• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What has Islam been up to for the Month of September you ask?

ecofarm said:
Did we blame Christianity and get verses from the Bible to show why they did it? I don't remember Bible quotes explaining why.
Click to expand...

You need help with that goal post it looks a little heavy
 
ecofarm said:
Did we blame Christianity and get verses from the Bible to show why they did it? I don't remember Bible quotes explaining why.
Click to expand...



Because you won't find any Bible verses saying "bugger little boys".



OTOH you will find LOTS of stuff in the Quran about killing and oppressing Jews and Infidels.


As the NT "love thy neighbor" supercedes the OT "stone folks for that", so do the Meccan Suras "make war against the infidel until he is subjugated" supplant the more peaceful Medina suras.
 
blaxshep said:
Islam IS the ideology that drives the terrorists. They all claim responsibility in the name of Islam. ISIS, what part of ISLAMIC STATE or Iraq and Syria leads you to believe it's not Islamic?
Click to expand...

So because they blame a religion means you should blame a religion. What about when they blame democracy? Should we again take them at their word and blame democracy?

Stop defining terrorist intent by what they, terrorists, claim. That's just buying into their propaganda. Terrorists leaders are driven by the same motives as any criminal organization - power and money.

Don't give me this "they did it because of Islam". They did it for power and money.
 
blaxshep said:
So all these murderers are killing in the name of Christianity? That's news to me.
Click to expand...



It certainly should be news to anyone. I never read "if thy neighbor has stuff thou wantest, bust a cap in his ass and take his stuff" in the Bible. :D


I was under the odd impression that most big city murders were a result of gang activity and drug trade, silly me.
 
Goshin said:
.
Click to expand...

Just because some crazies blame religion does not mean we, as rational people, need to blame a religion. Do you believe the other claims of terrorists, or just this one?
 
blaxshep said:
So all these murderers are killing in the name of Christianity? That's news to me.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of them yelled "I swear to God I'm going to kill you!"
 
Goshin said:
Because you won't find any Bible verses saying "bugger little boys".



OTOH you will find LOTS of stuff in the Quran about killing and oppressing Jews and Infidels.


As the NT "love thy neighbor" supercedes the OT "stone folks for that", so do the Meccan Suras "make war against the infidel until he is subjugated" supplant the more peaceful Medina suras.
Click to expand...

There's gotta be something in the Old Testament.






:mrgreen:
 
By the way, what was that huge dump of questionable sources for "Islam is bad". That was a seriously assembled hodgepodge of hate. I bet all of those citations (again, jihadwatch?) say Islam is gonna kill everyone because it's evil, evil evil. It's the devil. False Christ!

Seriously, what was that hate dump?
 
ecofarm said:
By the way, what was that huge dump of questionable sources for "Islam is bad". That was a seriously assembled hodgepodge of hate. I bet all of those citations (again, jihadwatch?) say Islam is gonna kill everyone because it's evil, evil evil. It's the devil. False Christ!

Seriously, what was that hate dump?
Click to expand...



Pew Research and World Opinion, mostly. I guess they are hate groups now?
 
ecofarm said:
So because they blame a religion means you should blame a religion. What about when they blame democracy? Should we again take them at their word and blame democracy?

Stop defining terrorist intent by what they, terrorists, claim. That's just buying into their propaganda. Terrorists leaders are driven by the same motives as any criminal organization - power and money.

Don't give me this "they did it because of Islam". They did it for power and money.
Click to expand...

They are doing what the Koran / Mohammad / Allah commands them to do, it is absolutely 100% derived from Islamic beliefs.

Mohammad was a warlord a terrorist and a pedophile that is documented fact, Islam is a terrorist religion.

Now lets see what was Jesus again? How many people did he terrorize? Who did he say to kill?

Don't get me wrong I'm an Atheist and as Goshin could attest, I have no love for Christianity either, but come on, you can read can't you?
 
Goshin said:
Pew Research and World Opinion, mostly. I guess they are hate groups now?
Click to expand...

Oh, you want to discuss this?

I looked up JihadWatch.org

And here's what I found:
The site features commentary by multiple editors, although its most notable and frequent publisher of content is Robert Spencer. It has been affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, as a subsidiary project.[15] Dhimmi Watch was a blog on the Jihad Watch site, also maintained by Spencer, focusing on allegations of acts by non-Muslims in defence of the Muslim world.

Legal actions have been proposed against the site based on allegations of hate speech; however most of these actions have proven to be unsuccessful.[16][17]
Click to expand...

