Now What !!

[DivineComedy]

Well we are psychopaths, Creeps and Insane people. 1,300,000,000 Insane people..
Please can you not interpret Holy Quran the way you wanna see it .. The explanation of the verses you mentioned has nothing to do with what you are talking about..

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I beg to differ with you that all of the others you would include among your kind are all insane; there is no excuse for your tribe electing Hamas.

As to my interpretations of the Koran, it is not the way I want to see it, for I do not speak the language, so the way I see it is the way your kind have made me see it.

Since I am having such a hard time determining who is a civilian among your kind, due to the lack of war paint, therefore in my very first response to you I asked you an important question about an interpretation of a verse. As I said I have already received interpretations from Muslims, one of those interpretations was from a Taliban supporter one month prior to September 11, 2001, so please feel free to get out your book and give me your interpretation of what the verse means:

The only substantial question answered before September 11, 2001 had to do with no compulsion in religion:

“002.256
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.” http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html

After hearing what that Muslim said about “no compulsion in religion,” and finding similar explanations on the Internet, I have to ask, how so you interpret that?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=225328&postcount=12

again, did i say it was ok to hurt civilians?? I said it before, Electing hamas was for a reason: International Laws screwed up for ages..

The Hamas Charter says they are “soldiers,” and borrowing from our own history they are worse than merciless Savages, for their known rule of warfare, is to use civilian disguise (which even Indian warriors in war paint did not do) in violation of the Islamic Golden Rule—do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself—for an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions; so Palestinian Muslim if you are anything other than a Savage why don’t you remove them or ask for help?

Like a bloody Savage does your Golden Rule only apply to dealings within your tribe? How surprised are we, those of us ignorant about the “Holy” Quran, about events in Iraq where Savage tribes slaughter each other without even putting on war paint?

http://www.nativeamericans.com/LastHorse.jpg

If your kind complied with international law, instead of violating it, and if you applied the Golden Rule to every tribe—do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself—you would have had a Palestinian State decades ago with borders far better, and far more peaceful, than you will ever get being a bloody Savage:

“(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

*****

“[60.8] Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”

Is this a civilian, is this kindness, is this dealing justly according to the Golden Rule, is this justice:

http://www.tampabayprimer.org/images/suicide.jpg ?

Do we have a right to kill the psychopathic freak before it explodes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1470000/images/_1472897_bombchild150ap.jpg
?

PS. It is never too late to change.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

If your kind complied with international law, instead of violating it, and if you applied the Golden Rule to every tribe—do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself—you would have had a Palestinian State decades ago with borders far better, and far more peaceful, than you will ever get being a bloody Savage:

What evidence do you have that Peaceful Muslim is a "bloody savage?"

“(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

I don't think a territory comprised of refugees should be forced to recognize the state that their grandfathers were evicted from.

In 1947, I don't think Israel had a right to exist. Between the resulting displacement (both Arabs from the land that would be Israel, and Jews from Arab lands) and wars (and arguably the birth of modern Islamic extremism), I don't see a justification. I do not believe to right these wrongs should result in the displacement of Israeli civilians as today it is as much their home as it was the Arabs of 1947.

One state: Arguably, it would be the birth of peace in the Middle East.

 

[DivineComedy]

What evidence do you have that Peaceful Muslim is a "bloody savage?"

If your kind took the time to comprehend the topic under discussion, instead of knee-jerking with stupid questions, and if you applied proper attention to every IFing word—do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself—you would have fewer “civilian foxes” making civilian disguise in warfare a fracking virtue with nonviolence actually being able to apply resistance far better, and get far more peace, than you will ever get being a bloody moron!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“The State sponsor of terrorism calls the terrorist a ‘martyr‘ when they dress up like a student and walk on a bus to blow up, and people die in an instant without time to say ‘oh ****.’ Forget for a moment any bias against Israeli occupation and just consider the situation as an unbiased observer that just sees the violence and wants to stop it. The civilian victims do not have a chance to stop that terror, because they can’t even see the enemy! Who did you see? You see a foreign power {State sponsor of terrorism that was in violation of a cease-fire resolution like H 32 of UN resolution 687 that required them not to support terrorism} support an act of terrorism. Certainly you would not require a civilian to drop everything and fight for nonviolence on a foreign battle field?”

In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=219972&postcount=432

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

PS. I already know what you bloody think!

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

If your kind took the time to comprehend the topic under discussion, instead of knee-jerking with stupid questions, and if you applied proper attention to every IFing word—do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself—you would have fewer “civilian foxes” making civilian disguise in warfare a fracking virtue with nonviolence actually being able to apply resistance far better, and get far more peace, than you will ever get being a bloody moron!

What was it? Ohh yes... Put up or shut up. Answer the question. What has Peaceful Muslim done to be labeled a "bloody savage?"

An assertion of that magnitude shouldn't be that hard to back up.

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

An exclamation point does not make an argument!

PS. I already know what you bloody think!

Okay.

