[PacHead]

Nice scheme these murdering supporting crooks had going. Call yourself a charity while giving money to barbaric terrorists.

I suppose these terrorists do not represent the "moderate" view, they were afterall only the biggest charity of their kind in the entire USA.



http://news4colorado.com/topstories/...209143538.html

[UNTeMac]

Enron was one of the larger corporations in the country. Microsoft is the largest purveyor of software in the U.S. I guess they both represent mainstream values of America.

Apparently these guys had been under investigation by the FBI for about 9 years.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Enron was one of the larger corporations in the country. Microsoft is the largest purveyor of software in the U.S. I guess they both represent mainstream values of America.

Apparently these guys had been under investigation by the FBI for about 9 years.

And the topic is?
What does Microsoft have to do with a bunch of killer muslims?

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
And the topic is?
What does Microsoft have to do with a bunch of killer muslims?

Originally posted by PacHead:
I suppose these terrorists do not represent the "moderate" view, they were afterall only the biggest charity of their kind in the entire USA

It was my response to his thinly veiled attempt at saying moderate muslims support terrorism. At least that's how I read it. If he'd like to clarify, that's fine.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Enron was one of the larger corporations in the country. Microsoft is the largest purveyor of software in the U.S. I guess they both represent mainstream values of America.

Apparently these guys had been under investigation by the FBI for about 9 years.

If only liberals rushed to defend rational Christian Americans as quickly and as often as they defend radical Muslim extremists...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
If only liberals rushed to defend rational Christian Americans as quickly and as often as they defend radical Muslim extremists...

But aren't you comparing two different things?

rational Christian Americans vs radical Muslim extremists?

I agree the things they have in common is their corruptibility and their Faith in one God as the only thing that makes sense in their lives and be damned if others disagree...

But other than that..

[Kitschy]

Wow, my first ever double post.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
But aren't you comparing two different things?

rational Christian Americans vs radical Muslim extremists?

I agree the things they have in common is their corruptibility and their Faith in one God as the only thing that makes sense in their lives and be damned if others disagree...

But other than that..

Right, my point is that I find it interesting how quickly liberals will side with Islamic fundamentalists, yet hold a deep seeded opposition to anything to do with Christianity. What makes it more interesting is that modern Christianity is a million times more docile than modern fundamentalist Islam.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Nice scheme these murdering supporting crooks had going. Call yourself a charity while giving money to barbaric terrorists.

I suppose these terrorists do not represent the "moderate" view, they were afterall only the biggest charity of their kind in the entire USA.



http://news4colorado.com/topstories/...209143538.html

There are several different points being made here, both by yourself and those responding to your post.

First, being the largest of anything does not prevent an organization from having problems, hence the reference to Microsoft.

Second, being the "moderate" member of a class or group does not prevent an organization from having extremists associated with it. Hence the reference to Enron and (I am assuming) their outlandish and extreme greed.

Third, the charges should be thoroughly investigated and if found true every last one of them ought to go to jail for a long time.

So, why all the p*ss and vinegar about this?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
If only liberals rushed to defend rational Christian Americans as quickly and as often as they defend radical Muslim extremists...

Shouldn't that be "If only liberals rushed to defend rational Christian as quickly and as often as they defend RATIONAL Muslims..."

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Right, my point is that I find it interesting how quickly liberals will side with Islamic fundamentalists, yet hold a deep seeded opposition to anything to do with Christianity. What makes it more interesting is that modern Christianity is a million times more docile than modern fundamentalist Islam.

Yes, any modern mainstream religion **would** be more docile than any modern fundamentalist religion.
So, is your point that
a) liberals like ALL fundamentalist religions better than mainstream religions?
OR
b) liberals like ONLY fundamentalist Islam better than mainstream religion, but like other fundamentalist religions LESS?

Do you have a hierarchy here of what you think liberals like better in their religions?

Or, is this really about the fact that you find someone suspect who is not as outraged as you are about this story. If you ask me, ALL fundamentalists of ALL religious faiths should be branded as terrorists.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
(...)
What makes it more interesting is that modern Christianity is a million times more docile than modern fundamentalist Islam.

Woaw.

Millions?

You mean like they have no brains anymore? Like they are done with the debating, the disucssing, the shock of challenging ideas, the need to break from the mold for freedom?

Zombies?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:


Third, the charges should be thoroughly investigated and if found true every last one of them ought to go to jail for a long time.

I believe the charges have been thoroughly investigated, and they're being charged with 42counts in the indicment.

[Kitschy]

My point is: why are liberals more anti-Christian than anti-Islam when it seems to me there is a lot more to be anti-Islam about than there is to be anti-Christian.

