Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Anti-Islam Movie.

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 6:01:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, the one we have been hearing so much about recently and that a few people got killed over.

The details surrounding this film are extremely sketchy; the director is not a real person, there's no movie and only a few short youtube clips, it can't be a $5 mil budget as it literally looks like it was made in somebody's basement, the timing is too much to be coincidental since it was released on 9/11, and it was supposedly an American movie yet nobody heard of it until now. These all raise important questions as to who made it and why? I sense there's some deeper plot going on here. Thoughts?

http://www.infowars.com...
http://gawker.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.npr.org...
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 6:26:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WesternMuslim, why are you always in the defensive position with regards to your religion. Why do you always need to address arguments against your religion.

I haven't seen you on the offensive position yet. Stop defending start attacking.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 6:34:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:26:05 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
WesternMuslim, why are you always in the defensive position with regards to your religion. Why do you always need to address arguments against your religion.

I haven't seen you on the offensive position yet. Stop defending start attacking.

Because I'm tired of the slander.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 6:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:34:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/13/2012 6:26:05 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
WesternMuslim, why are you always in the defensive position with regards to your religion. Why do you always need to address arguments against your religion.

I haven't seen you on the offensive position yet. Stop defending start attacking.

Because I'm tired of the slander.

Let me tell you something.

When you are always in the defensive position, your weaknesses are much more exposed and highlighted. The person in the offensive position is not being criticized and is in an "invincible state" where as he is perfect because no one is exposing him.

When someone gives you an argument what you have to do is "turn the tables over". You have to make a counter which puts them in the defensive position and you on the offensive.

Any victor in a debate/argument is the one who has put much more offensive pressure on the opponent. Also most of the time, the person doesn't really care. When one argument is addressed he will simply move on to the next and then the next and then the next so you are always trapped in defense. Criticize, do not be criticized.

Have more confidence in your on own religion if you think its true.
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 7:32:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I await kfc.
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 2:42:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:01:53 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Yes, the one we have been hearing so much about recently and that a few people got killed over.

The details surrounding this film are extremely sketchy; the director is not a real person, there's no movie and only a few short youtube clips, it can't be a $5 mil budget as it literally looks like it was made in somebody's basement, the timing is too much to be coincidental since it was released on 9/11, and it was supposedly an American movie yet nobody heard of it until now. These all raise important questions as to who made it and why? I sense there's some deeper plot going on here. Thoughts?

Actually the found the guy who made the film, he lives out in California

http://news.yahoo.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 7:21:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:01:53 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Yes, the one we have been hearing so much about recently and that a few people got killed over.

The details surrounding this film are extremely sketchy; the director is not a real person, there's no movie and only a few short youtube clips, it can't be a $5 mil budget as it literally looks like it was made in somebody's basement, the timing is too much to be coincidental since it was released on 9/11, and it was supposedly an American movie yet nobody heard of it until now. These all raise important questions as to who made it and why? I sense there's some deeper plot going on here. Thoughts?

http://www.infowars.com...
http://gawker.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.npr.org...

Apparently the movie became a news after the fake Christian Pastor Terry Jones began promoting it. No one would have noticed it otherwise.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 7:38:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:40:00 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/13/2012 6:34:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/13/2012 6:26:05 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
WesternMuslim, why are you always in the defensive position with regards to your religion. Why do you always need to address arguments against your religion.

I haven't seen you on the offensive position yet. Stop defending start attacking.

Because I'm tired of the slander.

Let me tell you something.

When you are always in the defensive position, your weaknesses are much more exposed and highlighted. The person in the offensive position is not being criticized and is in an "invincible state" where as he is perfect because no one is exposing him.

When someone gives you an argument what you have to do is "turn the tables over". You have to make a counter which puts them in the defensive position and you on the offensive.

Any victor in a debate/argument is the one who has put much more offensive pressure on the opponent. Also most of the time, the person doesn't really care. When one argument is addressed he will simply move on to the next and then the next and then the next so you are always trapped in defense. Criticize, do not be criticized.

Have more confidence in your on own religion if you think its true.

Let me translate this: Drop all common sense and use Dogma to guide you. That way you can pretend you have no flaws.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 8:12:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That just bothers me to no avail. Islam has a big problem in that radicals have the religion by the proverbial balls and a guy advises moderates to not only ignore the cancer but embrace it. Don't you understand cancer will kill you and all your good parts too?
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 3:58:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 7:38:00 AM, slo1 wrote:

Let me translate this: Drop all common sense and use Dogma to guide you. That way you can pretend you have no flaws.