 

[DivineComedy]

What was it? Ohh yes... Put up or shut up. Answer the question. What has Peaceful Muslim done to be labeled a "bloody savage?"

An assertion of that magnitude shouldn't be that hard to back up.

Get this post through your extremely thick infernal Gandhi head.

Since I was addressing a so-called “Palestinian” I used the first person in the following accurate statement where I said, “you would have had a Palestinian State decades ago with borders far better, and far more peaceful, than you will ever get being a bloody Savage,” considering the history, therefore, the odds are that the borders the Palestinians end up for their State would be far better than they “will ever get” if they continue down the road of appeasing or supporting the savagery of terrorism.

In the sentence in question I did not label the Palestinian a “savage!” But, "Ha Ha," the so-called “Palestinian” has adopted the label of “psychopath” instead of condemning Hamas terrorism. http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=250042&postcount=71

“do we need to blow things up” (Peaceful Muslim)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=228754&postcount=4

Who are the magical “we” Gandhi? Shove all the insulting comments and cartoons up your *** to hide them from the “Peaceful“ Muslims, or tell me immediately who the magical “we“ are! How can the infernal Gandhi's nonviolence resist the magical “we” if you do not tell us who they are? I think we the people should amend the Constitution of the United States just for you, and legally shove all those insulting comments and cartoons up your *** just to be safe from the magical “we.”

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos:
“The newspaper should have the freedom without limit to express it's opinions. If you don't like it don't by the paper. But reacting like this is not an acceptable answer”

The response:
“Expressing your opinion and ‘Freedom of Speech‘ is fine until the point of insult.. if what you are saying justifies the insult then that means non of the human rules we are creating are applicable ..” (Peaceful Muslim)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=242088&postcount=34

Do you understand the savagery of a lack of human rules; does the lack uniforms by Hamas in violation of the Geneva Conventions ring a bell in that extremely thick infernal Gandhi head?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Get this post through your extremely thick infernal Gandhi head.

It is for this reason that I hate having conversations with you. You can't have an intelligent discussion that simply challenges a point and ask for a response without this tone and this name-calling. I am in no way "infernal," and even less is Gandhi, and even less are our shared feelings on violence.

Since I was addressing a so-called “Palestinian” I used the first person in the following accurate statement where I said, “you would have had a Palestinian State decades ago with borders far better, and far more peaceful, than you will ever get being a bloody Savage,” considering the history, therefore, the odds are that the borders the Palestinians end up for their State would be far better than they “will ever get” if they continue down the road of appeasing or supporting the savagery of terrorism.

I would agree that they would be better off pursueing a path of nonviolence, but unfortunately most Palestinians don't grow up in a world of privilege where such ideas can be nourished and encouraged. When it comes to terrorism, if they formed an army and advanced it would be crushed by the might of the Israeli Army, and if Israel had any problems with doing so (which I doubt highly), America is behind them along with a few European nations. Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle, with violence that is, however I see no sense in targeting civilians, as they would be more likely to vote for a militant.

In the sentence in question I did not label the Palestinian a “savage!”

You made an assertion that he acted like a "bloody savage."

But, "Ha Ha," the so-called “Palestinian” has adopted the label of “psychopath” instead of condemning Hamas terrorism. http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=250042&postcount=71

You're smart enough to comprehend the notion of sarcasm.

“do we need to blow things up” (Peaceful Muslim)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=228754&postcount=4

Who are the magical “we” Gandhi?

I certainly didn't interpret it as a threat or silly conspiracy theorist version of "we."

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos:
“The newspaper should have the freedom without limit to express it's opinions. If you don't like it don't by the paper. But reacting like this is not an acceptable answer”

The response:
“Expressing your opinion and ‘Freedom of Speech‘ is fine until the point of insult.. if what you are saying justifies the insult then that means non of the human rules we are creating are applicable ..” (Peaceful Muslim)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=242088&postcount=34

People have a right to self-determination. If your name is Phillip and I refer to you as "****ing Idiot," you have the right to be angry. If you refer to a Muslim as a terrorist or Isalm as a terrorist organization, people have the right to be angry. You know how I feel about violence, so I shouldn't have to say that the response to the cartoons is unjustified, and perhaps you don't know how I feel about freedom of speech/expression/press, but I take a fairly absolutist stance, but I feel that the cartoons were not morally justifiable any more than that. I have more to say about the right to self determination and the situation presented here, but philosophy class calls.

 

[DivineComedy]

I would agree that they would be better off pursueing a path of nonviolence, but unfortunately most Palestinians don't grow up in a world of privilege where such ideas can be nourished and encouraged. When it comes to terrorism, if they formed an army and advanced it would be crushed by the might of the Israeli Army, and if Israel had any problems with doing so (which I doubt highly), America is behind them along with a few European nations. Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle, with violence that is, however I see no sense in targeting civilians, as they would be more likely to vote for a militant.



You made an assertion that he acted like a "bloody savage."