In this thread, someone posted an article that said something about an Islamic organization funding terror. A liberal, UNTiMac, replied by apparently justifying the actions of that organization.

My point being that if it was a Christian organization funding terror, I would guess that UNTiMac wouldn't so quickly justify the actions of that organization.

A liberal double standard is in place in regards to Islam vs. Christianity.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
My point is: why are liberals more anti-Christian than anti-Islam when it seems to me there is a lot more to be anti-Islam about than there is to be anti-Christian.

It's because it seems to people like you that "there is a lot more to be anti-Islam about than there is to be anti-Christian". Liberals aren't more anti-Christian than anti-Islam; they are simply more supportive of the average, non-extremist Muslim than the average, non-extremist Christion because so many people condemn ALL of Islam based upon the actions of a VERY small minority of Muslims.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
My point is: why are liberals more anti-Christian than anti-Islam when it seems to me there is a lot more to be anti-Islam about than there is to be anti-Christian.

In this thread, someone posted an article that said something about an Islamic organization funding terror. A liberal, UNTiMac, replied by apparently justifying the actions of that organization.

My point being that if it was a Christian organization funding terror, I would guess that UNTiMac wouldn't so quickly justify the actions of that organization.

A liberal double standard is in place in regards to Islam vs. Christianity.

Are you sure you are not stuck with some observational bias?

Have you done good accounting of all Liberals to that effect? Did you do some survey? Have you used some specific statistical procedure to analyze your data? What were the questions you asked these people first? Have you checked their background to make sure they were truly Liberals? What definition of Liberals are you using again? Did you check about some Republicans position regarding the protection, if not, the promotion of some Islamic interests?

Maybe we can name a few that are quite popular at he White House...

And how do you define Islamic extremism? How do you define rational Christians? Is having Faith in something untangible rational?

On the other hand, terrorists should be punished, but ideally, the sources for it should be looked at to prevent their acting out.

PS: don't you have some prejudice about Liberals to generalize the way you do?

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's because it seems to people like you that "there is a lot more to be anti-Islam about than there is to be anti-Christian". Liberals aren't more anti-Christian than anti-Islam; they are simply more supportive of the average, non-extremist Muslim than the average, non-extremist Christion because so many people condemn ALL of Islam based upon the actions of a VERY small minority of Muslims.

First, you don't see Christians forming little militias planning and preparing how to take down Western civilization.

Second, that might be true if there was an outcry by the alleged vast majority of Muslims condemning the actions of a "VERY small minority of Mulims." It's just not there.

Third, you're saying because I think there is more to be anti-Islam about that makes YOU want to be more anti-Christian? Why or why not?

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
If only liberals rushed to defend rational Christian Americans as quickly and as often as they defend radical Muslim extremists...

Hmmm...I'm an independent centrist who believes that everyone who practices religion is, at heart, a misguided clone responsible for a great number of the world's ills. How are any religions defensible when considering their track record? Modern or fundamentalist, the record speaks for itself.

It's true that "liberals should rush to defend rational Christian Americans as quickly and as often." You just let me know when you find a rational Christian American. As far as defending radical Islam...the "liberals" would be way out of line if they did such a thing. Unfortunately for you, these "liberals" are not trying to do that, by and large. They are discrediting your belief that radical muslims are indecipherable from *all* muslims.

Of course, this runs contrary to my belief that all religion-followers are equally to blame for such violence, but the basis from which I draw that conclusion is not based on violence alone.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
First, you don't see Christians forming little militias planning and preparing how to take down Western civilization.

No, you don't. What you do see is an overwhelmingly Christian force forming a huge militia to take down a whole section of Eastern civilization of which they disapprove. Even though a mere fraction of those people affected represent the "evil" Christians are trying to stamp out.

Another triumph on the part of religion as a whole. Thanks be to god.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
First, you don't see Christians forming little militias planning and preparing how to take down Western civilization.

Neither do you see Muslims doing so. Those whom you do see "forming little militias planning and preparing how to take down Western civilization" are not really Muslims.

Transferring your perspective to the other side of your fence, your counterpart could say that Christians are forming the American government and planning and preparing how to take down Muslim civilization. And both of you would still be wrong.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
First, you don't see Christians forming little militias planning and preparing how to take down Western civilization.

??? Haven't they have done that already ???

Second, that might be true if there was an outcry by the alleged vast majority of Muslims condemning the actions of a "VERY small minority of Mulims." It's just not there.

