Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:English Defence League: an Islamiphobic group? Not sure, but they're being investigated, and from their website, they seem pretty right-wing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8250017.stm


"they breed hate and fear. enough is enough!!"

It certainly is enough, but what do you suggest is the best plan of action?



... I'd be wary of anybody who advocates fighting extremism with extremism.

i realise you have problems reading and sometimes see things that aren't written.
where did i advocate fighting extremism with extremism? maybe you thought me mentioning the EDL was me praising their formation? no, it's just an example of the effects of muslim extremism.

I haven't at all said that's what you're advocating. You mentioned a group that seems to be engaged in what I'm warning about, that's all.

billy07 wrote:i suggest we give al qaeda exactly what they want! all westerners get out of every islamic state. leave them to it. if any westerners want to stay they can convert to islam.

Well, what exactly do you mean by "Islamic states," sir? That term means something else other than what you seem to be suggesting, so I'm assuming you mean "every predominantly Muslim state.

yes

Now let's assume somehow the West pulls out all the westerners from those countries. What would happen? No more intelligence personnel. No more political personnel. No more businesses there. Therefore, by doing what you suggest we'd gouge out our eyes, cut off our tongues, and blow out our brains via economic suicide. Wouldn't that be a bit detrimental to the West? And, it wouldn't accomplish much as far as terrorism is concerned. By eliminating investment in these foreign countries, they'd be hit by much instability, thus making easier for any extremist group to overthrow the government and take control. Sounds like blowback at the worst degree. Besides, what you suggest would be impossible to do given our current governments and their economic policies. We'd still have to buy oil, and we'd still want to export goods to them, and we'd still want to maintain dialogue with those countries' leaders while keeping a close eye on them. If you set up shop there, you're going to need westerners there anyway.

i assume from this that even if we did as the terrorists wanted, you'd still expect terror attacks? why?

you make it sound like all muslims are an extremely violent, intolerant, power hungry, cowardly and stupid race. who's the bigot here?

Pulling out the westerners from these countries would hurt us much more than it would hurt the terrorists we're dealing with. It would be almost as similar as China or the United States placing an embargo on each other--mutually assured economic destruction.

are you saying that muslims are incapable of fair trade?

we urge islamic states to control their own citizens, if they can't and terroism continues we stop all travel in and out for islamic citizens....

It's physically impossible for any state to control all of their citizens--domestic and abroad.

sadam hussien achieved it and iraq was far more stable than it is now. the taliban also controlled it's citizens.

Restricting immigration in such a manner wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism, but instead it would cause three problems.

1) It would cause an immense amount of distrust from Muslims towards their host countries which in turn would fuel discontent and hate. That would make the problem much worse. The Western world can't afford more anti-Western sentiment, especially from its own citizens and residents within its own borders. Besides, many Muslims have lived in these countries for a long time, and a good number are citizens as well, so to do something of this nature is discriminatory and not at all democratic; it's not at all in line with the principles and ideals . It sounds very similar to what the United States did to the Japanese in the 1940s. It didn't make much sense, and it was fueled mainly by suspicion brought on by a lack of understanding of one's real enemy. The main difference between this comparison is that US's plan had much less negative consequences than what the the Western world would face if it were to follow your plan.

there is already an immense amount of distrust towards the host nations of many muslims. nothing would change!

2) To do such a thing would be economically troublesome since many Western countries' economies demand for labor is mainly met by the influx of foreign immigrants, many of whom are Muslim.

where did you get this information?

3) Immigration of foreign populations has an immense benefit since it gives the host country's population the opportunity to come to a more profound and educated understanding of other peoples. By working alongside and living alongside the foreigners, one sees the differences but later realizes the similarities between "us and them." This understanding is necessary in overcoming distrust and fear of the unknown. By severely restricting immigration, you deprive a country's people to better understand foreigners and the minorities that are already residing there.