He? {Oh, my G-d, is it a he in there? Is it a soldier?}

If we can’t see the violent kind because it primarily uses civilian disguise to facilitate warfare, and the hypocritical imperfect ahimsa of infernal nonviolence is against us going to war to force a people to police themselves, then the least an infernal nonviolent hypocrite could do is work through reasoned argument to put a uniform (in their name) on their kind so nonviolence can see who really needs to be resisted.

If the hypocritical imperfect ahimsa of infernal nonviolence can’t police another people (that slaughter to acquire what another people currently possess), at least it should be able to do its part to defend civilization/civilians and at least argue that it is a violation of the Golden Rule to use civilian disguise to facilitate warfare.

You may not like two soldiers hacking away at each other, and maybe like an idiot Gandhi you do not understand war, but if uniformity was the norm between the champions of civilizations (that want growing room) you would be correct in demanding hard evidence before suspecting the “Peaceful” Palestinian Muslim of being a Savage; as long as it can’t condemn the use of civilian disguise by terrorists like Hamas it must be suspected to be of a kind that is Savage, and it must be searched and kept under constant inspection as if it is a Savage! The Savage must be walled off, and put on the reservation, especially if you can‘t convince them to put a damn uniform on their soldiers.

How do we determine who is of the kind that needs to be resisted?

The kind that needs to be resisted and argued against could not answer appropriate questions because it could not condemn the use of civilian disguise (to facilitate warfare) in violation of the Islamic Golden rule—Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself—so the kind eventually revealed itself.

Now it is up to you to effectively convince their kind to put on the war paint of a uniform on its soldiers, and to convince their kind to police their territory, otherwise, if all of their kind will not adopt nonviolence, civilized soldiers are liable to be violent against their kind. Should you go over there, I am sure civilized soldiers will have no qualms against blowing your brains out if you don’t satisfy their reasonable curiosity at the checkpoint between the Savage reservation and civilization!

If an already existing Israel has no right to self-determination, neither do the so-called “Palestinians.”


PS. If you don’t like the insulting tone and this name-calling like me saying, “hypocritical imperfect ahimsa of infernal nonviolence,” grow up: we are talking about WAR! My words are steel to cleave your infernal head: show me your infernal imperfect hypocritical ahimsa and police my words Pascifist/Hippy Moderator (maybe another moderator will do it), but turn around and say to the kind that “Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle.” Kill them ALL, and let G-d sort them out, could also be said to be the only way to effectively fight the battle when you teach that, “Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle, with violence that is, however I see no sense in targeting civilians, as they would be more likely to vote for a militant.”

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

He? {Oh, my G-d, is it a he in there? Is it a soldier?}

My apologies, I believe it says that Peaceful Muslim is a she. My apologies.

If we can’t see the violent kind because it primarily uses civilian disguise to facilitate warfare, and the hypocritical imperfect ahimsa of infernal nonviolence is against us going to war to force a people to police themselves, then the least an infernal nonviolent hypocrite could do is work through reasoned argument to put a uniform (in their name) on their kind so nonviolence can see who really needs to be resisted.

I don't advocate killing. What is so hard to understand about that? I couldn't care less what kind of clothes you have on.

If the hypocritical imperfect ahimsa of infernal nonviolence can’t police another people (that slaughter to acquire what another people currently possess), at least it should be able to do its part to defend civilization/civilians and at least argue that it is a violation of the Golden Rule to use civilian disguise to facilitate warfare.

I would say it is a violation of the Golden Rule to kill, no matter what clothes you are wearing.

You may not like two soldiers hacking away at each other, and maybe like an idiot Gandhi you do not understand war, but if uniformity was the norm between the champions of civilizations (that want growing room) you would be correct in demanding hard evidence before suspecting the “Peaceful” Palestinian Muslim of being a Savage; as long as it can’t condemn the use of civilian disguise by terrorists like Hamas it must be suspected to be of a kind that is Savage, and it must be searched and kept under constant inspection as if it is a Savage! The Savage must be walled off, and put on the reservation, especially if you can‘t convince them to put a damn uniform on their soldiers.

Gandhi is not an idiot, and neither am I. If you want to be the kind of person who annoys everyone on the boards with name-calling where you have an absence of argument, that is your choice: Make it now. Do you want to be a respected member of the forum who can have a discussion without making it personal, or do you want to be an ***? It's up to you.

Treat me how you would expect me to treat you. Golden rule?

How do we determine who is of the kind that needs to be resisted?

Tyranny, injustice, and hatred should be resisted.

Should you go over there, I am sure civilized soldiers will have no qualms against blowing your brains out if you don’t satisfy their reasonable curiosity at the checkpoint between the Savage reservation and civilization!

We shall see.

If you treat people like animals, savages, they will be prone to act as such.

If an already existing Israel has no right to self-determination, neither do the so-called “Palestinians.”

This statement is incredibly contradictory to the Golden Rule that you keep pushing. It's treat others how you want to be treated, not treat others how they treat you.

