It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72569
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!

Right. And a lot of Americans looooove to say "Well, it's time the good Muslims start speaking up and holding their governments responsible!" It'd be nice if we practiced what we preached. I posted a story last year about us blowing up a Doctors Without Borders hospital, knowingly. Nobody gave a fuck.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!



Just a couple of guys who forget, or never knew, that the countries we ended up in were places that had come after us first and had been funded by other Islamic governments.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72569
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Seacrest wrote:
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!



Just a couple of guys who forget, or never knew, that the countries we ended up in were places that had come after us first and had been funded by other Islamic governments.

I really hope you aren't justifying the actions we have taken over the last 12-13 years. They are reprehensible.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!



Just a couple of guys who forget, or never knew, that the countries we ended up in were places that had come after us first and had been funded by other Islamic governments.

You are absolutely and fundamentally wrong.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.


At least we can now agree that Islam targets others from its earliest beginnings.

And go back more than 50 years to Israel, and you will have the most accurate starting point for Islamic anger and future aggression toward the US.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!



Just a couple of guys who forget, or never knew, that the countries we ended up in were places that had come after us first and had been funded by other Islamic governments.

You are absolutely and fundamentally wrong.


So now we were not attacked by people on 9/11 that were from Afghanistan and funded by the wealthy in Saudi Arabia?

I don't think the word absolute means what you think it means.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.


At least we can now agree that Islam targets others from its earliest beginnings.

And go back more than 50 years to Israel, and you will have the most accurate starting point for Islamic anger and future aggression toward the US.


They weren't blowing things up in the U.S. in 1948 and many would argue that any anger which resulted due to Israel is Justified.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
FavreFan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!



Just a couple of guys who forget, or never knew, that the countries we ended up in were places that had come after us first and had been funded by other Islamic governments.

I really hope you aren't justifying the actions we have taken over the last 12-13 years. They are reprehensible.


I detest war.

That is the second time I have said it.

I am not and never was for war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

However, to say that we were the aggressor with Afghanistan has ZERO correlation with reality.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
The problem with blaming our "intervention" in the Middle East is that the terrorist we and others are dealing with are not coming from those countries and other countries in Europe that aren't us are dealing with the same terrorists. I must have missed all that French intervention in the Middle East.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.


At least we can now agree that Islam targets others from its earliest beginnings.

And go back more than 50 years to Israel, and you will have the most accurate starting point for Islamic anger and future aggression toward the US.


They weren't blowing things up in the U.S. in 1948 and many would argue that any anger which resulted due to Israel is Justified.


So if the ends justify the means, then how can you have any issue with the US? Remember, they were just looking out for the future security of their citizens.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!



Just a couple of guys who forget, or never knew, that the countries we ended up in were places that had come after us first and had been funded by other Islamic governments.

You are absolutely and fundamentally wrong.


So now we were not attacked by people on 9/11 that were from Afghanistan and funded by the wealthy in Saudi Arabia?

I don't think the word absolute means what you think it means.


Iraq attacked us on 9/11? What about Afghanistan? I don't think you addressed my original point either. U.S. actions in Iran in 1953 is the primary reason that Iran sponsored terrorism against the U.S. Hostilities didn't begin with Osama Bin Laden. I know its convenient for Americans because it fits the narrative but that is false.

In bringing up I'm 9/11 I'm reminded of the famous Tarkanian line about how the NCAA operates. The NCAA shows just how mad they are at Kentucky by placing Cleveland State on probation. United States did exactly the same thing with respect to Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
The problem with blaming our "intervention" in the Middle East is that the terrorist we and others are dealing with are not coming from those countries and other countries in Europe that aren't us are dealing with the same terrorists. I must have missed all that French intervention in the Middle East.



And the Belgium and German interventions as well.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19929
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
FavreFan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


Only took 5 pages for the (False) Equivalency flag to be planted.

Ever hear of the Battle of Vienna? Reconquista?

Jihad knows no cardinal direction or figurative "West" it only k how's expansion through war, conquest, slavery, subjugation and deception. It's currently being waged very successfully in "Western" Europe.

:lol: :lol:


FAVRE Fan, are there things?!

C'mon, lil buddy!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19929
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
FavreFan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


Only took 5 pages for the (False) Equivalency flag to be planted.

Ever hear of the Battle of Vienna? Reconquista?

