No favortism towards Islam, huh

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
flavio said:
I don't suppose you have any facts that show that the numbers aren't equivalent? I don't remember there being far catholics and protestants citizens the world over denouncing the terrorists in Northern Ireland for representing their religion everytime there was a bombing.

Ahh...nice one. Since you don't remember, it never happened. Is that typical thinking on your part? It would explain a lot...


flavio said:
If a Republican goes nuts in a political arguement and shoots 10 Libertarians does that mean all Republicans must publicly denounce his actions or they approve?

Why yes...yes it does. Perhaps you've finally figured it out...

flavio said:
Every time there's a bombing in Northern Ireland catholic and protestant citizens the world over don't publicly denounce the incident. So that means they all must approve of the violence. That the catholic and protestant religions are violent and everyone that practices the faiths are terrorist supporting nutjobs.....right?

Dammit. You blew it again out of flawed thinking.

flavio said:
I think it's very possible that the average republican, catholic, or protestant might see these incidents in the news and think to himself "That's awful...what a bunch of psychos" and then go make dinner. All the while not approving one bit.

Quite different from dancing in the streets and celebrating, though, isn't it...

flavio said:
Ah...that's quite a claim. In fact it's pretty much impossible. Got any proof?

Just as much as you do for your claims.

flavio said:
You continue to hang onto this "inaction means approval" idea while in spite this being an unquestionably a flawed logical statement there has been plenty of "action" anyway...which you continue to ignore. This would seem like a better example of "denial".

How is it flawed? You continually say that, but every counter you have leads right back to it.

flavio said:
So even though you're left with no justification I expect you'll continue pass judgement, condem, and attempt to propogate unfounded hatred towards a billion or so people that vast majority of which are non-violent innocent citizens possibly using more irrevalent excuses like....

..."Oh, yeah...How many Northern Irish attack foreign governments not directly involved in their plight?"

Since you don't understand, I won't try to explain it further. It wastes my time, and seems to confuse you to no end.

flavio said:
A great number of muslims have denounced the violence which already should have satisfied this requirement of yours. It's odd that you keep forgetting this. I suppose for you this must be a core justification for propagating the hatred so there's a mental block of some sort that keeps deleting the information.

So your extremely limited links are meaningful when taken into the context of over one billion Muslims world wide? :rofl4:

flavio said:
Assuming you'll forget again and keep thinking they haven't....it still isn't logical to think "letting their belief system be used for heinous things.

An average muslim citizen in India with no connection at all to a terrorist in in Afghanistan is a completely seperate and different individual. There's no basis at all for making the assumption that they have similar personalities, occupations, hobbies, goals, or political opinions just because they both muslim.

I didn't. You, OTOH, seem to think so when it makes your argument seem stronger. Just look to your links. ;)

flavio said:
You really can't even assume they practice their religion the same way. For example pre-marital sex is against the catholic religion but can we assume no catholics have sex before they are married?

Right. Like this has anything to do with terrorism. Nobody killed tens of thousands of people with pre-marital sex.

flavio said:
In actuality the muslim in India has absolutely no responsibility or connection at all for the actions of a terrorist in Afghanistan. There's no basis for making any assumptions or judgements about the Indian. He has no duty and shouldn't have any need to defend his character or comment on the actions of the terrorist.

Talk to the Hindu's in Kashmere. I'm sure they'd disagree...but that would require you to abandon your argument...

flavio said:
If a guy shoots 10 Liberterians in the name of Republicans other Republicans have no responsibility or duty to denounce the incident. In this case most non-Republicans would see the news and "That's awful...what a psycho" without condeming, passing judgement, or making any assumptions about Republicans as a group.

You do it every day.

flavio said:
I bet even if the IRA blew up the Empire State building tomorrow in the name of catholicism the average American non-catholic wouldn't suddenly assume that all catholics are crazy violent terrorists.

Depends...how many Catholics would e dancing in the streets worldwide, and handing out candy in celebration?

flavio said:
That's because they are very familiar with catholics and republicans. They know many of them, work with them, and have them as neighbors, or relatives. Being so familiar with them on a personal level people aren't likely to suddenly hate and condem all catholics or republicans if an unrelated nut does something awful.

Talk to the KKK...they are virulently anti-Catholic as well as anti-black and anti-Jewish.

flavio said:
Many Americans don't have familiarity at all like this with Muslims. I'm sure for many people there's none in their group of friends, at their work, or in their neighborhood and they quite possibly have never spoke to or even seen a muslim in person.

People are very anxious to classify and make ridiculous assumptions about groups of people they don't know much about and accept stereotypes. Gay men are all flaming lisping drag queans. Black men are all violent rapping thugs unless they are tall then they also play basketball. Environmentalists are all pot smoking hippies. Italians are all connected to the mafia.

