BF2S Forums Wow, someone tried to blow up a plane (Yes, a muslim)

lowing wrote:

Nope, I think Iraq will fall into chaos again, and the reason for this is more than "just a few". It is a mindset that prevails in countries like Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. and a mind set that prevails within Islam itself.
Rule Afghanistan with an iron fist? Who's fist? Or should we just drop bomb after bomb, missile after missile on it. Not sure how that is going to contribute to winning of hearts and minds.

If Islam were taught as you say then there would not be the issues it has, at the very least, it would be able to contain these issues. Much like the KKK within Christianity, the KKK has been reduced to a punchline in a bad joke by the prevailing attitude. This is not the case within Islam, for if you insist Islam is 99% taught as a peaceful tolerant progressive religion, ( which I do not believe to be the case) it is certainly a classic example of the tail wagging the dog, and who shall be blamed for this lack of control?

Predominantly Islamic nations are not like western nations. Their culture is one of obedience and subservience. Islam basically means 'submission to the will of Allah'. That carries itself from private personal life to public political life. That is why they are generally so content to be ruled by strong, undemocratic or dictatorial leaders (although rumblings in Iran give a hopeful suggestion otherwise). They generally don't mind being subservient to one of their own but they get irate if it's an outsider, as anyone would. The fist in Afghanistan will be that of the strongest tribe or indeed perhaps the Taliban. You can't bomb a mindset. In fact, as witnessed in Northern Ireland, you can magnify and augment that mindset by doing exactly that. Bombing specific targets on a preventative or reactionary basis will be far less offensive to them than becoming de facto rulers of their nations. It is at our cost that we occupy those nations, not theirs. The cost of some missile strikes would pale in comparison to supporting armies in a hostile area thousands of miles from home.

Your disbelief of the reality of the predominant manner in which Islam is taught is not qualified by any experience I have had with Muslims or indeed by statistical probability. A simple matter of maths. Dividing the number of muslims on earth by the number of terror attacks. Arithmetic. It's quite simple really. Islam has problems but that is mainly a problem with the societies in which they live - oil money allowing people to loaf around aimlessly and frustratedly with levels of unemployment running at 25%, impoverished rural timewarp areas that couldn't muster two brain cells between all the inhabitants, etc. Too much spare time and too much bad government breeds mental malaise. I saw the same type of mental malaise in the yokel rednecks that frequented the bars and restaurants I worked, ate and drank in in Wisconsin. People who can't find any purpose in life so they turn to silly old books.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I think Iraq will fall into chaos again, and the reason for this is more than "just a few". It is a mindset that prevails in countries like Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. and a mind set that prevails within Islam itself.
Rule Afghanistan with an iron fist? Who's fist? Or should we just drop bomb after bomb, missile after missile on it. Not sure how that is going to contribute to winning of hearts and minds.

If Islam were taught as you say then there would not be the issues it has, at the very least, it would be able to contain these issues. Much like the KKK within Christianity, the KKK has been reduced to a punchline in a bad joke by the prevailing attitude. This is not the case within Islam, for if you insist Islam is 99% taught as a peaceful tolerant progressive religion, ( which I do not believe to be the case) it is certainly a classic example of the tail wagging the dog, and who shall be blamed for this lack of control?

Predominantly Islamic nations are not like western nations. Their culture is one of obedience and subservience. Islam basically means 'submission to the will of Allah'. That carries itself from private personal life to public political life. That is why they are generally so content to be ruled by strong, undemocratic or dictatorial leaders (although rumblings in Iran give a hopeful suggestion otherwise). They generally don't mind being subservient to one of their own but they get irate if it's an outsider, as anyone would. The fist in Afghanistan will be that of the strongest tribe or indeed perhaps the Taliban. You can't bomb a mindset. In fact, as witnessed in Northern Ireland, you can magnify and augment that mindset by doing exactly that. Bombing specific targets on a preventative or reactionary basis will be far less offensive to them than becoming de facto rulers of their nations. It is at our cost that we occupy those nations, not theirs. The cost of some missile strikes would pale in comparison to supporting armies in a hostile area thousands of miles from home.

