[EU rope]

So they are only intelligent when being evil, got it.

No, they are intelligent, but their moral is false (thugs and mafioso also have moral, but it a thug/mafioso moral) and we have bad results. Every force applied in the wrong direction is a recipe for disaster.

I'm an atheist.

And an Islamic apologist, may I add. Why do you need this?

[mikema63]

And an Islamic apologist, may I add.

Being an apologist usually implies that I'm trying to prove the truth of their religion, I don't think their religion is true, but I also don't think they are magical evil beings either.

Why do you need this?

Because I believe it obviously.

No, they are intelligent, but their moral is false (thugs and mafioso also have moral, but it a thug/mafioso moral) and we have bad results. Every force applied in the wrong direction is a recipe for disaster.

This statement doesn't make sense.

[Frollein]

And an Islamic apologist, may I add.

Being an apologist usually implies that I'm trying to prove the truth of their religion, I don't think their religion is true, but I also don't think they are magical evil beings either.

apologist
noun apol·o·gist \ə-ˈpä-lə-jist\

: a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people

Which is exactly what you're doing. Proving the "truth" of the thing you're defending is not part of the definition. You can very well believe in the irrationality of Islam and still defend it because "multiculturalism". That doesn't make it any better though.

[EU rope]

Being an apologist usually implies that I'm trying to prove the truth of their religion, I don't think their religion is true, but I also don't think they are magical evil beings either.

Would that convince you?
Perhaps you should watch some ME report videos to recognize the ignorant and evil spirits that dwell there? Please, don't judge the world by yourself. If are a good an cheerful man, that doesn't mean there are no evil people out there.

[mikema63]

Which is exactly what you're doing. Proving the "truth" of the thing you're defending is not part of the definition. You can very well believe in the irrationality of Islam and still defend it because "multiculturalism". That doesn't make it any better though.

I don't defend it out of any sense of multiculturalism, I'm just pointing out that you people have no relation to reality and muslims are basically boogeymen to you people.

You are just wrong.

Would that convince you?

Even you have to admit that an 8 minute long video on youtube is not exactly going to convince anyone of very much except if they already agree or have never heard of a muslim before.

Perhaps you should watch some ME report videos to recognize the ignorant and evil spirits that dwell there?

You keep throwing around the word evil as if saying it over and over again is going to make it true. It would benefit your argument to shift away from that rhetoric and start arguing about specific things muslims do.

Please, don't judge the world by yourself. If are a good an cheerful man, that doesn't mean there are no evil people out there.

Evil is just that which we don't like and want to scare others about. I don't believe evil exists as any sort of force or entity.

[Pants-of-dog]

..... Christianity never had te goal of "taking over the world". ...

Have you never heard of the Holy Roman Empire, or the British Empire?

[EU rope]

Evil is just that which we don't like and want to scare others about. I don't believe evil exists as any sort of force or entity.

Congratulations, you are now half a theologian. jk
Yes, that's right. The (D)evil has no objective existence. It's not a person you can tell it's here or there and nowhere else at a given space and time. The Devil is just an abstraction, a metaphor for "ignorance". The Devil exists in me, in you, in every single creature in this Universe at the same time. We only differ by the degree the Devil (ignorance) exists in us - some have little, some have lots. Those who have lots are a real embodiment of the Devil.
Now, just to ask, have you seen more ignorant and aggressive (evil) people than the Muslims in the ME? (Yes, there is certain connection between ignorance and aggression, before you ask. I'll let you try an figure it out)

[ingliz]

Perhaps you should watch some ME report videos to recognize the ignorant and evil spirits that dwell there?

Why do you see a moral difference between taking an innocent Muslim's head off with a Christian shell fragment and taking an innocent Christian's head off with a Muslim knife? Both are innocent, both are dead.

What's your point, could you elaborate?

Edited to make my point clearer.

[EU rope]

Have you never heard of the Holy Roman Empire, or the British Empire?

Neither wanted to take over the world, as far as I know. Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

Why do you see a moral difference between taking someone's head off with a shell fragment and taking someone's head with a sharp knife? Both someones lose their head.

What's your point, could you elaborate?
You could kill someone just because you are bloodthirsty villain and you could kill someone because he's the bloodthirsty villain, who wants to slaughter your family. Two completely different situations - one is attack, the other self-defense.

You are not to double post. Don't do it again. Format, from now on, like this.

-TIG

[ingliz]

bloodthirsty villain

I suggest you read Condoleezza Rice's speech on the "New Middle East": nurturing constructive chaos. This new American foreign policy initiative was designed to create an arc of instability, chaos, and violence in the Levant.

[EU rope]

I suggest you read Condoleezza Rice's speech on the "New Middle East": nurturing constructive chaos. This new American foreign policy initiative was designed to create an arc of instability, chaos, and violence in the Levant.