So now you want to encourage religious dicrimination and hatred towards a billion people who for the most part have no connection to terrorists. You're saying "I'm going to make unfounded assumptions and stereotypes about all of you and it's your duty to defend yourself from them".

Seems like the only one making such claims is you.
 

flavio

Banned
Gato_Solo said:
Ahh...nice one. Since you don't remember, it never happened. Is that typical thinking on your part? It would explain a lot...
Look again, I said since I don't remember it you should provide some facts to back up your statement which youre avoiding with a misquote.

Why yes...yes it does. Perhaps you've finally figured it out...
We can settle this pretty quick by using some formal logic rules.

Your claim of "Inaction means tacit approval" which your using to say basically "muslims who have not taken action must approve of terrorism".

This can be put in the simple form of: If P then C.

Logic rules say "an invalid argument is one in which it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false". Since the example shows that it's possible for someone to be muslim (P) and not approve of the terrorist acts (C) then the logic is invalid.

Dammit. You blew it again out of flawed thinking.
So where's the flaw?

Quite different from dancing in the streets and celebrating, though, isn't it...
Yes that it is different...point? It also disproves your "inaction means approval" idea.

Just as much as you do for your claims.
Instead of providing proof to back up your claim you're saying you have as much proof as I do. Since you haven't asked for any proof that I haven't provided this is just another attempt to avoid backing up your statements.

flavio said:
So even though you're left with no justification I expect you'll continue pass judgement, condem, and attempt to propogate unfounded hatred towards a billion or so people that vast majority of which are non-violent innocent citizens possibly using more irrevalent excuses like....

..."Oh, yeah...How many Northern Irish attack foreign governments not directly involved in their plight?"
Since you don't understand, I won't try to explain it further. It wastes my time, and seems to confuse you to no end.
Instead of really responding you keep making these vague statements and claims with no reasons. What do you think I don't understand and why do you think it confuses me?

So your extremely limited links are meaningful when taken into the context of over one billion Muslims world wide?
Yes, many statements from leaders of muslim faith aren't meaningful? That's odd since earlier in the thread you said....

gato said:
as I've said...there aren't celebrations in the streets when Catholics/Christians/Jews do those kind of acts. They are condemned not only by the press, but by the leaders of their respective faiths.
....
So, explain how "by the leaders of their respective faiths" is meaningful in your example but not mine?

And celebrations in the streets? How about blessing terrorists in parades on

Right. Like this has anything to do with terrorism. Nobody killed tens of thousands of people with pre-marital sex.
You missed the point which was right there in the sentence you quoted... "You really can't even assume they practice their religion the same way".

But you say "I didn't" make any assumptions about similarities between muslims. Without that assumption what point are you trying to make in this thread?
You, OTOH, seem to think so when it makes your argument seem stronger. Just look to your links.
Why do I seem to think so?

Talk to the Hindu's in Kashmere. I'm sure they'd disagree...but that would require you to abandon your argument...
Why would Hindus in Kashmere disagree and if they did why would it require me to abandon my arguement?


You do it every day.
When someone shoots people I think "That's awful...what a psycho" without condeming a group he's in everyday?....what are you saying?


Depends...how many Catholics would be dancing in the streets worldwide, and handing out candy in celebration?
How many catholics would it take? Does the catholic church blessing and marching with the terrorists count?

Does it change anything if the protestants celebrate in the street in catholic neighborhoods?

What if there was so much celebration they might have to make an amendment which will make it an offence to glorify, exalt or celebrate acts of terrorism but it still allowed them to celebrate terrorism that occured at least 20 years ago?

Talk to the KKK...they are virulently anti-Catholic as well as anti-black and anti-Jewish.
You're using the KKK as an example in response to statements about the average American Do you consider a member of the KKK an average American? If so you likely feel all Americans would need to publicy denounce every horrible event the KKK was part of unless they supported it.

Seems like the only one making such claims is you.
Where did I make such claims and if your're not making these claims what are you claiming?
 

flavio

Banned
What makes you think I sided with the terrorists exactly and why would it be getting harder if I did?

Has it been getting harder for you to side with them or something?
 

flavio

Banned
Better? What, you didn't understand the question?

I'll reword it....

I was asking what it was that caused you to assume that I had sided or was trying to side with terrorists. Also why did you think it might have become harder and harder and what would be making it more difficult?
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
flavio said:
Look again, I said since I don't remember it you should provide some facts to back up your statement which youre avoiding with a misquote.

Which I pulled directly out of your post. Funny how that works, innit?

flavio said:
We can settle this pretty quick by using some formal logic rules.

Your claim of "Inaction means tacit approval" which your using to say basically "muslims who have not taken action must approve of terrorism".

This can be put in the simple form of: If P then C.

Logic rules say "an invalid argument is one in which it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false". Since the example shows that it's possible for someone to be muslim (P) and not approve of the terrorist acts (C) then the logic is invalid.

