- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 7,532
- Reaction score
- 0
NAMBLA has love in it...besides the fact that you can't control if you look like Marlon Brando...
NAMBLA has love in it...besides the fact that you can't control if you look like Marlon Brando...
I only saw your post. Whoever brings up the crusades has already lost their argument
Not directed at you in particular but the Crusades happened almost a millennia ago at this point.Yeah, i also think 'but the crusades' is the lamest argument ever. I literally get embarrassed when i see some muslim apologist bring that up.
lol yep I've already sarcasticly used that same line in this threadYeah, i also think 'but the crusades' is the lamest argument ever. I literally get embarrassed when i see some muslim apologist bring that up.
You can't bring up the Crusades....Medieval Times and anything prior was a free for all. We have come along way from those eras. Well not everyone....I wonder. I know there are proscriptions against the killing of innocents in Islam.
I'm sure the murder happy Christians of the crusades justified their killing using Christ's words somehow. Any religious claptrap can be used for other purposes.
Not directed at you in particular but the Crusades happened almost a millennia ago at this point.
People that bring it up as a "oh, but look what Christianity did" sorta thing need to account for the fact it's been almost 1000 years since the beginning of the first one.
You want to highlight fucked up shit about Christianity use something more relevant time wise like say the Salem witch trials or the fucking Inquisition or shit that lead into the French Revolution. Don't bring up shit from 1000 years ago when no one bathed, Richard the Lionheart was probably fucking one of his cousins, and the Scots were still trying to use rocks to make food.
I didn't say so called Christians were innocent , just that the Crusades was a response to Muslim expansionism and aggresion. The Crusaders did exploit the opportunity to attack other groups.Fair enough, but what about the sacking of Constantinople, Lithuanian crusades, persecution of pagans and the cultural genocide of Europe?
Mohamed WAS a murdering warlord who had no issues with rape/murder/and slavery provided it was his side doing it .Keep missing the point.
I'm an atheist, and anyone in my face saying that to me is saying "I dare you to knock my teeth down my throat" , and I will oblige.
It's an invitation to a fight, not a debate, as his tone wouldn't even be in question because you can't say what he proposes in a non inflammatory way. Which makes total sense given that it was DESIGNED to be inflammatory.
I thought I read the idea of not calling them Islamic State was to basically not give them any credibility as a "state", which is one of their goals (creating a new caliph, state of Islam). Kind of like if your crzazy neighbor Bob barricaded himself in his house and declared it the new state of Bobstonia, you wouldn't call it Bobstonia but just "where the crazy dude lives on my block".
It's a deliberate attemp by Islam apologists to bamboozle the masses in the West .I think the term so called Islamic state is just a jab ISIS and the fact that they are soon to be history.
Every Muslim person I know calls them Daesh because they say they aren't real Muslims. And I know hundreds of Muslims -- I spend 2-3 month a year in Morocco.
And I personally know Muslims who'd laugh and tell you how wrong you are.
They would also find it very interesting to have you instruct them as to what their religion says.
Haha, even you're playing apologist for the Crusades? Atheists ain't what they used to be I guess.The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggresion against Christsendom.
At least it's a dry heat.Meanwhile you know what happened in Basra recently
53.9 degrees Celsius (129.02 Fahrenheit)
Fuck that
Who could feel like fighting as opposed to sitting in temps like that.
Now that we're managing to shoot them from 3400 meters away.I think the term so called Islamic state is just a jab ISIS and the fact that they are soon to be history.
Not apologist , just pointing out the fact ; because "But but the Crusades" is frequently trotted out to defend Islamic aggression.Haha, even you're playing apologist for the Crusades? Atheists ain't what they used to be I guess.
From your own articleThe problem IS Islam itself. The good Muslims are good because they aren't followiing the behavior of Muhammed like the Jihadis.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.”
What is Christendom? Because the region's Christians preferred Muslim rule in a similar way that Ahmadiyas prefer living in Western countries over Sunni majority ones. Byzantium, this standard bearer of Christendom, persecuted the region's heterodox sects of Christianity like the Syriac and Coptics far worse than the Muslims who didn't care what kind of Christian they were as long as they paid the jizya. And in fact the jizya was a tax cut for them since the endless on and off wars between Byzantium and the Sassanian Persians led to soaring tax rates. The success of the early Islamic conquests and their durability in the face of the Crusades probably owed much to the region's displeasure with those two imperial powers and their preference for the less shitty newcomer.Not apologist , just pointing out the fact ; because "But but the Crusades" is frequently trotted out to defend Islamic aggression.
And I personally know Muslims who'd laugh and tell you how wrong you are.
They would also find it very interesting to have you instruct them as to what their religion says.
It was a stupid waste of your time and mine to post that. You're not convincing. You're not adding anything useful.
Go outside, away from your basement, and find a Muslim, say that shit, and report back, because I want to hear the wonderful result of your brilliant argumentation.