Your gloating is inappropriate. Unless you are a Muzzi that is, because the situation benefits them mostly.

[Potemkin]

Your gloating is inappropriate. Unless you are a Muzzi that is, because the situation benefits them mostly.

Face it, EU rope - you've been sold out by your own ruling elite.

[Pants-of-dog]

Neither wanted to take over the world, as far as I know. Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

No. At this point, you are clearly trolling and not looking for rational debate. Bye.

[Dagoth Ur]

That was blatantly obvious for quite awhile.

[KlassWar]

Neither wanted to take over the world, as far as I know. Please, feel free to prove me wrong.

You'd be halfway correct: The Holy Roman Emperor saw itself as the formal leader of all Western Christendom, but most of the time they had no serious designs on actually ruling it. Them large feudal-ish empires often can barely control their own territory, and that on a good day. On a bad day they didn't have any power over large swathes of it and had to settle for pretending to rule'em.

You see a similar case to the HRE's formal hegemony in pre-Modern China, where most of the time its surrounding States paid nominal tribute and effectively promised to be faithful vassals for as long as they weren't actually asked to do anything .

Their rulers weren't always stupid, and those that weren't were rarely keen on expanding into fresh trouble that they didn't have before. Expanding would lead to adding new scheming vassals that would fuck with the tangled factional balances of their previous scheming vassals. The wisest rulers were inwardly focused.


The British Empire, on the other hand, was an advanced capitalist country that could more or less efficiently plunder as much territory as their armies and collaborators could hold. They really wanted to take over the world in a very real way, and for a while they actually had pretty good odds actually pulling it off: The French Empire was a lot smaller, the HRE was a nonentity and both the Russian and Iberian Empires were a whole lot less efficient. If the brits had managed to take and hold the whole of Canada and the continental US, they probably would have pulled it off.

[EU rope]

The British Empire, on the other hand, was an advanced capitalist country that could more or less efficiently plunder as much territory as their armies and collaborators could hold. They really wanted to take over the world in a very real way,

Come on, do you really believe the British had the illusion they could rule over the Islamic world?

[Doomhammer]

You'd be halfway correct: The Holy Roman Emperor saw itself as the formal leader of all Western Christendom, but most of the time they had no serious designs on actually ruling it. Them large feudal-ish empires often can barely control their own territory, and that on a good way. On a bad day they didn't have any power over large swathes of it and had to settle for pretending to rule'em.

But this does not change the fact that Christendom and Islam both had pretensions of universal dominion. The idea of Ecumenic empire exists in both religions, which was not only a part of the religion, but also partly a legacy of Roman imperial ambitions. The Jews did not have this though, because of their exclusive and parochial views.

Come on, do you really believe the British had the illusion they could rule over the Islamic world?

I don't know about illusions, but they ruled most of it anyway. Virtually all of the Middle East and all of India belonged to Britain. In fact, one of the reasons the Brits and French were so anxious during WWI was because they feared that the Ottoman Sultan, being Caliph, would incite their hundreds of millions of Muslim subjects to rebel. This idea, mostly pushed forward by the Germans, failed to achieve anything... possibly because "Muslims" are not a hive-mind :/. If you are interested in this Turco-Teutonic Jihad, I recommend "The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power" by Sean McMeekin. Anyway, the point is, I don't think the British need to have illusions when they were actually doing it.

[Nets]

It isn't hard to see the Gospels as the root of the Holocaust, for example.

Wow, I'd like to hear more about this, please.

The path from passion narrative to passion play to pogrom isn't exactly a complicated one.

[Saeko]

\
I really hope that nothing in this thread gets edited or altered in any way by moderators, because this has been possibly one of the best presentations of my case that I've had the privilege of being able to make.

Thinking on it more, you know, it really is a hard fight that we have ahead of us. To remove these ideas from human brains, and to kill those who insist on fighting for those ideas, is going to be a generational battle. The people on your side will sit in luxury, and will walk through spilled oil, and spilled blood, to tell us all that "it is impossible", and that we will never be able to defeat your religion.

But what a thing to live for, what a purpose to strive for! We will make 'the impossible' possible, and we'll make the 'unthinkable' thinkable, we'll liberate humanity from the likes of you and your bloated god, and when it's done we'll hold a great festival with lots of food and dancing children, it will be like something out of storybook when great tyrants are defeated.

Except, it won't be a storybook. It will be real. Hope, love, and freedom, will triumph and cut through even the deepest darkness.

Grlorious.

[QatzelOk]

What's amazing about Rei is that all that sophisticated rhetoric and between-the-lines humor... is wasted on promoting wars for cheap gas.

It's like having a great mind at the service of an undeveloped emotional self that falls for just about any trend.