad parts currently outnumber the bad parts of the other major religions. Never said they all do or that we should get rid of them all.

"so bad people are bad?"

Phoenix accused me of being an insecure redneck who reads fox news conspiracies and is afraid Muslims or some person with a different ethnicity and or religion is going to "take my jeerb". He posted no evidence from my posts to support this statement (as usual).

I agree that writing in all caps is lame. I did that for phoenix since he continues to beat around the bush and ignore the elephants in the room. I had to explain to him multiple times I wasn't the aforementioned narrow minded redneck and that I thought the Christians of the middle ages were not nice people and that Christians never did anything wrong.

CrusaderDidz
01-08-2011, 12:20 PM
tl'dfr.

Quoted for hilarity and slanderous behavior. :rofl:


I was going to go through my post with a fine tooth comb before I posted it but I have a social life outside of this forum and had to go somewhere. I thought about putting it in a word doc to check over the spelling and so I could read it over more later but it I thought you wouldn't or care and if you did comment about the spelling that you would at least post a counter argument with it. Guess I was wrong about both. I typed this in 10 minutes and then left since most people (aside from you) don't really care about perfect grammar (again this isn't Rhetoric 1302) but don't worry I'll make sure all my posts are perfect or near perfect from now on so you can’t wag the dog with this laughable attack little to no one cares about. By the way thanks for documenting every misspelled word and writing a hilarious nerdy comment next to them like I did learn in Rhet 1302 it is always good to have a peer revise your rough draft. I didn't have the time and more importantly the will to but apparently you did and my post is now free from all those errors thanks to your revisions. Thanks!;)

by the way BDB even said he thought the Medieval Muslims were intolerant
crusaderdidz:MUSLIMS OF THE MIDDLE AGES WERE NOT RELIGOULSY TOLERANT.
BDB: i won't argue that. but neither were the crusaders (lulz screen name)
:rofl:so how many people are on your side and think you and the article were right about the tolerant cathedral burning Medieval Muslims?

Keep ignoring my facts and making childish comments it really helps your argument and makes you look mature.

the_phoenix612
01-10-2011, 12:22 AM
I was going to go through my post with a fine tooth comb before I posted it but I have a social life outside of this forum and had to go somewhere. I thought about putting it in a word doc to check over the spelling and so I could read it over more later but it I thought you wouldn't or care and if you did comment about the spelling that you would at least post a counter argument with it. Guess I was wrong about both. I typed this in 10 minutes and then left since most people (aside from you) don't really care about perfect grammar (again this isn't Rhetoric 1302) but don't worry I'll make sure all my posts are perfect or near perfect from now on so you canít wag the dog with this laughable attack little to no one cares about. By the way thanks for documenting every misspelled word and writing a hilarious nerdy comment next to them like I did learn in Rhet 1302 it is always good to have a peer revise your rough draft. I didn't have the time and more importantly the will to but apparently you did and my post is now free from all those errors thanks to your revisions. Thanks!;)

by the way BDB even said he thought the Medieval Muslims were intolerant
crusaderdidz:MUSLIMS OF THE MIDDLE AGES WERE NOT RELIGOULSY TOLERANT.
BDB: i won't argue that. but neither were the crusaders (lulz screen name)
:rofl:so how many people are on your side and think you and the article were right about the tolerant cathedral burning Medieval Muslims?

Keep ignoring my facts and making childish comments it really helps your argument and makes you look mature.
Did somebody hurt your feelings on the internet? Would you like to file a butthurt report with the internet police, or should we call you a whaamubulance?

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/butthurt_report_form.jpg

CrusaderDidz
01-10-2011, 03:21 PM
Did somebody hurt your feelings on the internet? Would you like to file a butthurt report with the internet police, or should we call you a whaamubulance?

