Napoleon Ier wrote:Islam is a naturally violent religion though. Not a question of any "phase" but of Islam's theology.
How many muslims on the planet? 1.5 billion? And how many terrorists? Several thousand? There you go.
So if we could just kill the thousands I'd be happy. Many Muslims get a bad rap because of the idiots that are in Al Queda. But I'm sure just as many Christians get a bad reputation because of Jay.
Or the guys who suply the quotes for FSTDT.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Islam is a naturally violent religion though. Not a question of any "phase" but of Islam's theology.
How many muslims on the planet? 1.5 billion? And how many terrorists? Several thousand? There you go.
You poor ecervellated retard subjected to politically correct lobotomization. The number of terrorists in the world far outnumber a few thousand, first obvious point, ans simply put, you don't seem to realise that just because someone isn't constantly blowing things up doesn't mean they aren't a radical muslim. Do you know how many people voted Hamas? For Ahmadinejad? For Al-Sadr? Lastly, my point reffered to the ideological principles of Islam founded in the Koran and the actions of Mohammad, not to the praxis.
I could flip it around and say that Xianity is a violent religion because so many of them in this country support the Iraq war. Endorsing violent action does not make you violent, if that was the case then Jews would be much more violent because they support, for the most part, Israel. Also, Ahmadinedjad hasn't started anything violent, he's just uber-naive.
And if the Koran automatically makes Islam violent, then the Bible makes Xianity the most enslaving because they have a number of chapters serving only to detail rules of slavery.
MeDeFe wrote:Some of them really made me wonder whether they mean it or whether they're being sarcastic.
Like that guy who didn't read a "book about evolution" because he felt someone was watching him and the walls shaking when he opened it.
Surely most of them are fake, or at least written by imposters looking for shits and giggles on a Christian forum?
How long have you been on the internet?
Heh. Are you implying I'm pointing out the obvious or that I'm giving Christians too much credit?
The latter I think. I've read lots of forums and I think most of these quotes aren't satire.
There is no amount of stupidity that can possibly describe the internet.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
MeDeFe wrote:Some of them really made me wonder whether they mean it or whether they're being sarcastic.
Like that guy who didn't read a "book about evolution" because he felt someone was watching him and the walls shaking when he opened it.
Surely most of them are fake, or at least written by imposters looking for shits and giggles on a Christian forum?
How long have you been on the internet?
Heh. Are you implying I'm pointing out the obvious or that I'm giving Christians too much credit?
He's saying that these guys are dead serious.
I've spoken with many foolish Christians in many religious forums. My opinion is that some of those statements are just too unbelievable to be written earnestly. Sorry! Just my opinion! They're still funny though.
Roses are red
Shit is brown
Nothing but assholes
Live in this town
Think about it this way: CC is a normal website for regular geeks, but it has already attracted at least one fundamentalist basket-case (VaJaj_a2jay).
On the other hand Christian forums are not normal websites, they're weird websites built for allowing mentally-retarded geeks to converse with one another, logic dictates that they're all going to attract way more than one Jay per hundred users.
As such, I am sold on the idea that at least 50% of those posts were not made by ironic trolls.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Think about it this way: CC is a normal website for regular geeks, but it has already attracted at least one fundamentalist basket-case (VaJaj_a2jay).
On the other hand Christian forums are not normal websites, they're weird websites built for allowing mentally-retarded geeks to converse with one another, logic dictates that they're all going to attract way more than one Jay per hundred users.
As such, I am sold on the idea that at least 50% of those posts were not made by ironic trolls.
Similarly, those whackjob Christian forums would be the prime place for an ironic troll to hit. That being said, I'm okay with your 50% estimate.
Roses are red
Shit is brown
Nothing but assholes
Live in this town
Dancing Mustard wrote:Think about it this way: CC is a normal website for regular geeks, but it has already attracted at least one fundamentalist basket-case (VaJaj_a2jay).
On the other hand Christian forums are not normal websites, they're weird websites built for allowing mentally-retarded geeks to converse with one another, logic dictates that they're all going to attract way more than one Jay per hundred users.
As such, I am sold on the idea that at least 50% of those posts were not made by ironic trolls.
Are you just upset because there isn't a forum for you? I'm sure they'll come up with a forum with the title, "Head up in the Clouds".
Dancing Mustard wrote:Think about it this way: CC is a normal website for regular geeks, but it has already attracted at least one fundamentalist basket-case (VaJaj_a2jay).
On the other hand Christian forums are not normal websites, they're weird websites built for allowing mentally-retarded geeks to converse with one another, logic dictates that they're all going to attract way more than one Jay per hundred users.
As such, I am sold on the idea that at least 50% of those posts were not made by ironic trolls.
Yeah, I hope most of them are satire. But people have said that Chick and Phelphs were satirical too.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Dancing Mustard wrote:Think about it this way: CC is a normal website for regular geeks, but it has already attracted at least one fundamentalist basket-case (VaJaj_a2jay).
On the other hand Christian forums are not normal websites, they're weird websites built for allowing mentally-retarded geeks to converse with one another, logic dictates that they're all going to attract way more than one Jay per hundred users.
As such, I am sold on the idea that at least 50% of those posts were not made by ironic trolls.
Yeah, I hope most of them are satire. But people have said that Chick and Phelphs were satirical too.
Chick...
Machiavelli's The Prince was boring as hell if it was anything.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Islam is a naturally violent religion though. Not a question of any "phase" but of Islam's theology.
How many muslims on the planet? 1.5 billion? And how many terrorists? Several thousand? There you go.
You poor ecervellated retard subjected to politically correct lobotomization. Not only does the number of terrorists in the world far outnumber a few thousand, but you don't seem to realise that just because someone isn't constantly blowing things up doesn't mean they aren't a radical muslim. Do you know how many people voted Hamas? For Ahmadinejad? For Al-Sadr? Lastly, my point reffered to the ideological principles of Islam founded in the Koran and the actions of Mohammad, not to the praxis.
And how many christians have voted for Sinn Fein or the UDP, both with links to groups that have been and can be called 'terrorist'?
Anyway, when did radical muslims that don't blow things up or directly support others blowing things up become terrorists?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
What was my original contention? Read posts before you make unadapted responses.
Furthermore Sinn Fein and the UDP only use the identitaro-cultural connotaions of religion. You must see the Irish problem in the light of cultural-theological dichotomy.
Napoleon Ier wrote:What was my original contention? Read posts before you make unadapted responses.
Furthermore Sinn Fein and the UDP only use the identitaro-cultural connotaions of religion. You must see the Irish problem in the light of cultural-theological dichotomy.
Your original contention? You know, every post of yours is a bone of contention. First you make claims without backing them up with any sources whatsoever, then a follow-up consisting of mispeld words that look like they might be meaningful in an attempt at confusing the other debaters enough that they will leave you alone so you can claim "victory". You then repeat the second step until either you or the others grow tired or the thread dies from sheer frustration.
The only problem with your approach is that you've tried it too often and against people who know what the words you use actually mean or, when in doubt, know how to use a dictionary.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Fantastic. I love this. I use words they don't understand, they post some idiotic answer unrelated to my post, then say I make no sense. I got some advice for you : pick up a bloody dictionnary.
I'll translate what I meant into simpler terms for you :
"Teh Islam iz bad bcuz of teh wat it ses and of teh mohamud", as opposed to "wot teh islams do"`
`
If I express an opinion not backed up with "sources", that makes it invalid in your constrained little mindset, does it? I suggest though, if you want "sources", by which you basically mean "academics sharing your view", you ought to look at Mark Steyn or Rob Spenser.
Last edited by Napoleon Ier on Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