The Israelis do have a right to self-determination.

PS. If you don’t like the insulting tone and this name-calling like me saying, “hypocritical imperfect ahimsa of infernal nonviolence,” grow up: we are talking about WAR!

I do not think that it is I who is having a maturity issue.

My words are steel to cleave your infernal head: show me your infernal imperfect hypocritical ahimsa and police my words Pascifist/Hippy Moderator (maybe another moderator will do it)...

That's the first request I've ever gotten to take mod action against the person making the request.

Kill them ALL, and let G-d sort them out, could also be said to be the only way to effectively fight the battle when you teach that, “Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle, with violence that is, however I see no sense in targeting civilians, as they would be more likely to vote for a militant.”

If you're outnumbered and outgunned, you don't go headstrong to the enemy. It's common sense. Even a pascifist can see that.

 

[tecoyah]

PS. If you don’t like the insulting tone and this name-calling like me saying, “hypocritical imperfect ahimsa of infernal nonviolence,” grow up: we are talking about WAR! My words are steel to cleave your infernal head: show me your infernal imperfect hypocritical ahimsa and police my words Pascifist/Hippy Moderator (maybe another moderator will do it), but turn around and say to the kind that “Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle.” Kill them ALL, and let G-d sort them out, could also be said to be the only way to effectively fight the battle when you teach that, “Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle, with violence that is, however I see no sense in targeting civilians, as they would be more likely to vote for a militant.”

The Moderators here do not police words...they police assh*les, which it does seem you are. I doubt very much any of the Mods would silence you, as they are relatively level headed, and tend to look the other way when ignorance flows freely from the tainted minds of infants. You should be pleased they are more lenient than....others might be.

 

[Tashah]

After initiating this thread, 'Peaceful Muslim' stated in no uncertain terms that freedoms of the press and media everywhere should be subserviant to the Qur'an and Islamic sharia law. I kindly informed Peaceful Muslim that she was not going to win that specious argument in this particular forum. Lo and behold, I was absolutely right.

To compound matters, Peaceful Muslim has a strange yet persistent knack of always spelling Israel, Israeli, and Israelis incorrectly. Peaceful Muslim doesn't know this of course, but I often tutor English to Palestinian children in the West Bank. Why not carryover? I patiently demonstrated to Peaceful Muslim the correct syntax and spelling of these three words in English. Lo and behold, she continues to mangle these words. I can only conclude that this persistence is a silly Freudian exercise on her part.

Peaceful Muslim also spoke of 'respect'. Everyone should respect the opinions and beliefs of others. True enough. When it was pointed out that burning embassies is au contraré to this noble sentiment, Peaceful Muslim agreed in principle... yet attempted to exonerate the participants. Lo and behold... Islam demands that its religious precepts are sacrosanct and always trump secular and individual freedoms. It seems that the concept of respecting the opinions and beliefs of others ends where the Qur'an begins.

Deflated but not yet totally discouraged, Peaceful Muslim then went into troll mode. Surely, the neverending saga of the Peaceful Palestinians would save the day! Not exactly. Affixing explosive vests to children and electing Hamas are troublesome Peaceful Palestinian features not so easily explained away. Lo and behold. I do not understand the Qur'an. I do not understand Hamas. I do not understand the Palestinians. Frankly Peaceful Muslim, it is seemingly you who lacks any distinct appreciation of that which exists beyond the veil.

 

[DivineComedy]

My apologies, I believe it says that Peaceful Muslim is a she. My apologies.



I don't advocate killing. What is so hard to understand about that? I couldn't care less what kind of clothes you have on.



I would say it is a violation of the Golden Rule to kill, no matter what clothes you are wearing.



Gandhi is not an idiot, and neither am I. If you want to be the kind of person who annoys everyone on the boards with name-calling where you have an absence of argument, that is your choice: Make it now. Do you want to be a respected member of the forum who can have a discussion without making it personal, or do you want to be an ***? It's up to you.

Treat me how you would expect me to treat you. Golden rule?



Tyranny, injustice, and hatred should be resisted.



We shall see.

If you treat people like animals, savages, they will be prone to act as such.



This statement is incredibly contradictory to the Golden Rule that you keep pushing. It's treat others how you want to be treated, not treat others how they treat you.

The Israelis do have a right to self-determination.



I do not think that it is I who is having a maturity issue.



That's the first request I've ever gotten to take mod action against the person making the request.



If you're outnumbered and outgunned, you don't go headstrong to the enemy. It's common sense. Even a pascifist can see that.

You said: “Treat me how you would expect me to treat you.”

So far in this topic you have spent more time reacting to me, and condemning my extremely weak verbal assaults, instead of reacting to or condemning Hamas and the use of civilian disguise to facilitate KILLING people.

Why don’t you really take the time to think about it; what a cartoon that would make!

Your first sentence in this thread asked:

“What evidence do you have that Peaceful Muslim is a ‘bloody savage?’

