Define conservatism

[TVoffBrainOn]

All of the "inconveniences" you mention were going on to a greater degree while saddam was in power, except of course, in his palaces plus there was always the possibility of his republican guard hauling you out in the middle of the night for a torture or rape session as the result of something that one of your relatives said about saddam.

There are times when war is the lesser of two evils. The number that have died since this war began has been less than the number that saddam would have killed just doing business as usual.

600,000 in 4 years

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=53905
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Alright palerider, I can see that nothing I post will sway you towards even considering another viewpoint.

I don't want to 'pile on' now that you are talking to others also.

I sent you an article yesterday in the private messages about something happening in the Middle East, because I thought it less likely you would feel obligated to fight about it if it were not on the board.
Get back to me whenever you can be bothered to look at it.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

600,000 in 4 years

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=53905
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

Thanks for that TVOff.
The figure of '500+ per day' seems undisputed.
Jeez.

 

[Friendindeed]

I take the time to learn who the enemy and why he hates me and vote for representatives who have taken the time to learn the same. That is what we do here, as opposed to strapping on bombs and telling those nearby that allah is greater just before we kill them.

Voting for them is what you are going to do about it ?

She asked you what you wanted to do about it short of killing every last one of them. Through your representatives I think was understood.

 

[palerider]

Voting for them is what you are going to do about it ?

She asked you what you wanted to do about it short of killing every last one of them. Through your representatives I think was understood.

I think that when someone, or a group of people, or a whole people genuinely want you dead, you take that seriously. You must decide that either you are willing to capitulate to them which in the case of islam is to submit (the very word islam means to submit) or you are going to fight.

There is no middle way for us because there is no middle way for them. An islamic government has just taken a group of British hostages in an attempt to gain concessions from the west. (shades of 1979) What sort of government takes hostages to use as diplomatic barganing chips? This is the mentality that we are facing.

Are you willing to bow to mecca 5 times a day and pay a protection tax in order to "get along"? Look around you. Look at the world. Listen to what they are saying with an ever growing voice. Look at the fact that the "good" muslims don't speak out against them. Where are the "good" muslims at in light of this hostage taking? Why aren't they speaking out if it is just a few bad apples making them all look bad?

We are at war with islam whether you, or I, anyone else likes it or not. They have made it abundantly clear that they are willing to die to the last man in the name of their god, because that is what he has told them to do. The "good" muslims that you seem to believe in are cringing in the shadows, afraid to speak out for good reason.

What exactly do you believe we should "do" about it?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

I think that when someone, or a group of people, or a whole people genuinely want you dead, you take that seriously. You must decide that either you are willing to capitulate to them which in the case of islam is to submit (the very word islam means to submit) or you are going to fight.

A little misleading, palerider. 'Islam' means submission to God, not to other Muslims.
If they wanted all non-Muslims dead, then they would not have instituted "dhimmi" laws for Jews, Christians, Hindus and others to live by in their countries.

There is no middle way for us because there is no middle way for them. An islamic government has just taken a group of British hostages in an attempt to gain concessions from the west. (shades of 1979) What sort of government takes hostages to use as diplomatic barganing chips? This is the mentality that we are facing.

Concessions ... you mean for instance to cease threatening them if they don't dismantle a non-existent nuclear weapons program ? Or concessions such as getting the west out of the business of directing Middle Eastern affairs ?

Are you willing to bow to mecca 5 times a day and pay a protection tax in order to "get along"? Look around you. Look at the world. Listen to what they are saying with an ever growing voice. Look at the fact that the "good" muslims don't speak out against them. Where are the "good" muslims at in light of this hostage taking? Why aren't they speaking out if it is just a few bad apples making them all look bad?

They are - which you would know, had you read one of the three most recent links I provided in this thread.

And you know what palerider ?

In spite of your fuming in another thread yesterday about how 'lazy' people are on this board and how they make you provide documentation ...are you aware that I've provided more than you have in this thread ?

That's right. Go ahead and have a look. We both quoted from the Koran; other than that if I am not mistaken you have provided only the very biased sites "Jihad Watch" and "Prophet of Doom".

In contrast, I quoted from the Koran and yet also provided evidence from a Jewish site, a Catholic site, a historical site, another Catholic site, and a history video.

The fact that you will not look at my links tells me all I SHOULD need to know here.

We are at war with islam whether you, or I, anyone else likes it or not. They have made it abundantly clear that they are willing to die to the last man in the name of their god, because that is what he has told them to do. The "good" muslims that you seem to believe in are cringing in the shadows, afraid to speak out for good reason.

Well, which is it then ? Are they willing to die to the last man in order to kill every one of us ...or do they want us to pay a protection tax ? You have said both of these things in the same post - and I am here to tug at your coat tails and point out to you that they are two mutually exclusive projects.

What exactly do you believe we should "do" about it?

Presumably this is to Friendindeed ...not only because your post was addressed to him but also because I've already told you what I think we should do (though you probably didn't even read it).