Such an immigration policy that you suggest would be unnecessary punishment which wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism but only aid in its increase, cause economic problems, and deprive the local populations from the opportunity to better understand and accept the "foreigner."

we already have enough foreigner's to be able to understand the cultural, religious and traditional differences. i never said we should "send em all back".

any extremism (not terrorism) shown by muslims residing in western countries should be rewarded with immediate repatriation, with the loss of all assets.

Whoa, ho-ho, billy! Any extremism shown by muslims but not any other religious denomination, huh? Are you showing your true colors again?

muslim extremists are an immediate threat. open your eyes.

The current laws are fine enough. There's no need to crack down on any extreme or fundamental religion as long as they aren't advocating or funding terrorism. Loss of religious freedom is a step backwards for any democratic country, and a step towards an authoritarian one. Proper investigation, enforcement, and punishment is fine how it is--perhaps a bit too extreme for my liking in the US regarding the US Patriot Act. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

you call yourself "bigballinstalin" and you have the nerve to shout about liberty? hilarious!

i realise liberals would complain about the human rights of these people but it's a small price to pay to avoid the murder of innocent men, women and children.

Actually, liberals, conservatives, and moderates would not only complain but outright demand that your policies not take place. The only groups I imagine jumping on your bandwagon are the ideologically extreme ones (far-right, far-left, neo-conservative, and the just plain out there). What you're advocating is an extreme solution that would only inflame the situation and get more innocent men, women, and children killed. In order to put in place such extreme policies, it would require a very authoritarian government to coerce the majority into accepting its policies. How authoritarian of a government must it be? I'm going to leave that answer to the reader's imagination...

i really doubt it would infame people. i'm only saying we need remove people guilty of extremist behaviour. why would anything in gov't need to change in europe or america? alot of the threat would be removed. maybe better border controls, but thats it.

In a nutshell: The enemy is NOT the Muslims. It's the terrorist ideology, the terrorist mindset. Islam is something they exploit to meet their demands, not the other way around. What should be countered and stopped are the sources of money funding such extreme thought and the source that makes their ideals attractive.

The questions that should be asked and be considered reasonably and answered honestly are:

1) Why are these terrorists' ideals so attractive? How can they garner so much support?

2) To what degree are all involved countries (Western, Muslim, and other) responsible for this and what can they do to stop it?

There's many more, but I'm tired, and I'll try my best to answer PhatScotty's question later.

you're not going to like this answer, but the quran is mainly to blame. it's vague it can and is miscontrued or not into the extremist ideology.

billy07 wrote:you're not going to like this answer, but the quran is mainly to blame. it's vague and can and is miscontrued or not into the extremist ideology.

Woodruff wrote:

billy07 wrote:you're not going to like this answer, but the quran is mainly to blame. it's vague and can and is miscontrued or not into the extremist ideology.

Good point...just like the Christian Bible.

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Now let's assume somehow the West pulls out all the westerners from those countries. What would happen? No more intelligence personnel. No more political personnel. No more businesses there. Therefore, by doing what you suggest we'd gouge out our eyes, cut off our tongues, and blow out our brains via economic suicide. Wouldn't that be a bit detrimental to the West? And, it wouldn't accomplish much as far as terrorism is concerned. By eliminating investment in these foreign countries, they'd be hit by much instability, thus making easier for any extremist group to overthrow the government and take control. Sounds like blowback at the worst degree. Besides, what you suggest would be impossible to do given our current governments and their economic policies. We'd still have to buy oil, and we'd still want to export goods to them, and we'd still want to maintain dialogue with those countries' leaders while keeping a close eye on them. If you set up shop there, you're going to need westerners there anyway.

i assume from this that even if we did as the terrorists wanted, you'd still expect terror attacks? why?

you make it sound like all muslims are an extremely violent, intolerant, power hungry, cowardly and stupid race. who's the bigot here?

