Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

glorification of murdering 4religin

banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2009 9:00:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
2009.09.20 (Gazi-Yurt, Ingushetia) - Two local police are gunned down by Islamic militants.
2009.09.19 (Mosul, Iraq) - An 11-year-old boy dies from injuries following a Jihad bombing.
2009.09.19 (Herat, Afghanistan) - Two children, ages 7 and 10, are blasted to death by a female suicide bomber.
2009.09.19 (Zubair, Iraq) - Two members of a religious minority are murdered by Muslim gunmen.
2009.09.19 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - A Danish soldier is killed by a sniper while on patrol.
2009.09.19 (Malakand, Pakistan) - Five people are riddled with bullets when Talibanis open point blank on a passenger vehicle
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2009 12:38:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 5:08:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/21/2009 2:13:21 PM, LeafRod wrote:
Something I don't understand.

War is never necessary. It does not give freedom, it can only take it away.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 5:10:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 5:08:36 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 9/21/2009 2:13:21 PM, LeafRod wrote:
Something I don't understand.

War is never necessary. It does not give freedom, it can only take it away.

Yeah....... Like in the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War, or WWII.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 5:27:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Did Britain need to declare war?

Did the South need to defend its rights to maintain slavery in the states if that's what the states chose, in defiance of federal emancipation orders?

Did Hitler need to go to war with the world to make it a better place for Aryankind?

Did John F. Kennedy need to send American troops to South Viet Nam to escalate the the anti-democratic pro-Catholic South Vietnam's war against the pro-elections and pro-Buddhist North Vietnamese guerrilla uprising?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 6:10:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 5:27:14 PM, PervRat wrote:
Did Britain need to declare war?

Did the South need to defend its rights to maintain slavery in the states if that's what the states chose, in defiance of federal emancipation orders?

Did Hitler need to go to war with the world to make it a better place for Aryankind?

Did John F. Kennedy need to send American troops to South Viet Nam to escalate the the anti-democratic pro-Catholic South Vietnam's war against the pro-elections and pro-Buddhist North Vietnamese guerrilla uprising?

And if any of those sides won, I'm sure you'd be asking why the other side bothered fighting.

The Civil War was not about slavery. It was about tariffs.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 6:19:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 5:27:14 PM, PervRat wrote:
Did Britain need to declare war?
Actually, it was America that essentially went to war by resisting British rule. "Declaring" is really irrelevant.
Did the South need to defend its rights to maintain slavery in the states if that's what the states chose, in defiance of federal emancipation orders?
Actually, the real question is, did the North need to chase after the South and force them back into the Union?
Did Hitler need to go to war with the world to make it a better place for Aryankind?
There wouldn't have been a war if the other sides kept quiet. Would that make you happy? A world ruled by Hitler because we didn't want to go to war against him?

War is quite often very necessary to protect freedoms.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 6:24:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And if any of those sides won, I'm sure you'd be asking why the other side bothered fighting.

The Civil War was not about slavery. It was about tariffs.

Over slaves, over tarriffs over slaves, mox nix. It was over slavery. The fed abolished slavery, the south refused to accept and decided they had a right to secede if they didn't like fed law.

That fight did not last 4 years, it lasted a whole century. The South -still- insisted even long after the Confederacy was defeated that it had a right to refuse equality to negroes into the 1960s. Federal troops were sent in against state troops and the civil war came very close to re-igniting over the same basic issue of whether or not the federal government has the authority to overrule states that discriminate against their own citizens. It was true in 1861 under Lincoln, it was true in 1957 under Eisenhower.

Even today, long after slavery, Jim Crow and segregation are nearly universally accepted to have been evil and anti-democratic, the South continues to fight its history through revisionism. You aren't the first to throw the revisionism you were taught in against history, and unfortunately you won't be the last.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2009 11:56:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 6:24:15 PM, PervRat wrote:
And if any of those sides won, I'm sure you'd be asking why the other side bothered fighting.

The Civil War was not about slavery. It was about tariffs.

Over slaves, over tarriffs over slaves, mox nix. It was over slavery. The fed abolished slavery, the south refused to accept and decided they had a right to secede if they didn't like fed law.

Wut? Lincoln abolished slavery during the war. The war was not over slavery, well it was partly, but it was mainly over the conflicting political ideologies of both sides.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 11:03:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree with Panda. Slavery was only one issue of the conflict, though it was an important one since it had so much to do with the southern economy. Anyway, you guys bring up an interesting point about whether or not war is necessary. You're both right. Pervrat is correct in the sense that all of the results achieved through war could've very well been decided WITHOUT war. However, people have yet to find a more effective way to achieve their goals other than through fighting. Humanity values life over all else, and as such, war is a way to decide which ideology prevails because people are willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believe. The thing that sucks about war is that just because you may win a war does not necessarily mean that your side (opinion) is right. That's why people convince themselves that they do things for GOD; they trick themselves into believing that God will protect them because they are doing God's will. What a bunch of crap.
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 12:35:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Religion is the reason for Irish partition. Or so it dawned on me today.

The South was predominantly Catholic. Ulster was predominantly Protestant. If they didn't have religion, they would look at the situation rationally. Both wanted a state for each religion.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 1:43:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/28/2009 5:08:36 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 9/21/2009 2:13:21 PM, LeafRod wrote:
Something I don't understand.

War is never necessary. It does not give freedom, it can only take it away.

I was quoting the song.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2009 2:06:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/29/2009 12:35:57 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Religion is the reason for Irish partition. Or so it dawned on me today.

The South was predominantly Catholic. Ulster was predominantly Protestant. If they didn't have religion, they would look at the situation rationally. Both wanted a state for each religion.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The absence of religion doesn't mean they'll be rational. In fact, the chances are they might have found a new reason to hate each other. It is usually what happens.