 

[palerider]

A little misleading, palerider. 'Islam' means submission to God, not to other Muslims.
If they wanted all non-Muslims dead, then they would not have instituted "dhimmi" laws for Jews, Christians, Hindus and others to live by in their countries.

No lilly. The word islam existed in arabic before the religion islam was invented by mohammed. The word means to submit, submission, surrender.

Look in their history Lilly. Dhimmi laws haven't been gone for very long and there are still plenty of leading islamic scholars who want them brought back. And they really aren't necessary as jihad serves the purpose better than the dhimmi laws ever did.

Concessions ... you mean for instance to cease threatening them if they don't dismantle a non-existent nuclear weapons program ? Or concessions such as getting the west out of the business of directing Middle Eastern affairs ?

Any sort of concessions Lilly. Civilized people don't take hostages as diplomatic barganing chips. And don't you find it interesting that they would have taken brits since the brits have announced a timetable for getting out? One would think that they would leave the brits alone so they could exit if one really wanted them out of the area? And do you believe for a second that the brits were in iranian waters? With GPS technology, no one is ever "accidentally" anywhere anymore.

They are - which you would know, had you read one of the three most recent links I provided in this thread.

I read your links Lilly. All of them. They require you to ignore great blocks of history and to ignore the present in order to believe them. They are fantasy Lilly, and if that is what floats your boat, then by all means believe it. Personally, I am not prepared to ignore reality in favor of a fantasy.

In spite of your fuming in another thread yesterday about how 'lazy' people are on this board and how they make you provide documentation ...are you aware that I've provided more than you have in this thread ?

I have provided links Lilly. And what you have provided is quite easlily debunked with even a cursory look at history.

That's right. Go ahead and have a look. We both quoted from the Koran; other than that if I am not mistaken you have provided only the very biased sites "Jihad Watch" and "Prophet of Doom".

You keep complaining about that site and yet, you have not pointed out even the smallest of inaccuracies. The information is either accurate or it is not. Do you define bias as presenting truth rather than presenting fantasy? If you can demonstrate any inaccuracy then do it. If you can't, stop complaining about the information there. It is thoroughly documented, far better than any of the information you have provided.

And note that even though you have quoted from the qur'an, at best, you can provided a dozen or so passages describing "peaceful" islam. There are literally thousands that describe the true nature of islam.

In contrast, I quoted from the Koran and yet also provided evidence from a Jewish site, a Catholic site, a historical site, another Catholic site, and a history video.

Yes you did. And none of them accurately reflected either the history of islam or the reality of current day islam.

The fact that you will not look at my links tells me all I SHOULD need to know here.

I read all your links Lilly. They don't reflect islam. Maybe they reflect what those poor muslims that are hiding in the shadows fervently wish their religion was like, but they don't reflect the reality of islam either today, or throughout history. The fact that they are hiding and do not speak out openly (as if speaking on a web site was speaking openly) against those islamists that are following the book says it all.

Well, which is it then ? Are they willing to die to the last man in order to kill every one of us ...or do they want us to pay a protection tax ? You have said both of these things in the same post - and I am here to tug at your coat tails and point out to you that they are two mutually exclusive projects.

It is their book Lilly. Do you want to do either in order to get along?

Presumably this is to Friendindeed ...not only because your post was addressed to him but also because I've already told you what I think we should do (though you probably didn't even read it).

I read all your posts Lilly, and wonder almost as much how a non muslim could be so misinformed as I wonder how a thinking person could ever follow islam.

I doubt very seriously that you have delved very deeply into the site that I provide you. You certainly haven't provided any evidence of inaccuracy there, only your opinion of bias without supporting evidence.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

No lilly. The word islam existed in arabic before the religion islam was invented by mohammed. The word means to submit, submission, surrender.

Look in their history Lilly. Dhimmi laws haven't been gone for very long and there are still plenty of leading islamic scholars who want them brought back. And they really aren't necessary as jihad serves the purpose better than the dhimmi laws ever did.



Any sort of concessions Lilly. Civilized people don't take hostages as diplomatic barganing chips. And don't you find it interesting that they would have taken brits since the brits have announced a timetable for getting out? One would think that they would leave the brits alone so they could exit if one really wanted them out of the area? And do you believe for a second that the brits were in iranian waters? With GPS technology, no one is ever "accidentally" anywhere anymore.



I read your links Lilly. All of them. They require you to ignore great blocks of history and to ignore the present in order to believe them. They are fantasy Lilly, and if that is what floats your boat, then by all means believe it. Personally, I am not prepared to ignore reality in favor of a fantasy.



I have provided links Lilly. And what you have provided is quite easlily debunked with even a cursory look at history.



You keep complaining about that site and yet, you have not pointed out even the smallest of inaccuracies. The information is either accurate or it is not. Do you define bias as presenting truth rather than presenting fantasy? If you can demonstrate any inaccuracy then do it. If you can't, stop complaining about the information there. It is thoroughly documented, far better than any of the information you have provided.

