What's new
By:

Boston Marathon explosions......

SiroMar: I find your point about the Islamic Golden age being HELD back by Islam laughable-- of course, I can understand why you argue it, as it fits your "religion represses progress" rhetoric, but choosing the Golden Age of Islam as a definitive proof of this is a very, very weak stance.


Also, I know you know that I meant that Islam shouldn't adopt its principles of 700 CE. I am saying that there was a very long span of time where they held views that were the MOST progressive relative to the rest of the world. We should try and understand a)what the sociological factors underlying that society where; b) how things have changed, and why; c) is there anyway we can try and get modern Islam to revert back into the times where Education (first and foremost-- after all, the first word that Allah told the prophet Muhammad through Gabriel was "Read", as you know), Philosophy, and Co-habitation with those of different ethnicities, races, and faiths. Muhammad was seen as a radical when he appointed Bilal ibn Raba as the Muezzin-- yet you say that Religious forces led to things like racial inequality, and reversed education.
 
babe said:
may I suggest that you study the western origins of muslim terrorists. . . . . the muslims who aligned with Hitler during the second world war, and those who were recruited later by western agents like the KGB or CIA or MI6???

If you just tell me you're interested, I'll PM you some links to folks who have been looking into this. . . .

I put the current controversy in the same class as the agitators who helped stoke the fires on both sides leading up the American Civil War. You have the same point sources of financing between opposite sides of a conflagration pushing us to war???

and those point sources are military industrialists with excess capacity for production???
Click to expand...

EJ wanted the links I mentioned. . . . . here's a fellow who actually was employed by the Government and assigned to research this topic, with access to all the government docs. . . . and boy would he hate being mistaken for a right-wingnut or conspiracy theorist. To him it's a simple matter of fact.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_muslimbrotherhood01.htm

you can actually just google this topic and find a lot of stuff, from all kinds of people. . . .
 
Last edited:
Sandy Braille said:
SiroMar: I find your point about the Islamic Golden age being HELD back by Islam laughable-- of course, I can understand why you argue it, as it fits your "religion represses progress" rhetoric, but choosing the Golden Age of Islam as a definitive proof of this is a very, very weak stance.


Also, I know you know that I meant that Islam shouldn't adopt its principles of 700 CE. I am saying that there was a very long span of time where they held views that were the MOST progressive relative to the rest of the world. We should try and understand a)what the sociological factors underlying that society where; b) how things have changed, and why; c) is there anyway we can try and get modern Islam to revert back into the times where Education (first and foremost-- after all, the first word that Allah told the prophet Muhammad through Gabriel was "Read", as you know), Philosophy, and Co-habitation with those of different ethnicities, races, and faiths. Muhammad was seen as a radical when he appointed Bilal ibn Raba as the Muezzin-- yet you say that Religious forces led to things like racial inequality, and reversed education.
Click to expand...

Oh ya remember when Islam was ahead in the world? Ya it has nothing to do with Islam. Oh ya you know how Islam is behind the rest of the world? Oh ya it has everything to do with Islam. You know why? Because I said so.
 
Last edited:
Scat said:
Wow... you are dangerously close to being a terrorist sympathizer with this post...
Click to expand...

I suppose you don't see his point and are yourself "dangerously close" to proving his point????

I like Rush and Hannity and a lot of other talk show folks. . . . because they are there and on the air, and I can listen. I used o listen to NPR every day and knew who all their folks were, but when Rush came on, it was really a lot of fun and I like some pretty intelligent people with opinions. . . . just like I did when it was all liberals. How come we don't have a publicly-funded counterpoint to NPR???? Isn't that just some silly abuse of public funds to propagandize the American people???

If you don't want to hear the stuff Limbaugh says, at least you're not paying for it to be on the air.

So I know Hannity is a Republican Party hack who would do anything to discredit Ron Paul. And I know Rush "sold out" to the big boys at one point and became pretty much biased in his selection of points. Recently he has taken on the Republican Party once again, like he did back in the early nineties. Whoever you listen to, you need to analyze their point of view and check it out some. . . . it's never just "right".

It isn't "right" to just believe what you're taught in public schools either. . . . or anywhere else.
 
I don't understand why the media keeps talking to that Uncle. He clearly stated he thinks the guys were losers and hasn't talked to them for a lot of years....so what value could he possibly hold? And yet, they act like the info he is feeding them is paramount and the story is all of the sudden going to make sense when he pulls a bigger turd of speculation out of his know nothing ***.
 
Last edited:
Scat said:
Hence the reason I used the word close rather than are.
Click to expand...

backpedaling-o.gif


:)
 
I don't get the uproar over whether to call him a terrorist or criminal? Could someone explain to me why am radio and fox are up in arms over this? If he's a terrorist... What... Is he hanged? If he's a criminal, what he is lethally injected? Is someone more deader if they are hanged? Or less deader if they are lethally injected? Does mass even have a capital punishment? So is he less deader if he has to spend the rest of his life being raped in the shower nonstop for the next 70+ years? I don't get it/

And it's not like bombing is exclusively done by terrorists. Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building and killed a lot more people if memory serves. I don't really recall him being defined as a "terrorist." Do we call Muslims who blow stuff up terrorists and white Christians who blow stuff up as angry crimials wanting to protest their government?

I just don't get the uproar over obama's words and why so many are upset over him being tried. Isn't he a naturalized citizen anyway? Someone please enlighten me because this looks like yet another petty lame *** attack by the right.
 
Scat said:
I do not think you understand the gif you posted.
Click to expand...

I don't think I understand the word-choice behind "you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist-sympathizer", and then acknowledging that there is a difference between understanding and sympathizing-- and somehow claiming that your previous post is in accordance with that.
 
Sandy Braille said:
I don't think I understand the word-choice behind "you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist-sympathizer", and then acknowledging that there is a difference between understanding and sympathizing-- and somehow claiming that your previous post is in accordance with that.
Click to expand...

Subtlety is often difficult to understand for some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top