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/butthurt_report_form.jpg

ya ive been losing a lot of sleep and have been suicidal ever since you made those nerdy little comments about my spelling on a post I looked over in 20 seconds. Lol all I said is that your comments were irrelevant and that you should of posted a counter argument with them. I could care less if one nerd who refuses to admit hes wrong comments on my laziness to spell check I have more important things to worry about and if I cared that much about my spelling on internet forums I would of fixed it before I posted . No one else in this forum thinks the Medieval Muslims were overall tolerant people (even BDB). I think you should fill out that form since I tore your sorry excuse of an argument to shreds and you can't stand to admit your wrong. I'm not knocking on you or your intelligence you just picked an impossible argument to prove. I don't think anyone in the world can explain how people of one religion who conquered lands of different religions and tore down their places of worship are religiously tolerant.

Mong Hu
01-12-2011, 01:21 PM
Lemme stop you right there. We've moved on from the article. It's an article from a humor site. Congratulations for showing off your knowledge of Muslim fashion, I hope it makes you sleep better tonight. The rest is a tl'dr that is totally off-topic from what we were talking about. We had some troll with crusaders in his name come in and post a bunch of rambling fictions cobbled together from hazy recollections of Fox News stories chain mail that were embarrassingly inaccurate.

Then rwilleby and I were talking about the relative merits of Christian-dominated lands and Muslim-dominated lands in the early 1000s and the relative levels of religious tolerance between them. I mentioned, as did pied, that Muslim lands in the Early to High Middle Ages were, in stark contrast to contemporary Christian lands, areas of notable religious tolerance and in fact produced some of the greatest scholarly works of the Jewish tradition.

There were also attempts made to clarify the motives behind the Crusades, away from crusaders' cries of "Dey tuk er jerbz! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobacks)" and toward a less ethnocentric view of border warring and an acknowledgment of the Church's attempts to grab power.

Then apparently rwilleby made a post before the thread was lazered. Who knows what was in there.

Phoenix,

Thank you for conceding that the article you posted was not a legitimate or reliable source to further our understanding of Islam. Also thank you for complimenting my knowledge of Islamic fashion. Since you have conceded the point that the article you posted is in fact a ridiculous explanation and description of Islam then I am left to wonder why you continue to forward the same arguments without further evidence or proof to support your opinion?

The rest of the points made in my post are absolutely relevant to this discussion and not at all off topic as you have asserted that Islam is historically a more tolerant religion and offered the article from cracked, which agrees with this position, as evidence of your own view's validity. By illustrating the inaccuracies in the article you referenced and fallacious nature of the source which you used to support your position I weaken your position.

In regards to Crusaders posts I can not speak to his posts in the deleted thread but I have found his posts here to be fairly accurate and logical if not always exactly grammatically correct and well written. According to my reading of his posts he asserts consistently that Muslims were not tolerant in the Middle Ages nor are they tolerant today and supports his assertion with historical references to the Cordoba Mosque being built on the sight of the former Saint Vincent basilica and the building of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount and references to modern Islamic law in places like Qatar and Pakistan. He never asserts that Christians in the Medieval time period were tolerant but does assert that Christian societies today are more tolerant that Islamic societies today.



Post 29

the article said they were tolerant to other religions and they were. When they conquered southern spain unprovoked (200+ years before crusades) they were nice enough to demolish the old cathedral build a fancy new mosque. The same thing happend with jews the temple mount had not been rebuilt for hundreds of years so the religiously tolerant muslims build a place of worship right on top of the most holy place for jews



Post 32

The article tried to say that the muslims were extremely tolerant in the medival times which is why i posted the extremely intolerant actions made by muslims during this period.



Post 32

i also never denied persecution by chrisitians in the middle ages or said people like Cortez were extremely Tolerant



Post 34

No I do not think Chrisitianty is an innocent religion that has never in world history commited or inpsired intolerance and has done nothing but good I clearly stated this already



Post 34

My main point is that extremist Islam is a far bigger problem TODAY then any other religious extremism has been



Post 34

I have never stated that the Christians under the roman emperor you quoted or any other historical things about christians being intolerhant were in fact tolerant



Post 34

I say that Muslims who were unprovoked conquered christian lands, destoryed their place of worship, and then built their own on top of it



Post 35

A governor in Pakistan recently fought against these laws and was killed. Several Imams have refused to perform is funeral for his oppostion to the laws so please tell me how Pakistans anti-blasphemy laws have nothing to do with religion



Post 35

Please also show me where the Qatari government said "We are a secular government and the anti-gay laws have nothing to do with the criticisms of homosexuality in the Quran"

Basically phoenix I think you are kicking Crusader's butt in style but he has you on content.

You claim that great scholarly work by Jews during Islamic rule in Cordoba is evidence of Islamic tolerance but it is not. Some of the brightest African American minds in our history, notably Fredrick Douglas, Booker T. Washington, WEB DeBois, and George Washington Carver appeared during the mid 1800's to the early 1900's. Are you arguing that this is evidence of the tolerant nature of late 19th century America toward it's African American inhabitants? To claim that scholarly or cultural achievement is evidence of toleration simply defies logic.

Saying that Medieval Christian society was more intolerant than Medieval Islamic society is kind of like saying that the South Pole is colder than the North Pole. It might be factually correct, (I do not concede that Medieval Christian society is more intolerant by the way) actually the South Pole is colder than the North Pole, but does it really matter? I mean if you go to either place you better pack the best cold weather gear money can buy because it is going to be frigid. Whether it is -45 or -75 you are still going to need a really good set of long johns. So it is with societies of Medieval Europe as well as the Middle East. Tolerance was not a word that really entered their vocabularies all that much as far as I can tell.

the_phoenix612
01-12-2011, 02:29 PM
Phoenix,

Thank you for conceding that the article you posted was not a legitimate or reliable source to further our understanding of Islam. Also thank you for complimenting my knowledge of Islamic fashion. Since you have conceded the point that the article you posted is in fact a ridiculous explanation and description of Islam then I am left to wonder why you continue to forward the same arguments without further evidence or proof to support your opinion?

The rest of the points made in my post are absolutely relevant to this discussion and not at all off topic as you have asserted that Islam is historically a more tolerant religion and offered the article from cracked, which agrees with this position, as evidence of your own view's validity. By illustrating the inaccuracies in the article you referenced and fallacious nature of the source which you used to support your position I weaken your position.

In regards to Crusaders posts I can not speak to his posts in the deleted thread but I have found his posts here to be fairly accurate and logical if not always exactly grammatically correct and well written. According to my reading of his posts he asserts consistently that Muslims were not tolerant in the Middle Ages nor are they tolerant today and supports his assertion with historical references to the Cordoba Mosque being built on the sight of the former Saint Vincent basilica and the building of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount and references to modern Islamic law in places like Qatar and Pakistan. He never asserts that Christians in the Medieval time period were tolerant but does assert that Christian societies today are more tolerant that Islamic societies today.



















Basically phoenix I think you are kicking Crusader's butt in style but he has you on content.

You claim that great scholarly work by Jews during Islamic rule in Cordoba is evidence of Islamic tolerance but it is not. Some of the brightest African American minds in our history, notably Fredrick Douglas, Booker T. Washington, WEB DeBois, and George Washington Carver appeared during the mid 1800's to the early 1900's. Are you arguing that this is evidence of the tolerant nature of late 19th century America toward it's African American inhabitants? To claim that scholarly or cultural achievement is evidence of toleration simply defies logic.

Saying that Medieval Christian society was more intolerant than Medieval Islamic society is kind of like saying that the South Pole is colder than the North Pole. It might be factually correct, (I do not concede that Medieval Christian society is more intolerant by the way) actually the South Pole is colder than the North Pole, but does it really matter? I mean if you go to either place you better pack the best cold weather gear money can by because it is going to be frigid. Whether it is -45 or -75 you are still going to need a really set of long johns. So it is with societies of Medieval Europe as well as the Middle East. Tolerance was not a word that really entered their vocabularies all that much as far as I can tell.
No, what I did was post a humorous article that makes 5 relatively to very valid points that run contrary to many of the viewpoints expressed on this board.