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Pulling out the westerners from these countries would hurt us much more than it would hurt the terrorists we're dealing with. It would be almost as similar as China or the United States placing an embargo on each other--mutually assured economic destruction.

are you saying that muslims are incapable of fair trade?

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's physically impossible for any state to control all of their citizens--domestic and abroad.

sadam hussien achieved it and iraq was far more stable than it is now. the taliban also controlled it's citizens.

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Restricting immigration in such a manner wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism, but instead it would cause three problems.

1) It would cause an immense amount of distrust from Muslims towards their host countries which in turn would fuel discontent and hate. That would make the problem much worse. The Western world can't afford more anti-Western sentiment, especially from its own citizens and residents within its own borders. Besides, many Muslims have lived in these countries for a long time, and a good number are citizens as well, so to do something of this nature is discriminatory and not at all democratic; it's not at all in line with the principles and ideals . It sounds very similar to what the United States did to the Japanese in the 1940s. It didn't make much sense, and it was fueled mainly by suspicion brought on by a lack of understanding of one's real enemy. The main difference between this comparison is that US's plan had much less negative consequences than what the the Western world would face if it were to follow your plan.

there is already an immense amount of distrust towards the host nations of many muslims. nothing would change!

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:2) To do such a thing would be economically troublesome since many Western countries' economies demand for labor is mainly met by the influx of foreign immigrants, many of whom are Muslim.

where did you get this information?

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:3) Immigration of foreign populations has an immense benefit since it gives the host country's population the opportunity to come to a more profound and educated understanding of other peoples. By working alongside and living alongside the foreigners, one sees the differences but later realizes the similarities between "us and them." This understanding is necessary in overcoming distrust and fear of the unknown. By severely restricting immigration, you deprive a country's people to better understand foreigners and the minorities that are already residing there.

Such an immigration policy that you suggest would be unnecessary punishment which wouldn't solve the problem of terrorism but only aid in its increase, cause economic problems, and deprive the local populations from the opportunity to better understand and accept the "foreigner."

we already have enough foreigner's to be able to understand the cultural, religious and traditional differences. i never said we should "send em all back".

BigBallinStalin wrote:

billy07 wrote:any extremism (not terrorism) shown by muslims residing in western countries should be rewarded with immediate repatriation, with the loss of all assets.

Whoa, ho-ho, billy! Any extremism shown by muslims but not any other religious denomination, huh? Are you showing your true colors again?

muslim extremists are an immediate threat. open your eyes.

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The current laws are fine enough. There's no need to crack down on any extreme or fundamental religion as long as they aren't advocating or funding terrorism. Loss of religious freedom is a step backwards for any democratic country, and a step towards an authoritarian one. Proper investigation, enforcement, and punishment is fine how it is--perhaps a bit too extreme for my liking in the US regarding the US Patriot Act. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

you call yourself "bigballinstalin" and you have the nerve to shout about liberty? hilarious!

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

billy07 wrote:i realise liberals would complain about the human rights of these people but it's a small price to pay to avoid the murder of innocent men, women and children.

Actually, liberals, conservatives, and moderates would not only complain but outright demand that your policies not take place. The only groups I imagine jumping on your bandwagon are the ideologically extreme ones (far-right, far-left, neo-conservative, and the just plain out there). What you're advocating is an extreme solution that would only inflame the situation and get more innocent men, women, and children killed. In order to put in place such extreme policies, it would require a very authoritarian government to coerce the majority into accepting its policies. How authoritarian of a government must it be? I'm going to leave that answer to the reader's imagination...

i really doubt it would infame people. i'm only saying we need remove people guilty of extremist behaviour. why would anything in gov't need to change in europe or america? alot of the threat would be removed. maybe better border controls, but thats it.

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:In a nutshell: The enemy is NOT the Muslims. It's the terrorist ideology, the terrorist mindset. Islam is something they exploit to meet their demands, not the other way around. What should be countered and stopped are the sources of money funding such extreme thought and the source that makes their ideals attractive.