Your a lunatic if you think I said that. I told her to be more confident in herself and criticize others rather than appeasing people.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:02:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 8:12:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
That just bothers me to no avail. Islam has a big problem in that radicals have the religion by the proverbial balls and a guy advises moderates to not only ignore the cancer but embrace it. Don't you understand cancer will kill you and all your good parts too?

If she thought that Islam had any cancerous parts then she wouldn't be Muslim nimrod!

And also the entire concept of who is an "extremist" and who isn't is all subjective. The majority which in this case is the West sets the definition of what is moderate behaviour and what is extremist behaviour.

Thus when you use the term EXTREMIST OR MODERATE it has no actual value! Its only used based on who the majority is and not on what is actually true.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:06:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 3:58:49 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/14/2012 7:38:00 AM, slo1 wrote:

Let me translate this: Drop all common sense and use Dogma to guide you. That way you can pretend you have no flaws.

Your a lunatic if you think I said that. I told her to be more confident in herself and criticize others rather than appeasing people.

Wrong, you said:

"Any victor in a debate/argument is the one who has put much more offensive pressure on the opponent. Also most of the time, the person doesn't really care. When one argument is addressed he will simply move on to the next and then the next and then the next so you are always trapped in defense. Criticize, do not be criticized."

Which implies to use this as a tactical regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

Maybe I just don't see a lack of conviction from InsertNameHere that you do. You, like Mitt Romney, misunderstand what appeasement. Ironically the Radical Muslims who attacked our embassy in Libya probably believe the new government appeases the US. You promote radicalism with an attack first philosophy whether it is physical violence or with words.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:23:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:02:52 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/14/2012 8:12:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
That just bothers me to no avail. Islam has a big problem in that radicals have the religion by the proverbial balls and a guy advises moderates to not only ignore the cancer but embrace it. Don't you understand cancer will kill you and all your good parts too?

If she thought that Islam had any cancerous parts then she wouldn't be Muslim nimrod!

And also the entire concept of who is an "extremist" and who isn't is all subjective. The majority which in this case is the West sets the definition of what is moderate behaviour and what is extremist behaviour.

Thus when you use the term EXTREMIST OR MODERATE it has no actual value! Its only used based on who the majority is and not on what is actually true.

I assume you are calling me the nimrod and not calling InsertNameHere an "Muslim nimrod" Lol (not a bash, I miss punctuation all the time, but was a little amusing)

Yes, it is true the term extremist or moderate is subjective and depends upon one's point of view. However, not everyone is going to have the same point of view and there is no obligation for one to support every group under Islam simply because it has the name of Islam tied to it. There are diametrically opposed beliefs of many sects in the Islamic faith.

PS. the cancer is not Islam, it is the individuals who are willing to force religious/political belief on other that are the cancer. That is my definition. Either way there is some set of radicals in the faith and they receive the press and that is what the west sees.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:26:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry InsertNameHere if I have hijacked your thread and implied a defense of you where there was no defense wanted or maybe needed.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 6:54:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:26:39 PM, slo1 wrote:
Sorry InsertNameHere if I have hijacked your thread and implied a defense of you where there was no defense wanted or maybe needed.

No it's fine. You made some good points. You're right, one doesn't have to support everything and anything just because it has the name "Islam" tied to it.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 7:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:06:07 PM, slo1 wrote:

Wrong, you said:

"Any victor in a debate/argument is the one who has put much more offensive pressure on the opponent. Also most of the time, the person doesn't really care. When one argument is addressed he will simply move on to the next and then the next and then the next so you are always trapped in defense. Criticize, do not be criticized."

Which implies to use this as a tactical regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

Yes of course it is the right thing to do. Discussion is usually of two types. One is when people are simply giving others basic information. The other is when two sides try to convince the other or anyone of all the various issues and topics in our world. This is all about debate tactics. Debate is like a chess match, or a military battle.

Someone of a certain position or idea has to be more on the offensive position rather than the defensive position if he ever hopes to have an impact. For example, if WesternMuslim is always defending her religion from attack rather than exposing other ideologies weaknesses and showing how her religion is superior, then everyone will always think that her religion has some hole in it/is neutral (rarely neutral).

Maybe I just don't see a lack of conviction from InsertNameHere that you do. You, like Mitt Romney, misunderstand what appeasement. Ironically the Radical Muslims who attacked our embassy in Libya probably believe the new government appeases the US. You promote radicalism with an attack first philosophy whether it is physical violence or with words.

WOW nice complete misunderstanding there. I can't believe you actually think I'm telling WesternMuslim to be violent physically, I told her that she should be on the attacking position in debate and not so defensive.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 7:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:23:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:02:52 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/14/2012 8:12:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
That just bothers me to no avail. Islam has a big problem in that radicals have the religion by the proverbial balls and a guy advises moderates to not only ignore the cancer but embrace it. Don't you understand cancer will kill you and all your good parts too?