There is an outcry, but did you really listen? Or maybe some feel justice is somehow done for them. Or maybe they don't give a damn, like many Christians... Or maybe you need to change the source of your information...

Or have you talked with all Muslims at this point to come to that conclusion? Do you speak Arabic?

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Neither do you see Muslims doing so. Those whom you do see "forming little militias planning and preparing how to take down Western civilization" are not really Muslims.

Transferring your perspective to the other side of your fence, your counterpart could say that Christians are forming the American government and planning and preparing how to take down Muslim civilization. And both of you would still be wrong.

Actually, both are true. You can't let the religion off the hook when people take it to extremes. They still pray to same god when they're blowing themselves up or rolling their M1A1 tanks through the streets. That's why the entire religion is implicated, and your examples of "everyday" muslims and this country's government fit under their respective religion's umbrella nice and cozy-like.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
Actually, both are true. You can't let the religion off the hook when people take it to extremes. They still pray to same god when they're blowing themselves up or rolling their M1A1 tanks through the streets. That's why the entire religion is implicated, and your examples of "everyday" muslims and this country's government fit under their respective religion's umbrella nice and cozy-like.

There's no question that religion is used as an excuse for much of the evil in the world. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of the followers of a religion are not responsible for the crimes committed by a very small minority.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
There's no question that religion is used as an excuse for much of the evil in the world. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of the followers of a religion are not responsible for the crimes committed by a very small minority.

I respectfully disagree, only because I think a few thousand years and hundreds of generations is enough to call religion a failure. As the world is increasingly thrown into turmoil in this age because of religion, I no longer think it is appropriate to implicate only the "very small minority." Extremism is only the head of a problem that has grown out of a seemingly more innocuous entity for centuries. The ages have proven that these entities are not innocuous at all. Just as people are understandably dismayed that the outcry from the "the average muslim" is not more resonant in this time of radical Islam, I'm sure the "non-believers" were similarly dismayed by the meek dissent of "the average Christian" during the Crusades and the Inquisition. The quiet are no less at fault. They are, simply, quieter.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
I respectfully disagree ...

No problems, just so long as you find ALL religions and their followers equally guilty, I'm happy with your consistency.

[doctorkeyser]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
No problems, just so long as you find ALL religions and their followers equally guilty, I'm happy with your consistency.

I do, indeed. A secular world divided over things like land rights, culture, race, money... Far less deadly differences over the course of the human timeline. I can only hope.

[tie]

I don't think all religions are equally guilty. I also think the case against a religion includes the extremist parts from which it can't separate itself, but also the moderate parts. Including for example personal freedom, tolerance, science and innovation, etc. It is also a mistake to group religions too closely; Christianity and Islam in the US are very different from the same religions in the third world.

[Logic]

For the topic at hand.

They claim to be the biggest charity.

The charges are for something over 10 years old. That is a couple of years before Hamas went truly militant(for conservatives that = terrorists).

It's still only a charge not a conviction. But I guess in the US justice system today you don't need the old "innocent until proven guilty" slogan, especially not when dealing with muslims.

The money is allegedly going to people related to Hamas and to the families of suicide bombers. Well I know many would disagree on that being called supporting terrorism. Hamas is a big organisation and is one of the most important humanitarian organisations in Gaza.

And again, these are still just allegations that General Asscraft think is worth holding a press conference about in the eve of the elections. Nothing political about that is it?

As for the Pacheads comments about mainstream muslims and terrorism. off!

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Enron was one of the larger corporations in the country. Microsoft is the largest purveyor of software in the U.S. I guess they both represent mainstream values of America.

Apparently these guys had been under investigation by the FBI for about 9 years.

Good point.

Originally posted by dcolton:
And the topic is?
What does Microsoft have to do with a bunch of killer muslims?

Just shows your bigotry again.

If I point to some of these various scams that have plagued TV where Christian groups ask for money to feed children/poor and we find out years later it went to the marshall islands for someone's 2nd personal boat... you'd say that doesn't reflect christianity, or america, or other charities who do good work.


Again... I could pull up some of the most terrible acts of humanity, and show their close ties to christianity... but we all agree that doesn't reflect christianity, it reflects the guilty parties who hid under the religion.


It's no different here.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
[B
Just shows your bigotry again.

There we go! I knew we couldn't go too long before the lefties started name calling. Hello, Demonhood? Moderators? Anyone? I forgot, it's a one way street, there is a different set of rules for the left. (BTW: I should have said 'skewed' muslims).

If I point to some of these various scams that have plagued TV where Christian groups ask for money to feed children/poor and we find out years later it went to the marshall islands for someone's 2nd personal boat... you'd say that doesn't reflect christianity, or america, or other charities who do good work.