And this:

Jihad Watch has been criticized for its portrayal of Islam as a totalitarian political doctrine,[9] and as such has been accused of Islamophobia.[10][11][12][13][14]

The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) called Jihad Watch an "Internet hate site" and claimed it is "notorious for its depiction of Islam as an inherently violent faith that is a threat to world peace."[citation needed] Guardian writer Brian Whitaker described Jihad Watch as a "notoriously Islamophobic website",[36] while other critics such as Dinesh D'Souza,[37] Karen Armstrong,[38] and Cathy Young,[39] pointed to what they see as "deliberate mischaracterizations" of Islam and Muslims by Spencer as inherently violent and therefore prone to terrorism. Spencer has denied such criticism.[40]

Benazir Bhutto, the late Pakistani Prime Minister, in her book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West, wrote that Spencer uses Jihad Watch to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam. She added that he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict.[41]

Robert Spencer has been described by some civil rights organizations including the Southern Poverty Law Center[42] and Anti-Defamation League[43] as a “hate group leader.”
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch



Now, if you're familiar with your citation dump, I'd think you'd know better than to post such a source. What's the deal with that? I don't want to move on to a discussion of Pew until we've dealt with this source you've provided.

You see, I think the inclusion of this source throws your entire argument into peril. How can we take seriously the defining of Islam, and even Western Muslims, from someone including such a source. Are we, as those engaged in debate, supposed to take the view of such a source as the defining authority on what Islam and Muslims are all about?

I think we see who, or what, you were quoting in your diatribe of what Islam means, above, professor.

And I find your inclusion of such a source (even in a dump you perhaps are only passingly familiar with) as losing the debate.

And a good day to you, sir.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Oh, you want to discuss this?

I looked up JihadWatch.org

And here's what I found:


And this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch



Now, if you're familiar with your citation dump, I'd think you'd know better than to post such a source. What's the deal with that? I don't want to move on to a discussion of Pew until we've dealt with this source you've provided.

You see, I think the inclusion of this source throws your entire argument into peril. How can we take seriously the defining of Islam and even Western Muslims, from someone that would include such a source. Are we, as those engaged in debate, supposed to take the view of such a source as the defining authority on what Islam and Muslims are all about?

I think we see who, or what, you were quoting in your diatribe of what Islam means, above, professor.

And I find your inclusion of such a source (even in a dump you perhaps are only passingly familiar with) as losing the debate.

And a good day to you, sir.
Click to expand...



1. I didn't get it from Jihad Watch.


2. Did you click on any of the links? They go exactly where they say they do.... Pew Research, World Opinion, the Telegraph, etc... hardly hate groups.



"I don't like what you posted so I'll create a straw man, knock it down and claim victory" is not exactly a viable debate technique sir.
 
Goshin said:
1. I didn't get it from Jihad Watch.
Click to expand...

Sure sounded like it.

2. Did you click on any of the links? They go exactly where they say they do.... Pew Research, World Opinion, the Telegraph, etc... hardly hate groups.
Click to expand...

Just because you have non-hate-group links does not make the hate group link ok. Until we deal with the hate group link, we (rational people) cannot take your perspective seriously.

So what's the deal with citing a hate group and how do you think that affects your argument?
 
ecofarm said:
Sure sounded like it.



Just because you have non-hate-group links does not make the hate group link ok. Until we deal with the hate group link, we (rational people) cannot take your perspective seriously.
Click to expand...



"Because I don't like what you posted I'll claim it is not legitimate even though I have no evidence to prove that."





When you can show me that Pew Research and World Opinion are hate groups, we'll talk more. Until then, the information stands and has not been legitimately contested, that a disturbingly large minority of Muslims support militancy and terrorism to some degree, even those who live in Western nations.



Edit: okay there was ONE link to Jihadwatch. Focus on that and ignore all the others, that's a straw man.
 
ecofarm said:
Sure sounded like it.



Just because you have non-hate-group links does not make the hate group link ok. Until we deal with the hate group link, we (rational people) cannot take your perspective seriously.

So what's the deal with citing a hate group and how do you think that affects your argument?
Click to expand...

Islam is the hate group.
 
blaxshep said:
List of Islamic Terror:

Last 30 Days

This is part of the list of Islamic terror attacks maintained by TheReligionofPeace.com.

During this time period, there were 154 Islamic attacks in 32 countries, in which 857 people were killed and 1244 injured.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks
Click to expand...

Meanwhile in US 90 some people have died due to gun violance, which is almost 3 times higher than number of people killed by Islamic Terrorist in one single country(specially factoring out the war torn region). Going by Statistics I am more afraid of some redneck Jesus freak with his penis extender going about than some "Islamic Terrorist!"


Once you understand Math...Numbers won't scare you!


Diving Mullah
 
Goshin said:
Edit: okay there was ONE link to Jihadwatch. Focus on that and ignore all the others, that's a straw man.
Click to expand...

Questioning the use of a hate group citation, and what that indicates regarding both the opponent's perspective and critical thought on the subject, is entirely legit in a debate. It's not an ad hom, it's addressing the perspective and standard of evidence employed by a debate opponent. His willingness to cite a hate group in evidence of his position brings into irreparable question his perspective and supporting evidence.

The use of hate groups as evidence of a position absolutely must be questioned and used against a debate opponent. Asking us to ignore such citations is apologetic at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom