25
   

Can world survive Islam.

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 01:30 pm
@Olivier5,
Amen, brother.
0 Replies
 
andy31
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 01:42 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
September 11 did not make much of a dent in the overall American murder rate in 2001, which stood at roughly 50,000. 


Woow... you are way off, Thomas. Here are the real numbers from FBI source:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls#disablemobile

Besides, would you not see the difference between 3000 murdered in 2 hours by one source, versus how many died in the entire year (8 765 hours) from almost as many sources as murders?
Seriously?

Again, I emfisize that terrorism is classified in complete different category and we can't mix it with traffic accidents, etc!

Don't forget that WW1 started pretty much as a result of killing a single man, and that caused millions to die. That's why there was so much outrage when 2 Americans were beheaded but nobody pay much attention to everyday murder here.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 01:59 pm
@andy31,
Yet, statistically speaking, Thomas is right that you are much more likely to die from something else than from terrorism. Let's not over-estimate the threat posed by terrorists. In the grand scheme of things, they don't represent a significant threat.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 03:15 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The actual, effective fighters of the first crusade were Franks. They had no stake in Jerusalem. You're appealing to some abstract devotion to religious purity and devotion on the part of people who were so depraved that when they got hungry, they killed, cooked and ate their prisoners. These were people who had plundered, raped and murdered their way across the western portion of the Roman Empire.

Sounds like they were the perfect people to sic on Islam.


Setanta wrote:
(Try to get it through your thick skull that there was no "Byzantine Empire--they didn't call it that, the Empire did not call itself that--it only got that name from monkish, gnomish historians centuries later. How can anyone take you historical abortions seriously when you can't even take on-board basic historical fact?)

In my previous post, I demonstrated my acceptance of that fact, and justified my use of the term Byzantine Empire.

Is there a need for me to cut and paste parts of my previous post?


Setanta wrote:
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was ordered destroyed by the Fatimid Caliph who then controlled Palestine, in 1009. The First Crusade did not begin until 1095, eighty-six years later. The church had already been rebuilt with the consent of the Fatimid Caliph who had succeeded the Caliph who had order its destruction. The reconstruction of the church was completed in 1048, forty-seven years before that crusade began. The fate of a church which had already been re-built was a casus belli, an excuse for war.

Rebuilding the church doesn't change that its destruction pissed everyone off. I'm still pissed off about it today.


Setanta wrote:
The crusaders were Franks. The Franks had never lived in Palestine, they had never own one square foot of Palestine--it was nothing more than am excise to invade and attempt to set up a kingdom in Jerusalem.

Were I in charge of the Crusades, I would certainly have done things differently.

I would have put a premium on protecting and strengthening the Byzantine Empire. And if I'd captured Israel at all, I would have restored the land to Jewish sovereignty.

But that does not change the reality that Muslims were invading and killing everyone back then, just as they are doing today, and the Crusades were a strike against Islamic aggression.


Setanta wrote:
The crusade, no matter what holy joe bullshit you come up with, was a naked plundering expedition and a land grab.

Grabbing back land that Muslims had stolen.


Setanta wrote:
they did nothing to return the former territory to the Roman Empire, or to defend it from the Turks.

The Crusaders chose to rule the reclaimed land themselves.


Setanta wrote:
There is a serious problem within Christianity when their adherents bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions, and their body guards and the employees of such clinics.

I agree. And there was also the stuff in Northern Ireland in recent decades. But current problems with Xianity are not nearly as bad as the pervasive threat posed by Islam.


Setanta wrote:
There is a serious problem within Christianity when atrocities such as the slaughter at Srebenica was allowed to take place without interference, and the criminals who committed it are allowed to go unpunished.

I disagree. I do not believe that massacre was due to religion. I attribute it to nationalism.


Setanta wrote:
There is a serious problem within Judaism when Zionists routinely murder innocent men, women and children, and go unpunished.

No such problem. No such murders.


Setanta wrote:
while you so eagerly blame the actions of a tiny minority of Muslims on all of Islam

The problems within Islam are not limited to a tiny minority.

I am not sure that the problems are limited to even a large minority. It is true that not every Muslim is rushing to join Islamic State. But how many Muslims think it is OK to murder someone if they switch to a different faith? Quite a few I'd bet. Maybe even a majority. Maybe even a large majority. How many Muslims think that it is OK to murder people who burn the Koran? All of them?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 03:17 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
layman wrote:
"Zionist" is the new code word for "kike."

You disgusting racist pig. Zionists are those who believe that Jews should have their own homeland, based on what they claim were their historical borders. They believe that any acts are justified in pursuit of that goal. Not all Jews agree with that, and that includes Jews in Israel. After seeing your performance here in the past, i am not surprised to see you using a vile racist epithet and then trying to shove that off on someone else. You are a low-life scum-bag.

Zionism defined at the Jewish Virtual Library--note that this Jewish source states that not all Jews agree on what Zionism means.

Really, Laymna, you are the lowest of the low.

I don't think Layman was trying to use that word in a racist manner. Rather I think he was trying to denounce other racists.

It is possible that he meant to accuse you of such racism, but I can't tell for sure if that was his intent or not.

For the record, I don't believe that your intent was racist.

However, considering the deranged vermin who support the Palestinians, I think he may well have a point about their use of the term "Zionist".
andy31
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 05:30 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
...you are much more likely to die from something else than from terrorism

...of course, especially if you include in "something else" natural dead.

Quote:
Let's not over-estimate the threat posed by terrorists. In the grand scheme of things, they don't represent a significant threat.


Tell that to those thousands killed only in this country from hands of terrorists. Remember Fort Hoot, or Boston marathon attack? Let's not kidd ourselves.
andy31
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 06:23 pm
@2016,
Quote:

 Setanta (Post 5937669)

Quote:

Hey asshole, all you appear to have is some reactionary catholic blog writer. You've got a gall to sneer at anyone else about sources.

I've never been in a mosque in my life. I have never in my life hear an Imam or Mullah speak--you snotty, bigoted little piece of ****.



Aren't we the little bitch. How come you can talk that way without being banned?


His comical posts are quite entertaining. Everyone would miss that. His desperate attempts to insult others are bringing the same results as his struggle to sell his history knowledge -- it makes people laugh.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 07:49 pm
@andy31,
andy31 wrote:
Woow... you are way off, Thomas. Here are the real numbers from FBI source

Thanks for the correction. I probably confused traffic deaths and homicide rates. But the correction doesn't change the overall conclusion: September 11 claimed a four-digit number of lives once. 'Ordinary' murder claims a five-digit number of lives each year. Even with your correction, then, terrorism is a comparatively little deal.

andy31 wrote:
Besides, would you not see the difference between 3000 murdered in 2 hours by one source, versus how many died in the entire year (8 765 hours) from almost as many sources as murders?
Seriously?

Yes seriously. There are countless two-hour intervals during which terrorists killed nobody, and in the long run things average out. The question for public policy, then, is: How do we allocate the money in next year's budget to minimize the amount of premature death next year? The fact that one class of premature deaths comes in a few large chunks and another in many small ones should be irrelevant.

andy31 wrote:
Don't forget that WW1 started pretty much as a result of killing a single man, and that caused millions to die.

Yes. A policy mistake with catastrophic consequences. That's what you get when governments overreact to terrorism. I rest my case.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 09:18 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
... terrorism is a comparatively little deal.


A guy who shoves a gun in your face and threatens to pull the trigger is no big deal--no need to arm yourself against such a possibility. But, now, if he pulls the trigger, THAT is a big deal (to you, at least). So, if he does that, then now it's time to take measures to prevent it, eh? Oh, wait, it might be a little late then.

There are terrorist groups all over the world who would LOVE nothing more than to explode a few dirty nuke suitcase bombs in NYC, and kill millions. And they are in fact trying to figure out a way to do it 24/7. If they did that, I guess it really wouldn't be that big of a deal when you say it's only happened once, but in the history of this country many, many more have died violent deaths. Just take the civil war, for example.

But, now, if they also do it in Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, San Diego and 8-10 other major American cities, well, THEN it would be a big deal. At THAT point we should probably start taking some measures to stop that kinda crap, doncha think?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 09:57 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
This is all of a piece with your Zionist polemics...There is a serious problem within Judaism...


What else would you expect from a bunch a damn "Zionists," eh?

BTW, I said "code word," not "literal meaning."
0 Replies
 
andy31
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 10:17 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Yes. A policy mistake with catastrophic consequences. That's what you get when governments overreact to terrorism. I rest my case.


Thomas, I have to handed to you, that was genuinely the most brilliant getting-out-of-situation move on your part I saw it in a long time. I gave you a wrong or weak example and you went for it. If you would be a lawyer, I'd hire you in a heartbeat. You could argue a prosecutor out of his pants. Maybe that's why I like talking to you.

If that would be a murther case, than you just won it, and let murderer go free. Just kidding.
That being said, I still hold my position about problem we are facing in respect Muslims. If you argue that in a short term this is a small problem, than I agree. But it is a rapidly growing concern and in a long term, even if it won't kill you, it might alter the way you live, and you won't like it.

At some point there will be not much we will be able to do. We not there yet, so the time to shape our future is now.

Thomas, whenever you plan for vacation with yur wife wouldn't you check the weather first?

You are trying to tell me here is that there is no rain, skyes are clear, so I don't need any umbrella. I am telling you that
storm is coming.




0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 10:25 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
I was merely pointing out what small fish terrorists are in the overall pond of threats.
That is not through the design of the terrorists, but because of those who put themselves in harms way to protect you, something you have left out of the equation .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 10:27 pm
@Setanta,
Well your attempt at being human didnt last long . What is your major problem ? Life not good enough without someone to bully ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 10:31 pm
@Olivier5,
Then lets stop acting against terrorists and see how far we get . Will you take full responsibility or run away ?
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 11:27 pm
@andy31,
Quote:
Don't forget that WW1 started pretty much as a result of killing a single man, and that caused millions to die. That's why there was so much outrage when 2 Americans were beheaded but nobody pay much attention to everyday murder here.


You're not suggesting that a disgustingly brutal murder of a couple of American citizens is just and sufficient reason for starting a world wide war that will eventually result in the deaths of millions?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 21 Apr, 2015 11:55 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Zionism defined at the Jewish Virtual Library--note that this Jewish source states that not all Jews agree on what Zionism means.


Sho nuff. Says there:

Quote:
From inception, Zionism avocated tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions - left, right, religious and secular - formed the Zionist movement and worked together toward its goals.


What do you call people like that? Well, if not for the damn PC police you would just call them kikes. But, given the climate, you have to settle for calling them "Zionists." Needless to say, it is proper to spit out the word as though it was referring to some foul, disgusting, criminal element, which helps make the true point, ya know?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 12:09 am
@oralloy,
This may be the last time i address a post to you. Your comments about Muslims and Islam convince me that you are irrational and so filled with bigoted hate, that you are incapable of rationality.

Below is the map that Zionists (i.e., people who called themselves Zionists) presented to the Allied representatives at the Paris peace conference in 1919:

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_zionistpal.gif

In case your geographic knowledge is not very good, that covers almost all the territory that Israel seized in the 1967 war--large portions of Jordan, Syria, the Lebanon, and parts of Egypt. The only difference is that the map was far more modest in its proposed thefts of Egyptian territory. Israel's seizure and retention of those territories, and the millions of Palestinian refuges created since 1947 are the cause of most of the attacks on Israel that you seem to think were unprovoked aggression against a peaceful and innocent nation. Your delusion knows no bounds. Since at least 1919, and probably long before, Zionists have made irrational claims to other people's lands because of their holy book of fairy tales. Do the Welsh have a moral right to kill or drive out all the Saxons and Normans and retake Britain because their ancestors held the island 1700 years ago? The position of the Zionists is an historiacal absurdity, and an excuse for theft and murder no better than that which the Nazis employed after 1933. I consider Israeli Zionists to be murderous scum--the sooner the majority of decent Israelis deprive them of political power, the better.

As for Layman, he's a hateful son of a bitch who likes nothing better than to pick a fight. I have no doubt that in his circle of friends, such as they may be, he routinely refers to Jews as "kikes"--it would be part and parcel of the low, scummy character he has displayed since he showed up here. It's long past time that i began ignoring that racist pig just as it's long past time that i stopped being courteous to you, with your hateful and Zionist propaganda. You have never called me any names, nor been overtly rude to me, so i have no reason to treat you that way. I also have no reason to speak to you any longer, as it is plain that your delusions are proof against all reason.
Ionus
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 12:58 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
he's a hateful son of a bitch who likes nothing better than to pick a fight. I have no doubt that in his circle of friends, such as they may be, he routinely refers to Jews as "kikes"
If he says it in a somber understanding and respectful manner, using it with irony, how do you explain spitting out in disgust the word Zionist, with all the hatred of a slave owner talking about his lazy niggers ?
layman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 01:15 am
@Ionus,
I suspect your wasting your time, there, Ionus. Poor Sediment, he aint real quick on the uptake, ya know?
0 Replies
 
andy31
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Apr, 2015 05:01 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
You're not suggesting that a disgustingly brutal murder of a couple of American citizens is just and sufficient reason for starting a world wide war that will eventually result in the deaths of millions?


No Andrey, the world wide war, as you put it, was already started. Death of millions (all terrorists) should happen BEFORE that brutal murder of two Americans.
The World should be swept clean from all parasites who are way pass the point of rehabilitation.
My main argument here is that we should be proactive and not reactive.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 03:03:31