The questions that should be asked and be considered reasonably and answered honestly are:

1) Why are these terrorists' ideals so attractive? How can they garner so much support?

2) To what degree are all involved countries (Western, Muslim, and other) responsible for this and what can they do to stop it?

There's many more, but I'm tired, and I'll try my best to answer PhatScotty's question later.

you're not going to like this answer, but the quran is mainly to blame...

..it's vague it can and is miscontrued or not into the extremist ideology

BigBallinStalin wrote:The current laws are fine enough. There's no need to crack down on any extreme or fundamental religion as long as they aren't advocating or funding terrorism. Loss of religious freedom is a step backwards for any democratic country, and a step towards an authoritarian one. Proper investigation, enforcement, and punishment is fine how it is--perhaps a bit too extreme for my liking in the US regarding the US Patriot Act. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

BigBallinStalin wrote:The only groups I imagine jumping on your bandwagon are the ideologically extreme ones (far-right, far-left, neo-conservative, and the just plain out there). What you're advocating is an extreme solution that would only inflame the situation and get more innocent men, women, and children killed. In order to put in place such extreme policies [as you've suggested], it would require a very authoritarian government to coerce the majority into accepting its policies. How authoritarian of a government must it be? I'm going to leave that answer to the reader's imagination...

Woodruff wrote:

billy07 wrote:you're not going to like this answer, but the quran is mainly to blame. it's vague and can and is miscontrued or not into the extremist ideology.

Good point...just like the Christian Bible.

If they won't convert kill them every last one.

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the athiests of Conquerclub do the same?

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

billy07 wrote:you're not going to like this answer, but the quran is mainly to blame. it's vague and can and is miscontrued or not into the extremist ideology.

Good point...just like the Christian Bible.

I was shown several parts of the koran that are not in the least bit vague. Shame on you billy07 for saying that.

So Woodruff you can't read or just have not?

If they won't convert kill them every last one.

is "just like"...

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the athiests of Conquerclub do the same?

Wow, that's some pretty vague stuff there, and it's basically the same isn't it?

Sorry to be a dick but I find it quite scary that people like you teach children. You forgot some athiest bologna rederick here like. "Adolf Hitler was catholic and might have had a Jew mother."

I can't remember what part of the koran that quote is from but it's in there and frankly B.K. Barunt said it best when he compared the two. "I've read them both and the koran is like a comic book compared to the bible."

Have a great week and happy new year you ignorant git.

Love 2dimes.

Have a great week and happy new year you ignorant git.
Love 2dimes.

BigBallinStalin wrote:If you really believe that billy is right on this one then you should look at this:

BigBallinStalin wrote:(Oh, by the way, using just two unsourced quotes to compare those two books in their entirety and relying on b.k. Barunt's limited knowledge on the Quran is not very convincing.) ----Unless of course, BK Barunt is a notable and credible theologian who has done extensive research on both Christianity and Islam, or at least Islam, then I take back what I said about him.

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's the people who distort the Quran who are the ones to be blamed...

BigBallinStalin wrote:So I find it ironic for you to direct this at Woodruff:

Have a great week and happy new year you ignorant git.
Love 2dimes.

Have a happy new year, 2dimes.

For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Wow, that's some pretty vague stuff there, and it's basically the same isn't it?

Sorry to be a dick but I find it quite scary that people like you teach children. You forgot some athiest bologna rederick here like. "Adolf Hitler was catholic and might have had a Jew mother."

I can't remember what part of the koran that quote is from but it's in there and frankly B.K. Barunt said it best when he compared the two. "I've read them both and the koran is like a comic book compared to the bible."

Have a great week and happy new year you ignorant git.