And note that even though you have quoted from the qur'an, at best, you can provided a dozen or so passages describing "peaceful" islam. There are literally thousands that describe the true nature of islam.



Yes you did. And none of them accurately reflected either the history of islam or the reality of current day islam.



I read all your links Lilly. They don't reflect islam. Maybe they reflect what those poor muslims that are hiding in the shadows fervently wish their religion was like, but they don't reflect the reality of islam either today, or throughout history. The fact that they are hiding and do not speak out openly (as if speaking on a web site was speaking openly) against those islamists that are following the book says it all.




It is their book Lilly. Do you want to do either in order to get along?




I read all your posts Lilly, and wonder almost as much how a non muslim could be so misinformed as I wonder how a thinking person could ever follow islam.

I doubt very seriously that you have delved very deeply into the site that I provide you. You certainly haven't provided any evidence of inaccuracy there, only your opinion of bias without supporting evidence.

this may be the greatest disinformation tactical post of all time. great job.

 

[palerider]

this may be the greatest disinformation tactical post of all time. great job.

You going to point out what is disinformation or just claim disinformation?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

You going to point out what is disinformation or just claim disinformation?

you site jihadwatch.com... please.

the man who thinks he knows everything, truely knows nothing.

 

[palerider]

you site jihadwatch.com... please.

the man who thinks he knows everything, truely knows nothing.

Sorry, an ad hominem attack doesn't constitute an argument. Can you point out any inaccuracies or not? My bet is not, since the site is one of the most thoroughly researched and documented sites I have found on the net.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Sorry, an ad hominem attack doesn't constitute an argument. Can you point out any inaccuracies or not? My bet is not, since the site is one of the most thoroughly researched and documented sites I have found on the net.

I'll very quickly note that Robert Spencer's analysis of Islam is biased and based on taking the radical side of Islam and applying it to an entire religion. His M.A. is in Christianity, not islam. His work is comparative to grouping christianity and the KKK/white supremacy.

Spencer's publications are not published by ANY university press.

Jihadwatch is a hate site.

 

[palerider]

I'll very quickly note that Robert Spencer's analysis of Islam is biased and based on taking the radical side of Islam and applying it to an entire religion. His M.A. is in Christianity, not islam. His work is comparative to grouping christianity and the KKK/white supremacy.

Again, can you point out any inaccuracies or not? Attacking an author or a source, in lieu of an actual argument does your position no good at all. And he certainly does not apply his thoughts on islam to the entire religion. He admits that not all muslims are radical and then uses the qur'an itself to demonstrate beyond a doubt that all of the "good" muslims, however, are radical.

Spencer's publications are not published by ANY university press.

Not surprising at all since he doesn't take the PC anti Israel stance that is teh only stance accepted in todays academia.

Jihadwatch is a hate site.

Again, CAN YOU POINT OUT ANY INACCURACIES OR NOT???

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Palerider thank heaven you're back, now I can stop fighting with nice people on this board !



May I remind you that I already found an inaccuracy on one of your sites - although granted it was not specifically about Islam.

You have a tough row to hoe if you intend to assert here that five separate unrelated sources I brought ...are all inaccurate. I specifically chose all five with an eye to the bad blood in their history with Islam, so you could not claim they are biased in its favor.

More in a minute.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Civilized people don't take hostages as diplomatic barganing chips. And don't you find it interesting that they would have taken brits since the brits have announced a timetable for getting out? One would think that they would leave the brits alone so they could exit if one really wanted them out of the area? And do you believe for a second that the brits were in iranian waters? With GPS technology, no one is ever "accidentally" anywhere anymore.

disinformation. the British were in Iranian waters as confessed by captured british soldiers themselves.

They require you to ignore great blocks of history and to ignore the present in order to believe them. They are fantasy Lilly, and if that is what floats your boat, then by all means believe it. Personally, I am not prepared to ignore reality in favor of a fantasy.

wow, i don't know where to begin. you say a whole lot of nothing here, and claim some sort of intellectual high ground. nice job. and you want me to respond? how? should i write a book?

And what you have provided is quite easlily debunked with even a cursory look at history.

again, you say nothing and provide links to right wing propoganda sites. should i provide links to Alex Jones and Prisonplanet.com? would that be considered thoroughly researched and aedquate evidence... please.

You keep complaining about that site and yet, you have not pointed out even the smallest of inaccuracies. The information is either accurate or it is not. Do you define bias as presenting truth rather than presenting fantasy? If you can demonstrate any inaccuracy then do it. If you can't, stop complaining about the information there. It is thoroughly documented, far better than any of the information you have provided.

more of the same. "im right because i provided links to sites that I think are accurate"

I read all your posts Lilly, and wonder almost as much how a non muslim could be so misinformed as I wonder how a thinking person could ever follow islam.

bingo, you are a bigot.

i truely believe that religion is the worst man made creation in the world, look at what it has done to an intelligent man like Palerider.