What is your point? Oh...I get it, you are trying to confuse the issue with a veiled attack on Christianity. Certainly apples to oranges. We are discussing 'supposedly' moderate Muslims funneling money to group that KILL. As a matter of fact...they are funding groups that want to kill YOU as well as any other westerner.

Again... I could pull up some of the most terrible acts of humanity, and show their close ties to christianity... but we all agree that doesn't reflect christianity, it reflects the guilty parties who hid under the religion.


It's no different here. [/B]

Big difference.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There we go! I knew we couldn't go too long before the lefties started name calling. Hello, Demonhood? Moderators? Anyone? I forgot, it's a one way street, there is a different set of rules for the left. (BTW: I should have said 'skewed' muslims).



What is your point? Oh...I get it, you are trying to confuse the issue with a veiled attack on Christianity. Certainly apples to oranges. We are discussing 'supposedly' moderate Muslims funneling money to group that KILL. As a matter of fact...they are funding groups that want to kill YOU as well as any other westerner.



Big difference.

Actually there's no difference.

Both are using religion as a way to hide their crimes of hate.

You simply hold the religion responsible in one case, and claim it isn't responsible in the other.


This stuff is happening all the time. Just because you don't like the idea that Christian charities also fund some terrible crimes doesn't mean they don't take place. All these abortion killers/bombers, etc. have been getting decent lawyers thanks to donations. Most of them hid for years in safehouses provided by them. They didn't have jobs while hiding... so guess who fed them?

We could ignore that too though.

And no, they weren't asking money to save these people, these are just charties like all others, loosely monitored, and nobody being held responsible. Money leaks, and collects in buckets for these people.


But we don't attack Christianity (or even associate it with the problem), since we know Christianity doesn't endorse, or allow such crimes, nor does it allow someone to support such crimes.


So why can we associate the muslim faith with a crime that isn't related to it's religion.... but we can't do the same for Christianity?


It's a two way street.


What next? Are we going to make rape acceptible for certain religions? Are muslim clercs that molest children worse than christian priests who did the same thing? Perhaps setup a separate legal system baised on religion?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Actually there's no difference.

Both are using religion as a way to hide their crimes of hate.

You simply hold the religion responsible in one case, and claim it isn't responsible in the other.


This stuff is happening all the time. Just because you don't like the idea that Christian charities also fund some terrible crimes doesn't mean they don't take place. All these abortion killers/bombers, etc. have been getting decent lawyers thanks to donations. Most of them hid for years in safehouses provided by them. They didn't have jobs while hiding... so guess who fed them?

Show me some proof that a mainstream Christian organization is guilty of funding terrible crimes. Cite specific examples and show me the money trail. Show me where Christian organizations fund terrorism that target and kill anything that is not Christian. I will give you century old history. I will give you abortion clinic bombings (akbeit, the loss of life was minimal.)

So why can we associate the muslim faith with a crime that isn't related to it's religion.... but we can't do the same for Christianity?

Once again, a homicide bombing in the name of allah and mulsims dancing in the streets allows me to associate Islam and terrorism. Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11 allows me to associate Islam with terrorism. Are all muslims terrorists...no. Do a suspiciously large number of the 1.4 billion muslims who sympathize with terrorism or support it lead me to make blanket assumptions...yes.

What next? Are we going to make rape acceptible for certain religions? Are muslim clercs that molest children worse than christian priests who did the same thing? Perhaps setup a separate legal system baised on religion?

I don't now. Seems to me as if you would be an advocate of making rape acceptible. You seem to have no problem with murder.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Show me some proof that a mainstream Christian organization is guilty of funding terrible crimes. Cite specific examples and show me the money trail. Show me where Christian organizations fund terrorism that target and kill anything that is not Christian. I will give you century old history. I will give you abortion clinic bombings (akbeit, the loss of life was minimal.)




Once again, a homicide bombing in the name of allah and mulsims dancing in the streets allows me to associate Islam and terrorism. Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11 allows me to associate Islam with terrorism. Are all muslims terrorists...no. Do a suspiciously large number of the 1.4 billion muslims who sympathize with terrorism or support it lead me to make blanket assumptions...yes.




I don't now. Seems to me as if you would be an advocate of making rape acceptible. You seem to have no problem with murder.

I rest my case.

You've confirmed it for me beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Once again, a homicide bombing in the name of allah and mulsims dancing in the streets allows me to associate Islam and terrorism. Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11 allows me to associate Islam with terrorism. Are all muslims terrorists...no. Do a suspiciously large number of the 1.4 billion muslims who sympathize with terrorism or support it lead me to make blanket assumptions...yes.