If you really believe that billy is right on this one then you should look at this:

Ok, if that the Quran was mainly to blame, then you wouldn't need writers like Sayyid Qutb among many others shaping Islam's teachings in order to justify terrorism. If the Quran was to blame, you wouldn't need all those imams and religious "experts" twisting and turning the words of the Quran in order to justify killing other Muslims and killing innocent civilians--something the Quran preaches not to do. But you see, writers like Sayyid Qutb and those many imams do have to twist Islam in order to meet their own goals because Islam by itself doesn't advocate such things as these extremists do. Let's make it simpler: If what you say about the Quran is true, then their extremist views would actually be normal, wouldn't they? (hint: their views on Islam aren't normal; hence, the term "extremist"...)

It's the people who distort the Quran who are the ones to be blamed...

_______________________________________________________________________________
Also, according to some thread a month or so ago about the Bible and the Quran, there was plenty of sources showing where the Bible says similar statements of "killing them all" and yada yada yada, but you don't see the overwhelming majority of Christians doing so, nor do you see the overwhelming majority of Muslims doing the same. Once again, those two religion's holy books are fine; the problem are the people who exploit and use them to their own goals. Comparing to see which one is more violent is besides the point because it still depends on how these two books are exploited. The Quran's getting a bad rap for terrorism in the past 30 years which is why we're going to continue to see that crap argument against the Quran over and over again, but the Bible had its bad times as well--and people tend to forget that. For you to ignore all of this is pretty stunning.

(Oh, by the way, using just two unsourced quotes to compare those two books in their entirety and relying on b.k. Barunt's limited knowledge on the Quran is not very convincing.) ----Unless of course, BK Barunt is a notable and credible theologian who has done extensive research on both Christianity and Islam, or at least Islam, then I take back what I said about him. So I find it ironic for you to direct this at Woodruff:

Have a happy new year, 2dimes.

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

billy07 wrote:you're not going to like this answer, but the quran is mainly to blame. it's vague and can and is miscontrued or not into the extremist ideology.

Good point...just like the Christian Bible.

I was shown several parts of the koran that are not in the least bit vague. Shame on you billy07 for saying that.

So Woodruff you can't read or just have not?

If they won't convert kill them every last one.

is "just like"...

You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the athiests of Conquerclub do the same?

Wow, that's some pretty vague stuff there, and it's basically the same isn't it?

Sorry to be a dick but I find it quite scary that people like you teach children. You forgot some athiest bologna rederick here like. "Adolf Hitler was catholic and might have had a Jew mother."

I can't remember what part of the koran that quote is from but it's in there and frankly B.K. Barunt said it best when he compared the two. "I've read them both and the koran is like a comic book compared to the bible."

Have a great week and happy new year you ignorant git.

Love 2dimes.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ok, well thank you for your reasonable post, 2dimes, (sincerely.)

Billy, you got anything more to say? Care to give a another go at defending your unreasonable bigoted views?

Teletubster, you can troll better than that! How bout another one??

Nola_Lifer wrote:Who is this fool who thinks of himself as a preacher? As a man so high he can delegate which "ism" you are and then call you bigot on top. Let's not mention how impure and complete utter bullshit this man puts out. Let's ignore the fact that he calls everyone ignorant. Last time I checked the one who calls people ignorant are the ignorant ones themselves. If one needs proof that the man really is a bigot, he live in Portsmouth but supports Sunderland!!!! Jump on the band wagon, good fool. When are you going to realize that you and and the other posters to this thread are wrong, when are you going to realize that opinions are for fools, when are you going to realize that I don't even give a f*ck about my own post Opinions are made by people who think they can exist without anyone or anything else. Please, continue on with clouding your brain with opinions and self righteous thoughts and live in a world of unhappiness.

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ok, well thank you for your reasonable post, 2dimes, (sincerely.)

Billy, you got anything more to say? Care to give a another go at defending your unreasonable bigoted views?

Teletubster, you can troll better than that! How bout another one??

teletubby makes some good points. you seem the obvious troll, not he.

my last word on terrorists is this- seek out your enemies relentlessly, fighting is obigatory for you, much as you dislike it. slay them wherever you find them as idolatory is worse than carnage!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ok, well thank you for your reasonable post, 2dimes, (sincerely.)

