Which makes burkas something different from "fashion" altogether.Right. Neither bell bottoms or burkas are necessary to either Islam or Christianity but burkas can be used as a religious statement.
See: this threadWhere is that? I'd really like to see some examples.
I didn't make that statement at all. Nothing even remotely close to it, in fact. Reread what I've written and then formulate your response without the strawman if you would like me to respond. I don't defend arguments that I haven't presented.No, i didn't. You said the odds are ("more likely") that Christians will use violence against Muslims than vice versa. Please show some evidence for this statement.
I disagree. Christian concepts have multiple examples of God himself using terrorist tactics for political religious goals. I've read nothing regarding not targetting civilians in any religious text, and I've read many religious texts.And based on Christian concepts within those Western nations.
Which is why many people in the US support terrorism, but only when the terrorism is used to achieve their own goals. When it is someone else's goals, they demonize terrorism.I agree. In a war one option, among many, is to fight like with like.
Reread what I've written and then formulate your response without the strawman if you would like me to respond. I don't defend arguments that I haven't presented.Getting satirical again, huh? You should leave that to those like Swift. But if you feel that violence against Muslims is preached in Christian Churches let's hear it and we'll both condemn it. Do you need evidence that hatred is being taught in Mosques?
That desire to secularize them is precicely why they feel we are a threat to their way of life.... and why they are correct to think that we are.Right. So how do we get Islamic nations more 'secularized' so there might be a chance of everyone getting along? Secularization doesn't appear to be a growing trend in any Islamic countries.
If they wish to secularize, they will do so.
It would need to be a legitimate threat.But it would have to be pretty serious, right?
Fighting would be one option, yes.Then what would you do? Fight?
ChicagoI don''t know what you mean by "our". Where are you from?
Communism was never a legitimate threat to American freedom. The "hot" wars fought over communism were dismal failures, but lo and behold, we still exist and we are still free (Well, not really, but communism itself had nothing to do with our losses of freedom).If you are European surely you must be aware of Communism.
My political philosophy is similar to those of the anti-federalists. This would make me very firmly on the "Right".And I've noticed that those who most make excuses for terrorism tend to be of the Left.
I would say that your observations are flawed in the sense that your use of the term "excuses" makes no sense in the context, as you define any reason that explains the terrorism mindset that you disagree with as an "excuse" for terrorism. But that equivocal type of definition doesn't take into account that something that is an excuse must seek to minimize fault or justify the behavior.
In this thread, it has only been people on the "right" who have created excuses for terrorism. They have done so repeatedly when it was terrorism they agreed with.
I have given what I beleive are their reasons behind their terrorism. I do not seek to minimize fault or justify their behaviors in any way. I find all terrorism to be inexcusable (even when it is usd to advance goals I agree with).
On top of that, it appears that your definition of "left" is "anyone who disagrees with me". This is a common error in definiiton for people who are prone to making argumetns that are false dichotomies. It is a natural offshoot of the "with us or against us" mentality.
Because terrorism is a tactic that can also be used by free capitalists, this sentence makes no sense. Terrorism, as a tactic, cannot "win" anything.They would rather see terrorism win than capitalism and freedom continue.
Ultimately, yes.Do you think all wars are based on economic interests?
Of course not. Are you under the impression that being "left wing" prevents the existence of economic interests?Do you believe that Left wing countries never go to war?
Do you realize that "left" and "right" are actually based on economic principles?How would they defend themselves, or would they not bother; they'd just go with the flow?
When someone uses an "appeal to authority" in their argument (a quote from someone intended to support a position is, by its very nature, an appeal to authority) they are saying that said person should be emulated, i.e. they are modelling the role in a psychological sense.There you go being satirical again, Tucker. Why don't you leave that to more talented people?
It wasn't satire, I merely found your choice of role model interesting.
And judging by your apparent inability to recognize satire, I don't think you are very capable of judging talent in this regard. I mean, It'd be kind of like me, as a color-blind person, judging the talents of people who design color-schemes. Being incapable of recognizing that which I would be judging would render me incapable of being such a judge.
I tend to agree.Good for Ghandi.