So you associate me with terrorism?

[Tater Salad]

No, you just have fiarly radical views when it comes to killing Jews.

BTW, Is anyone surprised there's a link? I never would have seen that one coming!

[Logic]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
No, you just have fiarly radical views when it comes to killing Jews.

BTW, Is anyone surprised there's a link? I never would have seen that one coming!

I have? Care to back that up?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you associate me with terrorism?

No. I may be wrong, but you seem to argue purely out of principle and sometimes it gives the impression that you sympathize with shady characters.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No.

So you don't associate Muslims and Islam with terrorism?

Will you please make up your mind?

[Tater Salad]

Yes. You and lilbabykitten constantly justify the actions of the fringe on every thread. "15 Israelis die in bombing"; you justify it. You justify Arafat's policies. You sound like Hezbollah representative for this ****ed up board. Baby kitten is worse, though. He probably wears an arm band when he posts on the above threads
Woops. Did I say that? Oh well. Anyone with moderation can see anti-Semetism.

And since the wall is probably be going to be taken down, we can expect more good news from y'all.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Yes. You and lilbabykitten constantly justify the actions of the fringe on every thread. "15 Israelis die in bombing"; you justify it. You justify Arafat's policies. You sound like Hezbollah representative for this ****ed up board. Baby kitten is worse, though. He probably wears an arm band when he posts on the above threads
Woops. Did I say that? Oh well. Anyone with moderation can see anti-Semetism.

And since the wall is probably be going to be taken down, we can expect more good news from y'all.

Care to back that up? Or did you pull that out of your ?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Yes. You and lilbabykitten constantly justify the actions of the fringe on every thread. BLA BLA BLA....Baby kitten is worse, though. He probably wears an arm band when he posts on the above threads BLA BLA BLA BLA

Tell us who you used to post as before you got banned! Go on!

Oh and I'm a *she* btw.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you don't associate Muslims and Islam with terrorism?

Will you please make up your mind?

Hmmm...I guess you want me to accuse all muslims of being terrorists. Why is that? Do you need more reasons to justify killer muslims?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Hmmm...I guess you want me to accuse all muslims of being terrorists. Why is that? Do you need more reasons to justify killer muslims?

No because in your post above you claimed to associate Islam with terrorism. Now all of a sudden you don't. Please make up your mind.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
No because in your post above you claimed to associate Islam with terrorism. Now all of a sudden you don't. Please make up your mind.

No, in the post, I said that the action and inaction of Muslims lead me to make a blanket assumption. How does the equate to believing that all muslims are terrorists? If I believe something, trust me you will know. I don't dance around questions like some people I know...and you know that.

So answer me this...are you a terrorist sympathizer. Is killing innocent Jews justifiable? Was 9/11 justifiable? What exactly is the root cause?

Hell, are you a terrorist? Do you give money to terrorist oranization? Are you the head of an Al Queda cell in Iceland?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
.....Are you the head of an Al Queda cell in Iceland?

rofl!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So answer me this...are you a terrorist sympathizer....

That depends on your definition of the word 'terrorist'.

...Is killing innocent Jews justifiable? ..

That depends on your definition of the word 'innocent' and whether the killing of innocent Muslims/Arabs (or members of any other race) is justifiable.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So answer me this...are you a terrorist sympathizer. Is killing innocent Jews justifiable? Was 9/11 justifiable? What exactly is the root cause?

Hell, are you a terrorist? Do you give money to terrorist oranization? Are you the head of an Al Queda cell in Iceland?

Looks name calling isn't limited to the "lefties" ...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Looks name calling isn't limited to the "lefties" ...

Name calling? By me? In that post? Where? Show me?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No, in the post, I said that the action and inaction of Muslims lead me to make a blanket assumption. How does the equate to believing that all muslims are terrorists? If I believe something, trust me you will know. I don't dance around questions like some people I know...and you know that.

Blanket assumption of associating Islam to terrorism. That is the same as associating Muslims to terrorism. That is that all Muslims support terrorism.

So answer me this...are you a terrorist sympathizer. Is killing innocent Jews justifiable? Was 9/11 justifiable? What exactly is the root cause?

1. No.
2. No.
3. I don't really have the time to type the whole root cause here, but let's just say that occupation of territory has something to do with it.

Hell, are you a terrorist? Do you give money to terrorist oranization? Are you the head of an Al Queda cell in Iceland?

1. No.
2. No.
3.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Name calling? By me? In that post? Where? Show me?

Perhaps a question mark is not part of the Canadian language.