All Crusaders is trying to do it slam muslims at the expense of any sort of context or historical accuracy. Case in point, he's mentioned the Cordoba mosque story three times (which he only knows about because it was the centerpoint of FoxNews' attack on the "Ground Zero" mosque in New York. Does he mention that as soon as Christians regained a majority population in the area they built a cathedral on top of the mosque? No, of course not. That would paint an accurate picture of the interplay between various minorities. Does he mention that the cross was used as the symbol of conquest, as the flag would later be in Europe, during Christian wars of conquest all over the world? No, of course not, because he's only afraid of the Muzlims and so they're the only ones he talks about.

The argument about the Jewish works was pied's, not mine. I was just reiterating.

Bobcat81
01-23-2011, 05:06 AM
If you continue to look at this ethnocentrally, you're never going to see the big picture. Christians have been waging war on other religions far longer than any other big religion. Heck, after 435, non-Christians in the Roman Empire were hunted down and killed in the name of Christianity. Acknowledging this does not somehow make your religion useless, but ignoring it cheapens everyone's cultural history.

Decree of the Emperor Theodosius:
"We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of the sign of the venerable Christian religion."

Furthermore, the Moorish state you referred to is noted as an absolute high point in religious tolerance and the interdependence of the "Big Three". I really don't feel like teaching you history today, so go and read this. You might just learn something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Andalus#Society

Do you really truly believe that Christianity is somehow inherently better or more innocent of atrocity than other "major" world religions?

Have you ever read or known of the term "Dhimmi", or "Dhimmitude"?

For thirteen centuries some of those conquered during the 2nd Jihad had to live under the rule of Sharia, and pay their tribute.
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmi_peoples_oppressed_nations.pdf
"This people, victims of the worlds longest lasting genocide, is represented today by a remnant. 250 samaritans, no more, "Tolerated' by 44,000 Arabs in their former capitol of Shechem-Neoloplis, Arabised to Nablus. This is not the place to describe the massacres, confiscations and persecutions of all kinds which reduced this numerous population of farmers and skilled artisans to the size of a pathetic remnant. The interested reader can consult the article Samaritan in the Encylcopaedia Judaica (1971), where mention is made of the threat of total extermination which, in 1842, would certainly have overcome this inoffensive and dying community of 142 souls had not another dhimmi community - the Jews of Jerusalem - come to their rescue at the last moment."

Would Christianity, or those living by the views of christianity, ever cause the suffering of so many people for so long. Thirteen centuries long? Is there any wonder that the crusades were called upon in order to restore some hope for those few that were fortunate enough to be reunited with the freedom of Christianity in their lands?

When you read the portion entitled. "History Forgotten" , how can anyone knowingly deny the brutality that incorporates "Sharia" and it's laws, and say without hesitation that Islam is a peaceful religion?

http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_dhimmitude.html

Let us progress to the late 1700's, early 1800's. How do you suppose Thomas Jefferson and John Adams viewed Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute under the same directive as the conquerors of the 2nd Jihad centuries before? Had their directives changed according to Mahammad and the Qur'an during that time frame? If so, how?

And finally, why did Thomas Jefferson feel it necessary to obtain a copy of the Qur'an and study it?

Sorry to bring back life to this already "dead thread", but there are still quite a few things that need to be discussed here. Shall we discuss them in dignified fashion?

CrusaderDidz
01-23-2011, 03:09 PM
No, what I did was post a humorous article that makes 5 relatively to very valid points that run contrary to many of the viewpoints expressed on this board.

All Crusaders is trying to do it slam muslims at the expense of any sort of context or historical accuracy. Case in point, he's mentioned the Cordoba mosque story three times (which he only knows about because it was the centerpoint of FoxNews' attack on the "Ground Zero" mosque in New York. Does he mention that as soon as Christians regained a majority population in the area they built a cathedral on top of the mosque? No, of course not. That would paint an accurate picture of the interplay between various minorities. Does he mention that the cross was used as the symbol of conquest, as the flag would later be in Europe, during Christian wars of conquest all over the world? No, of course not, because he's only afraid of the Muzlims and so they're the only ones he talks about.