Jihad knows no cardinal direction or figurative "West" it only k how's expansion through war, conquest, slavery, subjugation and deception. It's currently being waged very successfully in "Western" Europe.

:lol: :lol:


FAVRE Fan, are there things?!

C'mon, lil buddy!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.


At least we can now agree that Islam targets others from its earliest beginnings.

And go back more than 50 years to Israel, and you will have the most accurate starting point for Islamic anger and future aggression toward the US.


They weren't blowing things up in the U.S. in 1948 and many would argue that any anger which resulted due to Israel is Justified.


So if the ends justify the means, then how can you have any issue with the US? Remember, they were just looking out for the future security of their citizens.


Saddam was no threat and he definitely was not a radical Islamist.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
GoldenJet wrote:
long time guy wrote:
I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


We, the US and our allies, have caused the deaths of 10s and more likely 100s of thousands of civilians during this "War on terror" period of our history. It's no wonder radical responses come from hate filled groups and individuals. All in the name of big business...I mean freedom!



Just a couple of guys who forget, or never knew, that the countries we ended up in were places that had come after us first and had been funded by other Islamic governments.

You are absolutely and fundamentally wrong.


So now we were not attacked by people on 9/11 that were from Afghanistan and funded by the wealthy in Saudi Arabia?

I don't think the word absolute means what you think it means.


Iraq attacked us on 9/11? What about Afghanistan? I don't think you addressed my original point either. U.S. actions in Iran in 1953 is the primary reason that Iran sponsored terrorism against the U.S. Hostilities didn't begin with Osama Bin Laden. I know its convenient for Americans because it fits the narrative but that is false.


Afghanistan was directly complicit in the attacks on 9/11. As was Saudi Arabia for allowing it's funding to flow through their country.

If the US was only country that Iran engaged in terrorist activities against, your reference to 1953 would hold at least a little water. Iran exports terror to many others beside the US.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


A couple of actual things.

People tend to repeat whatever they find in less than 140 characters or see in a 30 second sound bite. Islam was conceived as a religion that targeted people. Mohammed himself claimed to have killed 1000 men. None of them showed up on his doorstep.

JORR has never said all Muslims are radicals.

While I detest all war, to claim that the US just decided to drop bombs indiscriminately in Afghanistan has no correlation with reality. The government of Kuwait asked for help. Iraq is different story.


There is no justification for what the U.S. did in Iraq. U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates Iraq by at least 50 years. Muslims didn't target the U.S. until the U.S. took "multiple actions in the Middle East.


At least we can now agree that Islam targets others from its earliest beginnings.

And go back more than 50 years to Israel, and you will have the most accurate starting point for Islamic anger and future aggression toward the US.


They weren't blowing things up in the U.S. in 1948 and many would argue that any anger which resulted due to Israel is Justified.


So if the ends justify the means, then how can you have any issue with the US? Remember, they were just looking out for the future security of their citizens.


long time guy wrote:
Saddam was no threat and he definitely was not a radical Islamist.


Who said that he was?

You are the one playing the ends justify the means, not me.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72569
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
SomeGuy wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The crux of the problem lie in the tendency to generalize. Not all Muslims are radical and not all Muslims wish death upon the West. Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the West either. The West became a target once they began to interfere in their politics.

I find it ironic that the United States can drop bombs in their countries, plant troops on the ground in their countries, overthrow leaders and attempt to impose U.S. styled govermnents yet Muslims are the radical ones.


Only took 5 pages for the (False) Equivalency flag to be planted.

Ever hear of the Battle of Vienna? Reconquista?

Jihad knows no cardinal direction or figurative "West" it only k how's expansion through war, conquest, slavery, subjugation and deception. It's currently being waged very successfully in "Western" Europe.

:lol: :lol:


FAVRE Fan, are there things?!

C'mon, lil buddy!

Things are falling down on me
Heavy things I could not see
When I finally came around
Something small would pin me down
When I try to step aside
I move to where they'd hoped I'd be

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest My essential point is that U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates any actions that Muslims have taken against Americans. It is not even close. There would not be any need to protect "our security" interests had this not occurred. You stated that they targeted the U.S. first and that is fundamentally false.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80568
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Sir Loin Of Beef wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

I'm sure that's true. When Sir Loin posted those links to all those crazy Christians making goofy statements, we all laughed. Because it's ridiculous. Nas did not feel compelled to call Loin a bigot and scold him for mocking the religious beliefs of those goofs. For some reason the educated American liberal treats Muslims like retarded children requiring protection from any criticism.