What evidence do you have that the Palestinian is not a Savage? A more “Peaceful” covering? Why should I respect that? I do not know, I can not see the uniformity, that is the problem I pointed out in my very first post to the “Peaceful Muslim:”

“You say ‘never hurt civilians whatever was the reason,’ well if your nation as muslims sends out messengers your nation as muslims calls ‘martyrs,’ that do dress in civilian clothes as the principle means of warfare, we can not stop from hurting ‘civilians.’”
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=225328&postcount=12

It may be tilting at windmills, but I am arguing with all my might to try and get them respect, so they can respect themselves in the future should they not all get what they want, by trying to convince them to be honorable with uniforms instead of using the “Peaceful” covering of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare. You on the other hand are making excuses, and doing everything you can keep Palestinians from getting respect; this is totally unacceptable:

“I would agree that they would be better off pursueing a path of nonviolence, but unfortunately most Palestinians don't grow up in a world of privilege where such ideas can be nourished and encouraged. When it comes to terrorism, if they formed an army and advanced it would be crushed by the might of the Israeli Army, and if Israel had any problems with doing so (which I doubt highly), America is behind them along with a few European nations. Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle, with violence that is, however I see no sense in targeting civilians, as they would be more likely to vote for a militant.” (Gandhi>Bush)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=251114&postcount=81

They would be better off accepting that Israel is not going away, in essence the Palestinians will never grow up in a world of privilege where civilization can be nourished and encouraged unless they can accept that they can‘t “right the wrong of 1947” or always get their way. G-d has never righted every wrong here on earth, there would be no reason for a judgment day if G-d did right every wrong.

*****

If the Palestinians would just stop the hate by accepting the right of Israeli self-determination, and if they would acquire respect by acting and teaching honor, and would put their efforts into more productive and peaceful pursuits, they would one day have adamantine towers reaching to the sky with terraces of gardens funded by millions of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic pilgrims to the various holy sites, certainly, their coffers would be overflowing for the pursuit of happiness. If the Palestinians continue down the road believing “Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle,” unless Israel is destroyed, and every tribe gets their way, which is most likely impossible, the Palestinians will never be free of so-called “Muslim” suicide bombers blowing up Palestinians; we see that in Iraq right now.

There is simply something wrong with someone that must always get their way, and that can‘t accept a little insult.

PS. You said: “It's treat others how you want to be treated, not treat others how they treat you.” Get real.

 

[DivineComedy]

This statement is incredibly contradictory to the Golden Rule that you keep pushing. It's treat others how you want to be treated, not treat others how they treat you.

Let me clarify the Golden Rule, I said:
“If an already existing Israel has no right to self-determination, neither do the so-called ‘Palestinians.’”

G>B responded with:

“This statement is incredibly contradictory to the Golden Rule that you keep pushing. It's treat others how you want to be treated, not treat others how they treat you.”

If the Golden Rule worked the way G>B just implied then the Police would just let the gangs rape, pillage, and plunder the neighborhood, treating the criminals how they want to be treated.

If the Palestinians will not respect civilians by using uniforms, or respect Israel’s right to exist, the Palestinians should not expect their civilians to be respected or their State to come to fruition.

 

[Tashah]

The Moderators here do not police words...they police assh*les, which it does seem you are. I doubt very much any of the Mods would silence you, as they are relatively level headed, and tend to look the other way when ignorance flows freely from the tainted minds of infants. You should be pleased they are more lenient than....others might be.

Divine Comedy and Gandhi>Bush have been engaged in this discussion for literally months. I myself have partaken in these ongoing discussions and therefore, I am very cogniscent of their lengthy history. Quite frankly Tecoyah, there does come a point where total exasperation tends to discolor response. While I do not condone harsh rhetoric, I can well understand its genesis and perodic appearance in this regard.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

You said: “Treat me how you would expect me to treat you.”

So far in this topic you have spent more time reacting to me, and condemning my extremely weak verbal assaults, instead of reacting to or condemning Hamas and the use of civilian disguise to facilitate KILLING people.

When have I avoided condemning Hamas? I do not condone killing, I DON'T CARE WHAT CLOTHES YOU WEAR WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT.

I don't consider it a light insult for someone to call me infernal.

Main Entry: in·fer·nal
Pronunciation: in-'f&r-n&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Late Latin infernalis, from infernus hell, from Latin, lower, from inferus
1 : of or relating to a nether world of the dead
2 a : of or relating to hell b : HELLISH, DIABOLICAL

http://webster.com/dictionary/infernal

Your first sentence in this thread asked:

“What evidence do you have that Peaceful Muslim is a ‘bloody savage?’

What evidence do you have that the Palestinian is not a Savage? A more “Peaceful” covering? Why should I respect that? I do not know, I can not see the uniformity, that is the problem I pointed out in my very first post to the “Peaceful Muslim:”

So you're a racist? You have made an assertion that a person is a savage because "peaceful" isn't a common characteristic, in your opinion, of a certain group of people. Forgive me, but that's certainly how it sounds.

