Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ... 26  Next

A practicing, devout Muslim would approve of the riots as being halal.

Do you know what this means?

I do.

For all those people who denounce my supposed "ignorance" about Muslims and Islam I have yet to find one who has read the Koran, the Thought of Sayyid Qutb, or have read the writings of the Al Muhaddith.

I've read these things and see no disconnect between jihadis and those who do not oppose them. Such things are perfectly logical and rational in the Muslim worldview.

That's why I always sort the peaceful Muslims from the others by asking one question and then insisting on a 'yes' or 'no' answer:

Do you renounce Surah 8:36?

The rare few who say 'yes' are not my enemies and I have no quarrel with them nor they with me.

All the others are my avowed enemies who will kill me when the opportunity arises.

Simple as that.

Read their books, learn about them, and you'll make the same conclusions for yourself.

Until you do read their words for yourself, do not impugn my own words.

I've debated Muslims on this site and what I've said here has been proven true in each circumstance. Not a one of them has proven me wrong, sad to say.

   

Ummm, weren't you one of the people chiding me for my "anti-Xtian" crusade? (not trying to provoke anything)

   

Reading the quran to understand muslims is as valid as reading the bible to understand christians, it doesn't work. Because just like christians, just like all semitic beliefs, and religions in general they pick and choose the passages to follow. The fact that they do not renounce them is just as irrelevent as the fact that you do not denounce the bible.

   

Bart is more into Levi Strauss.

   

You are actually very right.

At the heart of the definitions conservatives oppose change and liberals support change.

An environmentalist, ergo, would literally be a conservative.

In a Communist country, like the USSR, a free market capitalist would be a liberal.

While in that same country the devout Communist would actually be a conservative.

   

Except the change conservatives oppose is that which is away from the uber-consumption of the 50s.

   

Ummmm, no. political conservative/liberal does not equate with environmental conservation. The anti-logging/mining/fishing/hunting/etc people are almost all card carrying far left wingers. I'm not quite sure if you are joking or not.

   

Actually, I did, and I'd already responded to you that while he makes some good points I do not subscribe to his school of thought.

Hitler made some good points but I'm not about to go start a local bund anytime soon. Same thing.

In some of my digging on Strauss there's indications that he was every bit as racist and bigoted as Hitler so, despite a few of his ideas being something I may support, I'm just too...liberal...to be one of his true believers.

   

Am I defending IceOwl???? Wow.

Anyhow, he was not talking politics, he was talking about the literal definition of liberal and conservative and he was right that an environmentalist could be construed as an environmental conservative.

His usage of English is correct.

For instance, if the Liberal Party had controlled Canada for fifty years and then someone wanted to change their policies and they resisted then the Liberals would be defined as conservatives and the people who opposed them would be definitive liberals.

Liberal vs. Conservative is literally about who stands where on issues of change.

In common usage we have redefined the words to have political connotations they did not have until the 20th Century.

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ... 26  Next