No, you fucking asshole.Do you even understand what I was talking about?
Ignorance and Fear really leads to hatred, doesn't it?


I understand you feel contempt for Christians is somehow different than contempt for Muslims.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:21 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest My essential point is that U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates any actions that Muslims have taken against Americans. It is not even close. There would not be any need to protect "our security" interests had this not occurred. You stated that they targeted the U.S. first and that is fundamentally false.


Your "essential point" changed from your original statement. And your original statement that Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the west is demonstrably false and totally at odds with actual history.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80568
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Nas wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm sure that's true. When Sir Loin posted those links to all those crazy Christians making goofy statements, we all laughed. Because it's ridiculous. Nas did not feel compelled to call Loin a bigot and scold him for mocking the religious beliefs of those goofs. For some reason the educated American liberal treats Muslims like retarded children requiring protection from any criticism.


My issue with you has been your need to label all Muslims as rapists murderers or whatever derogatory name you come up with. No one here is saying all Christians are _________.


Please quote the post where this occurred.


It happened earlier this year or late last year. We talked about it briefly at lunch too.


I don't recall anyone ever saying anything of the kind.

But all Muslims do believe the Koran to be the perfect word of God. If you don't I can't see how you could be a Muslim.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 28664
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
Do you know for a fact ALL Muslims believe that?

Do you think all Christians believe the bible to be the perfect word of God?

_________________
Nardi wrote:
Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38787
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Nas wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm sure that's true. When Sir Loin posted those links to all those crazy Christians making goofy statements, we all laughed. Because it's ridiculous. Nas did not feel compelled to call Loin a bigot and scold him for mocking the religious beliefs of those goofs. For some reason the educated American liberal treats Muslims like retarded children requiring protection from any criticism.


My issue with you has been your need to label all Muslims as rapists murderers or whatever derogatory name you come up with. No one here is saying all Christians are _________.


Please quote the post where this occurred.


It happened earlier this year or late last year. We talked about it briefly at lunch too.


I don't recall anyone ever saying anything of the kind.

But all Muslims do believe the Koran to be the perfect word of God. If you don't I can't see how you could be a Muslim.


I don't remember you saying that.

And i was always the sober one.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80568
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Jbi11s wrote:
Do you know for a fact ALL Muslims believe that?

Do you think all Christians believe the bible to be the perfect word of God?



We have to be able to define words if we're going to communicate, so I'll ask you to define "Muslim" and "Christian" for me before I can answer that.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Seacrest wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Seacrest My essential point is that U.S. intervention in the Middle East predates any actions that Muslims have taken against Americans. It is not even close. There would not be any need to protect "our security" interests had this not occurred. You stated that they targeted the U.S. first and that is fundamentally false.


Your "essential point" changed from your original statement. And your original statement that Islam was not conceived as a religion that targets the west is demonstrably false and totally at odds with actual history.



Mohammed targeted the United States? I'm really not concerned about Europe. I'm pretty sure that he didn't target a country that really wasn't a country. That would be quite the feat. In modern times the first Salvo by a mile was dropped by the U.S. conveniently this is ignored during the non stop Muslim bash fest.

Also if Islam was conceived as an attacker of Western Ideas then why haven't the Muslims from other regions really gotten in on the action? Muslims also weren't the only people participating in conquest either if you want to play that game.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 28664
pizza_Place: Clamburger's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Jbi11s wrote:
Do you know for a fact ALL Muslims believe that?

Do you think all Christians believe the bible to be the perfect word of God?



We have to be able to define words if we're going to communicate, so I'll ask you to define "Muslim" and "Christian" for me before I can answer that.

Eh... I put in the extra effort to look up actual definitions and saw words like adhere or follows. Nothing about perfect word of God.

In your opinion JoRR, can you follow a faith without practicing it? Because I think there are plenty of people within both of these religions who follow without practicing.

_________________
Nardi wrote:
Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93656
Location: To the left of my post
I don't understand what ltg is saying. Is he saying that any reaction is justified as long as you weren't the first to start it? This isn't a battle between children. "He started it" doesn't matter that much.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group