So where's the flaw?

In everything you've typed so far. You're making an assumption that the average muslim in the Islamic world would do something to stop the madness which is using their religion to spread mass hysteria, death, and destruction throughout the world. Of course, your assumption is based on the observation of others who have an axe to grind. Mine is based on my own observations, because I've been there before the war, during the war, and after the war. Hell...I'm here now. You talk as if one, or two, people who claim expertise of the Islamic world, have a special sense because they have a piece of paper that says they are experts. Since they are so correct, why don't you prove them correct. Buy a ticket to Saudi Arabia, go to the middle of a town square, and state your nationality out loud, and in the clear. No news cameras, no bodyguards, and no weapons.

flavio said:
Yes that it is different...point? It also disproves your "inaction means approval" idea.

Instead of providing proof to back up your claim you're saying you have as much proof as I do. Since you haven't asked for any proof that I haven't provided this is just another attempt to avoid backing up your statements.

Prove it. Do what I asked. If you're correct, then I'll apologize...but you better have some kind of proof.

flavio said:
Instead of really responding you keep making these vague statements and claims with no reasons. What do you think I don't understand and why do you think it confuses me?

Your naivitee. When's the last time you've left the North American continent? You speak as though you have this great understanding of international affairs, but you only know what's been fed to you.

flavio said:
Yes, many statements from leaders of muslim faith aren't meaningful?

Nope. Not since those few quotes don't amount to a decline in terrorist activity abroad...

flavio said:
So, explain how "by the leaders of their respective faiths" is meaningful in your example but not mine?

Yours are taken after specific actions. Kind of like the kid who breaks a window, has their parents apologize, and then proceeds to break another.

And celebrations in the streets? How about bblessing terrorists in parades on [/Quote]

Doesn't seem to be a news site. Perhaps you should do a little more than just Google and post...

flavio said:
Why would Hindus in Kashmere disagree and if they did why would it require me to abandon my arguement?

Because they, too, suffer from Islamic extremists. I'm not putting the full blame on Muslims, however, as Hindus do the same to them in that region...

flavio said:
When someone shoots people I think "That's awful...what a psycho" without condeming a group he's in everyday?....what are you saying?

So you never think "How could they let this happen"? How nice of you. :rolleyes:

flavio said:
How many catholics would it take? Does the catholic church blessing and marching with the terrorists count?

Depends...does the Catholic church have schools that actively teach this hate and corruption?

flavio said:
Does it change anything if the protestants celebrate in the street in catholic neighborhoods?

What if there was so much celebration they might have to make an amendment which will make it an offence to glorify, exalt or celebrate acts of terrorism but it still allowed them to celebrate terrorism that occured at least 20 years ago?

Has that happened outside of the area where those actions took place, and does the Catholic/Protestant church hold services exhaulting such attacks?

flavio said:
You're using the KKK as an example in response to statements about the average American Do you consider a member of the KKK an average American? If so you likely feel all Americans would need to publicy denounce every horrible event the KKK was part of unless they supported it.

And what happened later? I do believe such acts were prosecuted and condemned by the general public out loud, and in the clear.

flavio said:
Where did I make such claims and if your're not making these claims what are you claiming?

You're the one who likes to use either the crusades, Nazi's, Facists, or IRA to back up your statements...
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Hey Gato...the ignore function works wonders, You ought to try it. I have & my headaches have disappeared :D
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
go to the middle of a town square, and state your nationality out loud, and in the clear. No news cameras, no bodyguards, and no weapons..

scratches head and wunders aloud what would happen

So Grotto is your current where abouts a state secret???
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Winky said:
scratches head and wunders aloud what would happen

So Grotto is your current where abouts a state secret???

No. But the mission I'm performing can have rather serious consequences if I say where I am, because most of you folks know what my job is. Me running off 'at the mouth' could put quite a few people in jeopardy.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Well I'm sure as Hell against putting the boys in blue
at greater risk than they already are...

But I do wonder what exotic locale you find yourself in now.

Would simply revealing the country be excessive?

Hmmm, part of the buildup to invade Iran eh?
brow.gif
 

flavio

Banned
Gato_Solo said:
Which I pulled directly out of your post. Funny how that works, innit?
Here....

1. flavio: I don't suppose you have any facts that show that the numbers aren't equivalent? I don't remember there being far catholics and protestants citizens the world over denouncing the terrorists in Northern Ireland for representing their religion everytime there was a bombing.

2. Gato: Ahh...nice one. Since you don't remember, it never happened. Is that typical thinking on your part? It would explain a lot...

3. flavio: Look again, I said since I don't remember it you should provide some facts to back up your statement which youre avoiding with a misquote.