You have made the assertion, it is not my job to prove it wrong. I don't have evidence that my neighbor isn't a serial killer. You know what I do? I assume he's not a serial killer.

“You say ‘never hurt civilians whatever was the reason,’ well if your nation as muslims sends out messengers your nation as muslims calls ‘martyrs,’ that do dress in civilian clothes as the principle means of warfare, we can not stop from hurting ‘civilians.’”
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=225328&postcount=12

It may be tilting at windmills, but I am arguing with all my might to try and get them respect, so they can respect themselves in the future should they not all get what they want, by trying to convince them to be honorable with uniforms instead of using the “Peaceful” covering of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare. You on the other hand are making excuses, and doing everything you can keep Palestinians from getting respect; this is totally unacceptable:

I don't know how many times I have to say this. I don't know why you can't understand it. These people are guerrillas in an urban jungle. If they wore a big green and red uniform, they don't stand a chance. Therefore they view the only possile tactic as subterfuge, and yes, deception. I do not condone this. I do not excuse this. I understand this, despite how counter-productive I think it to be.

They would be better off accepting that Israel is not going away, in essence the Palestinians will never grow up in a world of privilege where civilization can be nourished and encouraged unless they can accept that they can‘t “right the wrong of 1947” or always get their way.

I think Israel would be better off accepting that hundreds of thousands of people lived on the land they lived on that fled or were driven out during the war. I think Israel would be better off accepting that these people aren't going away, and while the refugee problem is also the problem of Jordan and Egypt, etc., it is certainly something they are at least somewhat responsible for and they are completely blamed for.

G-d has never righted every wrong here on earth, there would be no reason for a judgment day if G-d did right every wrong.

It is not God's duty to make things right, it is ours.

If the Palestinians would just stop the hate by accepting the right of Israeli self-determination, and if they would acquire respect by acting and teaching honor, and would put their efforts into more productive and peaceful pursuits, they would one day have adamantine towers reaching to the sky with terraces of gardens funded by millions of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic pilgrims to the various holy sites, certainly, their coffers would be overflowing for the pursuit of happiness. If the Palestinians continue down the road believing “Terrorism is the only way to effectively fight the battle,” unless Israel is destroyed, and every tribe gets their way, which is most likely impossible, the Palestinians will never be free of so-called “Muslim” suicide bombers blowing up Palestinians; we see that in Iraq right now.

Hatred isn't soemthing that people get tired of and let go. It requires interaction, it requires action. You can build a wall and let it stagnate or... change them.

There is simply something wrong with someone that must always get their way, and that can‘t accept a little insult.

No one should accept injustice. Period.

PS. You said: “It's treat others how you want to be treated, not treat others how they treat you.” Get real.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

If the Golden Rule worked the way G>B just implied then the Police would just let the gangs rape, pillage, and plunder the neighborhood, treating the criminals how they want to be treated.

How did I imply something like that?

Effectively what you said, applying to the hypotheticals you brought up, is that if gangs are raping, pillaging, and plundering your neighborhood, you have the right to RAPE, pillage and plunder their neighbor hood.

That's an eye for an eye. Jesus was against it. Gandhi was against it. I know you hate Gandhi and all, but maybe just maybe you could reconsider your position now that Jesus has stepped in.

 

[Tashah]

This thread is supposed to be about the offensive cartoons published in Denmark and the resultant violent Muslim reaction to those cartoons.

While I have no problems with tangential issues, this thread is now losing all connectivity to the original theme. I therefore kindly ask Gandhi>Bush and Divine Comedy to either honor the intended theme here or elect to continue your debate in the heirloom thread... Non-violence vs. Islamic terrorism. You already have a thread that is for all practical purposes expressly dedicated to your ongoing disagreements... there is no need to hijack this one.

Thank you.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

This thread is supposed to be about the offensive cartoons published in Denmark and the resultant violent Muslim reaction to those cartoons.

While I have no problems with tangential issues, this thread is now losing all connectivity to the original theme. I therefore kindly ask Gandhi>Bush and Divine Comedy to either honor the intended theme here or elect to continue your debate in the heirloom thread... Non-violence vs. Islamic terrorism. You already have a thread that is for all practical purposes expressly dedicated to your ongoing disagreements... there is no need to hijack this one.

Thank you.

Forgive me, you're absolutely right.

However, I think it is a fair question that I ask why being a Palestinian makes someone a "bloody savage." That's really all I wanted in my initial post.

I apologize for getting carried away in the second part of my initial response.

 

[DivineComedy]

This thread is supposed to be about the offensive cartoons published in Denmark and the resultant violent Muslim reaction to those cartoons.

While I have no problems with tangential issues, this thread is now losing all connectivity to the original theme. I therefore kindly ask Gandhi>Bush and Divine Comedy to either honor the intended theme here or elect to continue your debate in the heirloom thread... Non-violence vs. Islamic terrorism. You already have a thread that is for all practical purposes expressly dedicated to your ongoing disagreements... there is no need to hijack this one.