Your disbelief of the reality of the predominant manner in which Islam is taught is not qualified by any experience I have had with Muslims or indeed by statistical probability. A simple matter of maths. Dividing the number of muslims on earth by the number of terror attacks. Arithmetic. It's quite simple really. Islam has problems but that is mainly a problem with the societies in which they live - oil money allowing people to loaf around aimlessly and frustratedly with levels of unemployment running at 25%, impoverished rural timewarp areas that couldn't muster two brain cells between all the inhabitants, etc. Too much spare time and too much bad government breeds mental malaise. I saw the same type of mental malaise in the yokel rednecks that frequented the bars and restaurants I worked, ate and drank in in Wisconsin. People who can't find any purpose in life so they turn to silly old books.

Which is exactly why Islam does not mix well with western society, western freedoms, and western tolerances. If they blend in here, they are not practicing Islam as it is taught.

No, my disbelief is based on exactly what I posted, you merely count Muslims within Islam that have not committed any acts of terrorism, you are not counting those with this religion that support them, verbally, within their own thoughts, monetarily or otherwise.

lowing wrote:

Which is exactly why Islam does not mix well with western society, western freedoms, and western tolerances. If they blend in here, they are not practicing Islam as it is taught.

No, my disbelief is based on exactly what I posted, you merely count Muslims within Islam that have not committed any acts of terrorism, you are not counting those with this religion that support them, verbally, within their own thoughts, monetarily or otherwise.

Most people who come to the west from these nations are seeking the economic freedom they don't have in their own countries, just like everyone else. These are the first few generations of such migration and there are teething problems, just like there were with other migration waves. If a man prays to Mecca five times a day, reads his Koran, eats halal and follows the five pillars then he is practicing Islam. He can do all that in a western society, as many thousands have for decades.

On the second point, you are still ignoring the fact that the Koran is a self-contradictory document and Islam is entirely dependent on interpretation of said document. Any other view on this would be simply incorrect.

lowing wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lowing wrote:

Read up, you are one of the worst offenders.

yea rite, why dont you offer up some proof before trying label me.

Your previous post is proof enough, you think I am racist, have no problem calling me that, and in fact take the honor of speaking for everyone in the forum to declare it and offer no evidence to support it. What more proof am I to provide?

I love how you are offended by labels, yet see no problem sticking one on me on behalf of the entire forum no less.

playing word games and avoiding the question.

lowing, it is YOU who is the PROBLEM.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lowing wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

yea rite, why dont you offer up some proof before trying label me.

Your previous post is proof enough, you think I am racist, have no problem calling me that, and in fact take the honor of speaking for everyone in the forum to declare it and offer no evidence to support it. What more proof am I to provide?

I love how you are offended by labels, yet see no problem sticking one on me on behalf of the entire forum no less.

playing word games and avoiding the question.

lowing, it is YOU who is the PROBLEM.

I'm sorry, did you ASK a question that I missed in your post?

Also no I will stand toe to toe with my argument WITHOUT the need to resort to insults. unless you consider being called a liberal an insult. Not sure why, I consider being called a conservative a compliment.

I do not play word games, I say EXACTLY what I mean, and I expect you to do the same. Thus I will challenge you on what you say. For people like you, you must resort to disection and re-direction. Rarely can people such as yourself argue based on the meritsand context  of the post. You most almost always break out one of your little catch alls, racism, generalizing, etc...

Take your response here, you did not address your inconsistencies, or offer facts to support your accusations, you merely switched the argument to "word games" and "avoiding a question" that wasn't even asked. Classic

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Isn't part of those 5 pillars accepting Muhammad as Gods messenger? and what was his message in teaching and action? Oops.

It also shows that the notion of judging people by their action is different than judging their religion is no so far fetched after all. You say they come here to escape their religious binds. Well that is exactly what I speak of when I speak of Islam.

You can not say that 1% of the Koran is peaceful while 99% is violent and intolerant in its teachings then say it is a contradiction. It does not fly.

Islam speaks of peace when all have succumbed to the will of Allah, by force or otherwise.

His message, as you consistently ignore, was inconsistent. We have this argument countless times and you refuse to accept reality on this. It is not much fun chatting with someone pig-headedly sidestepping the critical point.

They come here to escape their economic binds. They don't come to escape their religious binds, they take them with them. It is incumbent on them to work around our system of doing things. The law is the law.

Are you a theologian now? Is the Koran 99% violence? I don't fucking think so - I read several chapters of it before getting bored off my tits. It's 99% boring tripe.

Keep your head in the sand if you please. You could actually buy a copy of it too and read it. Then give us your interpretation.