4. Gato: Which I pulled directly out of your post. Funny how that works, innit?

Looking at (1.) see that I didn't say "I don't remember, it never happened" and you didn't pull it from my post. Since I don't remember it happening and don't know your claim to be true I asked for proof. You ask for proof sometimes right?

If you don't have anything indixating that more christians denounce christian terrorism than muslimsdenounce muslim terrorism we can just disregard that and move alopng. No big deal.

In everything you've typed so far. You're making an assumption that the average muslim in the Islamic world would do something to stop the madness which is using their religion to spread mass hysteria, death, and destruction throughout the world.

I didn't make that assumption about muslims or christians. I don't think the average muslim or christian the would approve of the madness which is using their religion to spread mass hysteria, death, and destruction throughout the world though.

Of course, your assumption is based on the observation of others who have an axe to grind. Mine is based on my own observations, because I've been there before the war, during the war, and after the war. Hell...I'm here now. You talk as if one, or two, people who claim expertise of the Islamic world, have a special sense because they have a piece of paper that says they are experts.
Who are these people with the paper and the axe that the assumption I didn't make is based on?

Since they are so correct, why don't you prove them correct. Buy a ticket to Saudi Arabia, go to the middle of a town square, and state your nationality out loud, and in the clear. No news cameras, no bodyguards, and no weapons.

Prove it. Do what I asked. If you're correct, then I'll apologize...but you better have some kind of proof.
If I had really made that assumption or knew who these people were I'd have to go to Saudi Arabia to prove it? I just was asking for documentation when I asked you to back up your claim above and "every time there's some violence in Northern Ireland all catholics and protestants publically denounce the incidences".

It doesn't seem right that you can't put up some documentation or a link but would want me to go thousands of miles if I had made that assumption.

Your naivitee. When's the last time you've left the North American continent? You speak as though you have this great understanding of international affairs, but you only know what's been fed to you.
Saying I'm naive and don't understand is meaningless without a specific example of naivety or lack of understanding.


Nope. Not since those few quotes don't amount to a decline in terrorist activity abroad...
My link had a good many muslim leaders statements and chcr found a bunch more examples in a few seconds. If you were really interested I'm sure you could find a ton more on your own. You aren't going to look and it doesn't matter how many are posted. You've already been trying to block out the examples you have now.

So you've changed your story. Now what? All muslims everywhere need to go fight the terrorist and be sucussful in creating a decline in terrorism?

Do you remember all the catholics where you live going over to fight the IRA?

Yours are taken after specific actions. Kind of like the kid who breaks a window, has their parents apologize, and then proceeds to break another.
Could you supply some evidence showing that muslim leaders only denounce terrorists after specific actions and catholic do it some other way?

And celebrations in the streets? How about blessing terrorists in parades on
Doesn't seem to be a news site. Perhaps you should do a little more than just Google and post...[/quote]So how about muslims dancing in the streets and celebrating after 9/11. How many muslims do you know were doing this? I'd guess a lot less than the number that have denounced the violence.

Most of them seemed to be in Palestine. Why would Palestinians do that? Maybe because while Israel takes their land, massacres their people, and ignores UN mandates the US gives the Israeli's massive amounts of money, weapons, and favoritism in negotiations?

That's more of a "You're helping the people that are killing us thing" than a muslim issue.

Maybe they feel that if the US doesn't take action against the Israeli terrorism they must support it....

""The record of Israeli terrorism goes back to the origins of the state - indeed, long before - including the massacre of 250 civilians and brutal expulsion of seventy thousand others from Lydda and Ramle in July 1948; the massacre of hundreds of others at the undefended village of Doueimah near Hebron in October 1948;...the slaughters in Quibya, Kafr Kassem, and a string of other assassinated villages; the expulsion of thousands of Bedouins from the demilitarized zones shortly after the 1948 war and thousands more from northeastern Sinai in the early 1970's, their villages destroyed, to open the region for Jewish settlement; and on, and on." Noam Chomsky, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens."


Because they, too, suffer from Islamic extremists. I'm not putting the full blame on Muslims, however, as Hindus do the same to them in that region...
There, you said it. "Extremists".


Depends...does the Catholic church have schools that actively teach this hate and corruption?
Sure, Catholics in some schols are taught to hate Protestants, Anglicans,Jehova's Witnesses, Homosexuals, people who get abortions, and pretty much anyone that's not Catholic is damned or a heretic.



Has that happened outside of the area where those actions took place, and does the Catholic/Protestant church hold services exhaulting such attacks?
Here's some pastors doing violence...

"a number of Protestant church members, and even pastors, were involved in some of this violence"


And what happened later? I do believe such acts were prosecuted and condemned by the general public out loud, and in the clear.
The muslims are doing that too.



You're the one who likes to use either the crusades, Nazi's, Facists, or IRA to back up your statements...[/QUOTE]
 
Top