Thank you.

Fine, and since Non-violence vs. Islamic terrorism is futile I will post my responses to what he said here over there, and quit that topic even if the “Peaceful” Muslim shows up there to slap G>B on his back.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=252252&postcount=461

*****

Tashah do you think you could start a topic with some pictures of cute Israeli chicks in uniform juxtaposed with cute so-called “Palestinian” children wearing suicide bombs? Just to have a link to prove a point.

 

[DivineComedy]

This thread is supposed to be about the offensive cartoons published in Denmark and the resultant violent Muslim reaction to those cartoons.

Tashah, actually, I think this thread is about “destroyed Muslims Graves” and “insulting comments about prophet muhammad on the walls of Mosque in Qalqilia..!!!”

If your State called those terrorists “martyrs,” if the police had shot them, then the Muslim would have reason to call Israel a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

 

[Peaceful Muslim]

Get this post through your extremely thick infernal Gandhi head.

Since I was addressing a so-called “Palestinian” I used the first person in the following accurate statement where I said, “you would have had a Palestinian State decades ago with borders far better, and far more peaceful, than you will ever get being a bloody Savage,” considering the history, therefore, the odds are that the borders the Palestinians end up for their State would be far better than they “will ever get” if they continue down the road of appeasing or supporting the savagery of terrorism.

In the sentence in question I did not label the Palestinian a “savage!” But, "Ha Ha," the so-called “Palestinian” has adopted the label of “psychopath” instead of condemning Hamas terrorism. http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=250042&postcount=71

“do we need to blow things up” (Peaceful Muslim)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=228754&postcount=4

Who are the magical “we” Gandhi? Shove all the insulting comments and cartoons up your *** to hide them from the “Peaceful“ Muslims, or tell me immediately who the magical “we“ are! How can the infernal Gandhi's nonviolence resist the magical “we” if you do not tell us who they are? I think we the people should amend the Constitution of the United States just for you, and legally shove all those insulting comments and cartoons up your *** just to be safe from the magical “we.”

Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos:
“The newspaper should have the freedom without limit to express it's opinions. If you don't like it don't by the paper. But reacting like this is not an acceptable answer”

The response:
“Expressing your opinion and ‘Freedom of Speech‘ is fine until the point of insult.. if what you are saying justifies the insult then that means non of the human rules we are creating are applicable ..” (Peaceful Muslim)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=242088&postcount=34

Do you understand the savagery of a lack of human rules; does the lack uniforms by Hamas in violation of the Geneva Conventions ring a bell in that extremely thick infernal Gandhi head?

My God! Honestly you can't read between the lines!!!!

 

[Peaceful Muslim]

After initiating this thread, 'Peaceful Muslim' stated in no uncertain terms that freedoms of the press and media everywhere should be subserviant to the Qur'an and Islamic sharia law. I kindly informed Peaceful Muslim that she was not going to win that specious argument in this particular forum. Lo and behold, I was absolutely right.

To compound matters, Peaceful Muslim has a strange yet persistent knack of always spelling Israel, Israeli, and Israelis incorrectly. Peaceful Muslim doesn't know this of course, but I often tutor English to Palestinian children in the West Bank. Why not carryover? I patiently demonstrated to Peaceful Muslim the correct syntax and spelling of these three words in English. Lo and behold, she continues to mangle these words. I can only conclude that this persistence is a silly Freudian exercise on her part.

Peaceful Muslim also spoke of 'respect'. Everyone should respect the opinions and beliefs of others. True enough. When it was pointed out that burning embassies is au contraré to this noble sentiment, Peaceful Muslim agreed in principle... yet attempted to exonerate the participants. Lo and behold... Islam demands that its religious precepts are sacrosanct and always trump secular and individual freedoms. It seems that the concept of respecting the opinions and beliefs of others ends where the Qur'an begins.

Deflated but not yet totally discouraged, Peaceful Muslim then went into troll mode. Surely, the neverending saga of the Peaceful Palestinians would save the day! Not exactly. Affixing explosive vests to children and electing Hamas are troublesome Peaceful Palestinian features not so easily explained away. Lo and behold. I do not understand the Qur'an. I do not understand Hamas. I do not understand the Palestinians. Frankly Peaceful Muslim, it is seemingly you who lacks any distinct appreciation of that which exists beyond the veil.

No Comment!!!

 

[DivineComedy]

My God! Honestly you can't read between the lines!!!!

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

 

[Volker]

After initiating this thread, 'Peaceful Muslim' stated in no uncertain terms that freedoms of the press and media everywhere should be subserviant to the Qur'an and Islamic sharia law.

Actually, she stated, that insults or actions against a religion are not acceptable.
This is something else.

I kindly informed Peaceful Muslim that she was not going to win that specious argument in this particular forum. Lo and behold, I was absolutely right.