His message was clear Cam, it was clear in his words as well as his actions. Not much left to interpret.

well, there religious binds are exactly what does not jive with western society. their religion teaches intolerance and inferiority to those outside of Islam and its beliefs.

Funny how you can continuely dismiss all things done in the name of Islam and say my head is in the sand.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … -Islam.htm

already posted this without ANY play.

how about addressing this, they seem ot have done far more research than you or I. See if you can deny or dismiss this WITHOUT claiming biased sources. Attack the material not the source.

So does Christianity.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lowing wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

playing word games and avoiding the question.

lowing, it is YOU who is the PROBLEM.

I'm sorry, did you ASK a question that I missed in your post?

Also no I will stand toe to toe with my argument WITHOUT the need to resort to insults. unless you consider being called a liberal an insult. Not sure why, I consider being called a conservative a compliment.

I do not play word games, I say EXACTLY what I mean, and I expect you to do the same. Thus I will challenge you on what you say. For people like you, you must resort to disection and re-direction. Rarely can people such as yourself argue based on the meritsand context  of the post. You most almost always break out one of your little catch alls, racism, generalizing, etc...

Take your response here, you did not address your inconsistencies, or offer facts to support your accusations, you merely switched the argument to "word games" and "avoiding a question" that wasn't even asked. Classic

No lowing, you are racist. Its quite simple really. At least half your post have some kind of hidden slur. I think you need to stop changing the subject. Typical that YOU, lowing, try and avoid questions you have no knowledge of. Come back to me when your mind is intact.

Again, you make a claim and do not back it up with proof. I avoid nothing, if I didn't answer a question it is because I missed it. Nothing more.

Like I said, I say EXACTLY what I mean. Attack what I say, and not what YOU think I said or what you think I mean. Actually wouldn't attacking what I say be easier for you? Nope, I guess it wouldn't hence your need to invent shit that I say.

By the way, I am prejudice, I am not a racist. My prejudices are social not racial. Like it or not, there is a big difference.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-27 16:33:44)

lowing wrote:

His message was clear Cam, it was clear in his words as well as his actions. Not much left to interpret.

well, there religious binds are exactly what does not jive with western society. their religion teaches intolerance and inferiority to those outside of Islam and its beliefs.

Funny how you can continuely dismiss all things done in the name of Islam and say my head is in the sand.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … -Islam.htm

already posted this without ANY play.

how about addressing this, they seem ot have done far more research than you or I. See if you can deny or dismiss this WITHOUT claiming biased sources. Attack the material not the source.

Look lowing. Stick to your mantra if it makes you content. The reality is otherwise. I wouldn't expect someone like you, with such a binary mind, to entertain the reality of how most Imams interpret and teach Islam. The website you posted itself is just one interpretation, extracting out all the juicy parts.  The website is the kind of thing Goebbels might have posted about Judaism if internet was around in 1933.  I notice it didn't bother with the bits that completely contradict the message they seek to convey. It presents by no means irrefutable argument against Islam, the term 'more complicated than that' being a favourite of theirs (again interpretation being the key). It presents myths that nobody every fucking suggested - who the hell ever said Islam is a democracy??? Bizarre. I also find it baffling that it talks in generalities and doesn't even print the relevant suras to support the arguments printed on the page. The website suits you because you don't want to think for yourself, you have a predisposed position and whoever rustles up something that looks nice and anti-Islamic you'll blindly embrace it whole-heartedly without using your critical faculties.

The 'Islam is a religion of peace' paragraph is especially funny. It talks about Muhammed's life. The Koran isn't about Muhammed's life. It is simply supposed to be Allah's words conveyed onto paper via Muhammed. Muhammed isn't Allah. The whole section could easily be rewritten about Christianity and the Crusades or warring European 'Christian' kings - the latter have nothing to do with Christianity. It's a historical piece that only seeks to assign guilt by association. Not a mention of the suras promoting peace amongst people of the book or any of that. Perhaps you think the writers of the websites are infallible deities? Is that why you didn't bother to question anything they wrote?

Anyways I need to get off to bed shortly. Off to Canada in the morning.

PS Don't lie about me. I don't dismiss things done in the name of Islam. I proposed courses of action against such earlier.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-27 16:54:54)

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

His message, as you consistently ignore, was inconsistent. We have this argument countless times and you refuse to accept reality on this. It is not much fun chatting with someone pig-headedly sidestepping the critical point.