If she thought that Islam had any cancerous parts then she wouldn't be Muslim nimrod!

And also the entire concept of who is an "extremist" and who isn't is all subjective. The majority which in this case is the West sets the definition of what is moderate behaviour and what is extremist behaviour.

Thus when you use the term EXTREMIST OR MODERATE it has no actual value! Its only used based on who the majority is and not on what is actually true.

I assume you are calling me the nimrod and not calling InsertNameHere an "Muslim nimrod" Lol (not a bash, I miss punctuation all the time, but was a little amusing)

Your assumption is correct, I should have added a comma in between.

Yes, it is true the term extremist or moderate is subjective and depends upon one's point of view. However, not everyone is going to have the same point of view and there is no obligation for one to support every group under Islam simply because it has the name of Islam tied to it. There are diametrically opposed beliefs of many sects in the Islamic faith.

Irrelevant, I never claimed she has to support all Islamic sects.

PS. the cancer is not Islam, it is the individuals who are willing to force religious/political belief on other that are the cancer. That is my definition. Either way there is some set of radicals in the faith and they receive the press and that is what the west sees.

There is nothing wrong with a theocracy. Secularism is not neutral, but in fact corrodes religious values and beliefs overtime. The very ideology of secularism is to separate religion from all societal interaction, politics, medicine, etc etc.

It is impossible for secularism itself to be the "neutral" position which is so often claimed, but it is fact a slow process to change a nation into an irreligious/atheistic state.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 2:51:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 7:20:25 PM, MattDescopa wrote:

WOW nice complete misunderstanding there. I can't believe you actually think I'm telling WesternMuslim to be violent physically, I told her that she should be on the attacking position in debate and not so defensive.

Fair enough. I was attacking you with strength by the way. Some may say with ineptitude, but with strength. I deserve a little props for that......to leverage your technique.

Oh well, let's all be friends and have a little fun with our internet dickers. (that is the noun for bargaining not what it really looks like. lol)
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2012 5:38:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Y'know what's interesting?

Since this film came out, a ton of embassies and such in Libya have had the sh*t kicked out of them.

The US Consolate in Benghazi for instance.

http://www.usembassy.gov...

Yet, according to this link.

There is no US Consolate in Benghazi.

Brb, gitmo.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 9:13:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:01:53 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Yes, the one we have been hearing so much about recently and that a few people got killed over.

The details surrounding this film are extremely sketchy; the director is not a real person, there's no movie and only a few short youtube clips, it can't be a $5 mil budget as it literally looks like it was made in somebody's basement, the timing is too much to be coincidental since it was released on 9/11, and it was supposedly an American movie yet nobody heard of it until now. These all raise important questions as to who made it and why? I sense there's some deeper plot going on here. Thoughts?

http://www.infowars.com...
http://gawker.com...
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.npr.org...

I believe it was inspired by Zakaria Botros Henein, made by Steve Klein, Joseph Nassralla, and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and promoted by Pastor Terry Jones...all bigoted a$$holes.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 1:03:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 7:18:20 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's a 74min movie.

#!

Watch it free here.

I'm not even going to waste my time with that. The trailer was painfully bad enough, haha.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:10:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The movie was released in July.

A Fox News reporter tracked down the organizer of the protests in Cairo, an al Qaeda guy. He admitted he had never seen the movie, but it sufficed that the title was blasphemous. (Odd, The Innocence of Muslims? Maybe the title in Arabic is offensive.) Apparently few of the protestors have seen either the movie or the trailer.

It now appears that there was no protest demonstration in Libya. It was a straight assault by about 100 men with heavy weapons.

The security at the Libyan consulate in Benghazi was what is called "lock and key." There were no assigned security forces. The two ex-SEALs who died protecting the Ambassador were not assigned to protect him, but were there for other purposes.

There is one report that the Ambassador was tortured to death. That is not confirmed.

The Obama Administration has sent the FBI to investigate, but they are waiting in Tripoli for Benghazi to become safe enough for civilians. The crime scene is not preserved.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 3:28:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is remeniscint of that Denmark political cartoon years ago, if anyone remembers that. If memory serves, the media reported that rioters were angry about this specific cartoon. The problem was that the cartoon came out two or three months before the riots. So, if it was the cause, it surely wasn't spontaneous.

Or, perhaps the media mislead the public there too.

Regardless, I am not saying anything sinister is happening here. I will cautiously give the gov't the benefit of the doubt and say that they used these believable scapegoats to ease American angst.

Think about it: would you rather have a bunch of angry people blowing up embassies because they hate America and/or are religious zealots, or explain these actions as a response, so there is at least a trigger? Which scenario will help Americans sleep at night easier?