The argument about the Jewish works was pied's, not mine. I was just reiterating.

I know about the reqonquista and Moorish invasions of Iberia from high school Spanish classes and history 1301 not from fox news and even if I did learn it from fox news it is a historic fact not an opinion so it wouldn't matter. The only reason I kept mentioning that and the temple mount is because you refused to post a counterargument to them and just made laughable attacks against me that had no facts or legitimacy to them in an attempt to discredit me. I only bring up Muslims intolerances because those are the only people you claimed were tolerant during that time. I never denied or tried to justify Cortez or other examples when you are other people brought them up but there was no point of me bringing them up since this argument is whether or not the Muslims of the Middle Ages were tolerant not the Christians. I actually admitted that they did intolerant things in this era multiple times and never tried to say only Muslims did so there is no point in arguing that.

And as for the reconquering of Cordoba there is a big difference between the Spanish reconquering their old lands and reconverting them to the old religion than if they had gone to the Middle East and forcibly converted those people. In the first half of the 20th century Koreans spoke Japanese because it was forced upon them by the Japanese conquers. Once the Japanese left they forced everyone to start speaking Korean again this is a lot different then if North or South Korea had taken over another country and forced them to speak Korean.

You put "Ground zero mosque" in parenthesis since one of the arguments was that is wasn't directly at ground zero. The developers of the mosque have recently applied for a government grant meant to rebuild ground zero so even the makers of the mosque admit it is at ground zero giving no credibility to that argument. I also never said all muslims were terrorists or anything like that I only posted facts that discredited the argument of you and the article if bringing up bad things done in the name of a religion in order to dispute it being tolerant in a certain situation is "slamming them" then I could say the same thing about you "slamming" Chrisitians for the things you have brought up.

Bobcat81
01-30-2011, 09:43 PM
Here's an enlightening read for all the -Religion of Peace- "Naysayers" on the board..

From the Washington Times;

"A panel of national security experts who worked under Republican and Democratic presidents is urging the Obama administration to abandon its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism, arguing that radical Muslims are using Islamic law to subvert the United States."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/14/shariah-a-danger-to-us-security-pros-say/

The panel put together a report entitled, "Sharia: The Threat to America, An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team 'B' II" (Very excellent & interesting read for those doubting the true nature of Islam)

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20%28Team%20B%20Rep ort%29%2009142010.pdf

The co-authors on the panel include;

Team Leaders: Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin—US Army (Ret.), former
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence

Lieutenant General Harry Edward Soyster—US Army (Ret.), former Director, Defense Intelligence Agency

Associates:

Christine Brim—Chief Operating Officer, Center for Security Policy

Ambassador Henry Cooper—former Chief Negotiator, Defense and Space Talks, former Director, Strategic Defense Initiative

Stephen C. Coughlin, Esq. —Major (Res.) USA, former Senior Consultant, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Michael Del Rosso—Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute and Center for Security Policy

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.—former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting) President, Center for Security Policy

John Guandolo—former Special Agent, Counter-Terrorism Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Brian Kennedy—President, Claremont Institute

Clare M. Lopez—Senior Fellow, Center for Security Policy

Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons—US Navy (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet

Andrew C. McCarthy—former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney (Southern District of New York); Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review (lead prosecutor in the first WTC attacks)

Patrick Poole—Consultant to the military and law enforcement on antiterrorism issues

Joseph E. Schmitz—former Inspector General, Department of Defense

Tom Trento—Executive Director, Florida Security Council

J. Michael Waller—Annenberg Professor of International Communication, Institute of World Politics, and Vice President for Information Operations, Center for Security Policy

Diana West—author and columnist

R. James Woolsey—former Director of Central Intelligence

David Yerushalmi, Esq.—General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy


The report sternly rebuts all the "Religion of Peace" propoganda that's encircled Washington over the last decade or so.

slcdragonfan
01-31-2011, 12:02 AM
Here's an enlightening read for all the -Religion of Peace- "Naysayers" on the board..