Billy, you got anything more to say? Care to give a another go at defending your unreasonable bigoted views?

Teletubster, you can troll better than that! How bout another one??

teletubby makes some good points. you seem the obvious troll, not he.

my last word on terrorists is this- seek out your enemies relentlessly, fighting is obigatory for you, much as you dislike it. slay them wherever you find them as idolatory is worse than carnage!

The teletubster mainly derails the topic or just launches barrage after barrage of ad hominem attacks, so I'm not going to take him seriously because he's not interested in debating--just trolling. If you still really feel that way about tubster's tirades, then select of few of his and go at it.

Your last word is correct in that the terrorists who threaten to kill innocent civilians should be dealt with, but your solutions are extreme, bigoted, unnecessary, more problematic than the current situation, and oppressive. You have yet to prove me wrong on that.

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

billy07 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ok, well thank you for your reasonable post, 2dimes, (sincerely.)

Billy, you got anything more to say? Care to give a another go at defending your unreasonable bigoted views?

Teletubster, you can troll better than that! How bout another one??

teletubby makes some good points. you seem the obvious troll, not he.

my last word on terrorists is this- seek out your enemies relentlessly, fighting is obigatory for you, much as you dislike it. slay them wherever you find them as idolatory is worse than carnage!

The teletubster mainly derails the topic or just launches barrage after barrage of ad hominem attacks, so I'm not going to take him seriously because he's not interested in debating--just trolling. If you still really feel that way about tubster's tirades, then select of few of his and go at it.

Your last word is correct in that the terrorists who threaten to kill innocent civilians should be dealt with, but your solutions are extreme, bigoted, unnecessary, more problematic than the current situation, and oppressive. You have yet to prove me wrong on that.

thank you for confirming that the quran is "extreme, bigoted, unneccessary and oppressive". you see, those were mild quotes from the quran, and i mean mild!

another little comparison between the bible and the quran. the bible says " love thy neighbour", the quran says "take no jew or christian as your friend". here lies the problem!

this will be a never ending problem, unless we take the sort of action i put forward earlier in the thread. you yourself have subconsiously wrote that muslims can't even be trusted to run their own affairs. imagine if these terrorists get hold of nuclear weapons. do you think they'll think twice about using them? and one day they will.

you and people of similar ilk can be dreamers and in an ideal world that would be fine. unfortunately we have alot of evil amongst us!

Woodruff wrote:I can read fine, but your cherry-picking of lines from the two books is pretty despicable. You should be glad that "people like me" teach children, so that those children will still get the education they need when narrow-minded parents like you f*ck their minds over.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Ok, well thank you for your reasonable post, 2dimes, (sincerely.)

Teletubster, you can troll better than that! How bout another one??

2dimes wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I can read fine, but your cherry-picking of lines from the two books is pretty despicable. You should be glad that "people like me" teach children, so that those children will still get the education they need when narrow-minded parents like you f*ck their minds over.

Really? You wern't intoxocated when you posted that were you? You're concerned that I'm going to sully the reputation of a book by cherry picking a complete sentance. Why don't you do that for us with the bible. I double dog dare you. Go on find any complete sentance that tells a christian to kill everyone that won't convert, because as you say they are just like each other.

2dimes wrote:There's more than one in the other book but I won't bother because I'm "dispicable". It's wonderfull that you can tell the youth the truth about the bible instead of teaching them to read it for themselves. Then they can have the same advantage as you. It's bad to show people actual unsourced quotes from a book instead of just telling them third hand fallsities that claim they are the same thing.

2dimes wrote:I wouldn't hasle you if I believed you to be the way you're acting. Deep down I think it's in you to actually read them and find out the truth one day instead of just pretending you know what they say because of something you heard.

TeletubbyPrince wrote:Imperialism did not promote killing in the way that Islam does. It was really just an unfortunate side effect.