Did I miss something? Sounds like wishful thinking to me ...

 

[DivineComedy]

Actually, she stated, that insults or actions against a religion are not acceptable.
This is something else.

Did I miss something? Sounds like wishful thinking to me ...

Volker the Hamas Charter is a clear insult to Jews, and considering the yellow brick road of evasions by the “Peaceful“ Palestinian Muslim, tell me why should I trust what the “Peaceful” Muslim says about not insulting or taking actions against a religion?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=228754&postcount=4

In the very first post to this topic “Peaceful” Muslim asked, “do we need to blow things up?”

Volker what in the hell am I supposed to “read between the lines?”

For “Peaceful” Muslim to even come close to holding a debate we are going to have to get a little more give and take, than a “No Comment” to what Tashah said, don’t you think?

Basically, since I have heard many Muslims condemn terrorism and yet defend Hamas, and know of the Arab League attempts to change the definition of "terrorism," I first would just like to know how you feel about Hamas.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=238109&postcount=19

As for your question about Hamas; first can you imagine this for a second?: you own a house you built with your hands, your lived in it for like 40 years with you wife and kids, you planted every tree in its yard and every flower.. now imagine someone comes a long and destroys it and kills your kids or imagine that kid seeing his dad getting killed..you tell me what will you do? .. just because hamas is Islam oriented movement that doesn’t mean they are terrorists.. they were elected by Palestinians because they believe that nothing is working with Israilians ( military or Civilians) .. there was a peace agreement with those people until year 2000 when Sharon ‘VISITED’ Al Aqsa Mosque which started the flame and then Muhammad Al Durra who was killed by Israilians for no reason.. that is when it all blew up .. Palestinians are suffering a lot and no one knows even us Palestinians who lived their whole lives outside moving from one country to another never knowing the true meaning of home… don’t you think we have the right to defend our selves infront of those who took away everything we own including our security in our homeland?? History is filled with Israilians massacres in Palestine: Dair yasin, Qana , Jenin.. and that is just a tip of the Iceberg.. This is not terrorism!!!!!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=240474&postcount=20

Volker isn’t it an insult to the Jewish religion not to let them even visit their most holy site without violence erupting because they visited the THIRD most holy site of Islam? You know exactly why it is there, KING OF THE HILL, right? It is so “peaceful.”

I am willing to accept that every person interprets their religious texts differently. For instance, one fundamentalist Christian looking in the Old Testament might consider an abandonment of the natural use of the body an abomination to be destroyed where another might look more to the New Testament and consider they are like eunuchs. Since ideas do not need visas to cross borders, our survival may depend on knowing what the individual believes, especially when their kind have a history of using civilian disguise to wage warfare. When the “Peaceful” Muslim cannot answer the questions about Hamas, and gets upset about a Jew VISITING the Temple Mount, I must assume this means exactly what it says:

“009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

Volker why should we knee-jerk and respect that that is “Peaceful” too?

 

[Peaceful Muslim]

What we have here, is a failure to communicate.[/QOUTE]

I am sorry my friend but i am afraid you are the one who is failing to communicate.

Volker the Hamas Charter is a clear insult to Jews, and considering the yellow brick road of evasions by the “Peaceful“ Palestinian Muslim, tell me why should I trust what the “Peaceful” Muslim says about not insulting or taking actions against a religion?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=228754&postcount=4

In the very first post to this topic “Peaceful” Muslim asked, “do we need to blow things up?”

Volker what in the hell am I supposed to “read between the lines?”

For “Peaceful” Muslim to even come close to holding a debate we are going to have to get a little more give and take, than a “No Comment” to what Tashah said, don’t you think?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=238109&postcount=19


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=240474&postcount=20

What you are actually doing is let's say i was saying the phrase: You are not an idiot, but somehow it gets delivered to you as if i said : you are an idiot!!!
that is why i said no comment and you can't read between the lines cuz when i was sarcastic you took it literal and when i said "do we need to blow things up" you took it literal too..

Volker isn’t it an insult to the Jewish religion not to let them even visit their most holy site without violence erupting because they visited the THIRD most holy site of Islam? You know exactly why it is there, KING OF THE HILL, right? It is so “peaceful.”

I am willing to accept that every person interprets their religious texts differently. For instance, one fundamentalist Christian looking in the Old Testament might consider an abandonment of the natural use of the body an abomination to be destroyed where another might look more to the New Testament and consider they are like eunuchs. Since ideas do not need visas to cross borders, our survival may depend on knowing what the individual believes, especially when their kind have a history of using civilian disguise to wage warfare. When the “Peaceful” Muslim cannot answer the questions about Hamas, and gets upset about a Jew VISITING the Temple Mount, I must assume this means exactly what it says:

“009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

Volker why should we knee-jerk and respect that that is “Peaceful” too?

i said it before to you and i repeat again: you will never know what it feels like until you taste it yourself .. i respect your opinion and everything but you do not have the right to assume it is the only correct opinion in the universe.