From the Washington Times;

"A panel of national security experts who worked under Republican and Democratic presidents is urging the Obama administration to abandon its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism, arguing that radical Muslims are using Islamic law to subvert the United States."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/14/shariah-a-danger-to-us-security-pros-say/

I couldn't open the article so I copied it from here:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ShariahDangerSecurityPros/2010/09/15/id/370342




...
A panel of national security experts who worked under Republican and Democratic presidents is urging the Obama administration to abandon its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism, arguing that radical Muslims are using Islamic law to subvert the United States.

In a report set for release today, the panel states that "it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam's authentic moderates and reformers."

The study group, sponsored by the conservative-oriented Center for Security Policy, says in its report that proponents of advancing Islamic law mark the "crucial fault line" in Islam's internal divisions separating truly moderate Muslims, like the late Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, from the large portion of the world's 1 billion Muslims who advocate imposing what they call Shariah law throughout the world.

Mr. Wahid, who died in December, is a widely respected Muslim visionary who promoted pluralism in Indonesia, which has the world's largest population of Muslims.

According to the report, proponents of Shariah are "Muslim supremacists" waging "civilization jihad" along with the Islamist terrorists engaged in violent jihad, like al-Qaida.
...emphasis added.
So radical Muslims are radical, Shariah law is evil, and we want to partner with Islam's authentic moderates and reformers.

Is there any disagreement here? I absolutely agree we have to watch out for RADICAL Islamic fundamentalists, and believe Shariah law is, from what I understand, brutally primitive.

Or are you saying we need internment camps for folks who are Islamic because they might be dangerous?

FRS90
01-31-2011, 12:34 AM
ive been studying the Koran lately....

id like to chime in when i am finished....but until them, i have some learning to do

Bobcat81
01-31-2011, 06:41 AM
I couldn't open the article so I copied it from here:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ShariahDangerSecurityPros/2010/09/15/id/370342


emphasis added.
So radical Muslims are radical, Shariah law is evil, and we want to partner with Islam's authentic moderates and reformers.

Is there any disagreement here? I absolutely agree we have to watch out for RADICAL Islamic fundamentalists, and believe Shariah law is, from what I understand, brutally primitive.

Or are you saying we need internment camps for folks who are Islamic because the might be dangerous?

Systematically speaking, it is difficult, if not impossible to have Shariah without the Qur'an, and vice sersa. The two go hand in hand. As we know, what differentiates "moderates" from the rest is their lacking in adhearance to the strict rule that traditional laws impose. "Moderates" are in fact violating the laws strictly stated in the Qur'an regarding ones faith and way of living. Their direct violation of the laws imposed by the Qur'an subject them to the severe punishments implicated in the Center for Security Policy study. The punishments are severe and in certan cases, death is warranted.

First and formost, what we as Americans must do is regard the provided study as factual and recognize that they are the truth as best that can be described about Islam and the Qur'an. The sources involved in the study are extensive and very reputable. In fact, some of the sources involved in obatined in the study are, or were, directly involved in the belief system of the Qur'an and Islam at one time, and have the direct and distinct knowledge of it's purposes and laws.

Secondly, we MUST protect our borders from any and ALL unwanted intruders, and provide a documented avenue of entry exclusively, so that we know who is entering and leaving the country.

Thrid, we must ensure that all who come here understand that to be a citizen of the United States, one must adhere to the laws provided in the US Constitution and swear to uphold and abide by them "under oath". This will allow prosecution of those committing treason, or acts of treason against our laws and way of govt. After all, Shariah is a rule of law in which to live and CAN NOT be recognized side by side with our Constitution. Our Constitution forbids it.

This is all i have time to post this morning, but will post more as i return.