They come here to escape their economic binds. They don't come to escape their religious binds, they take them with them. It is incumbent on them to work around our system of doing things. The law is the law.

Are you a theologian now? Is the Koran 99% violence? I don't fucking think so - I read several chapters of it before getting bored off my tits. It's 99% boring tripe.

Keep your head in the sand if you please. You could actually buy a copy of it too and read it. Then give us your interpretation.

His message was clear Cam, it was clear in his words as well as his actions. Not much left to interpret.

well, there religious binds are exactly what does not jive with western society. their religion teaches intolerance and inferiority to those outside of Islam and its beliefs.

Funny how you can continuely dismiss all things done in the name of Islam and say my head is in the sand.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … -Islam.htm

already posted this without ANY play.

how about addressing this, they seem ot have done far more research than you or I. See if you can deny or dismiss this WITHOUT claiming biased sources. Attack the material not the source.

So does Christianity.

Damn the site addresses your concerns as well.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages … olence.htm

lowing wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lowing wrote:

Again, you make a claim and do not back it up with proof. I avoid nothing, if I didn't answer a question it is because I missed it. Nothing more.

Like I said, I say EXACTLY what I mean. Attack what I say, and not what YOU think I said or what you think I mean. Actually wouldn't attacking what I say be easier for you? Nope, I guess it wouldn't hence your need to invent shit that I say.

By the way, I am prejudice, I am not a racist. My prejudices are social not racial. Like it or not, there is a big difference.

So you're racist against poor people? How sick are you?!? I think I know EXACTLY what you mean. You're also racist against black people, since most black people are poor and you hate poor people. And you're white? So, are you a KKK member or something? White supremacist asshole? Come on, show your true colors.

You heard it here first folks, poor people is now a race ask 13/f/taiwan.

I do not care which race is poorer than the other. Poverty is not a race and can not be used as an accusation of racism. It is a social prejudice, of which I already admitted.

Nope I am not a KKK member, nor a white supremacist, I have posted nothing that warrants the drawing of such a conclusion, unless of course you are liberal enough to think that poor people is a race. Which now explains your posts.

I'm not some hippie liberal douchebag like you. I just think you are a horrible person for LIBERALLY spouting your political agenda. It is you lowing, who is blind. Stop it with your liberal agenda which has hit this country like the plague

Btw, black people=poor,
crackers(white people, aka you)=rich,
you=hate poor people,
which in turn means you/white people=hate black people.

And apparently you are not some WHITE SUPREMACIST hell bent on killing off all poor(black) people.

puhleeze, let me see you explain the world to me. go ahead, i bet you can't.

Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2009-12-28 22:32:58)

ghettoperson wrote:

He was studying in the UK, at a good university nonetheless. You're proposing we deport all Muslims? Sounds rather like a mild version of ethnic cleansing.

ghettoperson wrote:

He was on a terrorist watch list. A pretty fucking obvious solution to this terrorist problem - rather than some jackass move like try to block off a third of the world - would be to NOT LET PEOPLE ON TERRORIST WATCH LISTS GET ON FUCKING AIRPLANES.

I found this interesting, as it illustrates the known problem we have in our rights-driven society.  I'm not saying "rights suck" or "wtf everyone's a terrorist" here, nor am I picking on ghetto.

On one hand, you can't deport without cause, and secondly you can't pervasively invade people's lives if they are on a watch list.  Sure, it makes sense to keep the watch list folks out of sensitive areas, but in truth, can you really prevent everything?

Our society is open, which means relatively weak in terms of internal national security.  I see a primary reason due to individual rights - a strength as well as a weakness.  Hell we even have the ability to post criticism which could generate a self-fullfilling and self-defeating strategy on the internet.

But anyway, I thought this was interesting enough to point this out - its pretty much impossible to guarantee safety and unfettered individual freedoms.

Phrozenbot wrote:

That's cause there will always be people who live to destroy life, sadly. They come in different forms from different places with their own reasons, but it's that fiery hate that can't even be put out with the blood of their victims.

Islam amd what else?

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

That's cause there will always be people who live to destroy life, sadly. They come in different forms from different places with their own reasons, but it's that fiery hate that can't even be put out with the blood of their victims.

Islam amd what else?

He was speaking in general terms lowing ... he also used the word people ...

I wasn't,  So I ask again, specifically, ISLAM and what else?

Whatelse are you describing here other than Islam?

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-30 04:16:06)