Quote:
Originally Posted by WI Crippler  I once started a thread dedicated soley to the discussion about Islam. I outlined in my OP that I would not accept any discussion of anything other than Islam and its role in the world. |
What are you debating exactly though. On the science forum if a new discovery arises, yes, it's news and not really debate-worthy (unless it's on evolution then the apes go crazy).
I mean, I would strongly suggest that you, or anyone, seeking to learn about a subject in a factual, historical, scientific way, AVOID most internet forums, especially those with the word *politics* in them. I mean, I believe that to some degree that goes without saying.
That being said, that we're on a *debate* *politics* forum, one may expect that #1 sides will be taken ala dabate, and #2 we may have to wade through political propoganda (the politics part).
So, given these realities, we now move to the OP. Who is the author? Bhkad. Have you taken the author into this context? Bhkad is proud to display a very Machiavallian attitude towards national power and its violent exercise of it. Which is fine, no negative connotation there.
But when I read the OP, it is focusing on Islam and it's roots of "conquest". I presume the fact that an entire religion being described in it's violent/conquest terms, is specifically as fuel to the propoganda war in labeling Islam as evil, based on violence, and thus the U.S. is justified in doing XYZ, which is on ongoing politcal foreign policy debate, internationally.
If you honestly thought it was a history lesson, and wasn't about debating, or politics, I can't believe that. If you'd prefer it to be a history lesson, OK, I can accept that. But if you think the reaction to his post, based soley on the OP, the context, the forum, and the author, was way off base, I don't agree. I see your point, I believe you may see mine as well.
-Mach