Demon-infested Christians

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Its from, " Islam made easy " by,Heinrich Himmler 🙂
Seriously though,thats your response?! Nazi propaganda? Why not the Mossad? I mean if we are going to delve into the depths of absurdity,the Mossad would be a more likely choice I would think. Are you saying those are not quotes from the Qur'an?

What you posted certainly wasn't. I wasn't aware that the Qur'an was quoted in any part. If you wish to have a debate with me, I ask that you speak for yourself. You can cite sources relevant to the topic, but don't just block and paste an entire lecture by a racist on the thread.

Originally posted by FMF
That rules out nearly all Muslims then. So that's good, right?

Yes, mostly...

The caveat is the extremists and (worse yet) fanatic extremists aren't publicly condemned by a unified, peaceful, Muslim majority, assuming one exists. Instead they are allowed (through silence) to speak for all of Islam since they are the only ones getting the attention... and if it's all a matter of perception then sorry, that's not the rest of the world's problem. Or at least it shouldn't be.

Explain why 99% of the intentional killings of groups of innocent people are perpetrated by these fanatic Muslims? Where are the (looking at the first post which spawned this whole exchange) fanatic Buddhists, Hare Krishna's, Wiccans, etc.?

This is what I'm getting at. [Fanatic/Exremist] Islam is in a category all by itself.

Where are the Killing Fields like Islam's Darfur, for any of the other religions?


Again, if it's all just coincidence and mistaken perception and I don't believe it is, it's still a problem.

Originally posted by scherzo

Like FOX news, FOX radio, FOX Australia, etc?
Yeah, that's a small part of it. I'm also a subscriber at Jihad Watch and get additional information from other sources as well.

I do know firsthand, having been to several Muslim countries.
No, you don't know first hand. You haven't seen or met--first hand--a hundredth of one percent of the Muslims on this planet. You may have more firsthand experience than I do, but so do the folks who right reports that I read. In fact they likely have more firsthand experience than you do.

Which wouldn't make Mohammed a willing conqueror, would it?
Any aggressive action, such as conquering, is by definition on a voluntary basis.

Originally posted by sumydid
The caveat is the extremists and (worse yet) fanatic extremists aren't publicly condemned by a unified, peaceful, Muslim majority, assuming one exists. Instead they are allowed (through silence) to speak for all of Islam since they are the only ones getting the attention... and if it's all a matter of perception then sorry, that's not the rest of the world's problem.

It appears you hear only what you want to hear. fanatic extremists are condemned all the time. fanatic extremists "speak for" Islam only in your made-up mind.

Originally posted by sumydid
Originally posted by scherzo

[b]Like FOX news, FOX radio, FOX Australia, etc?
Yeah, that's a small part of it. I'm also a subscriber at Jihad Watch and get additional information from other sources as well.

I do know firsthand, having been to several Muslim countries.
No, you don't know first hand. You haven't seen or met--first h ...[text shortened]... it?[/b]
Any aggressive action, such as conquering, is by definition on a voluntary basis.[/b]

Yeah, that's a small part of it. I'm also a subscriber at Jihad Watch and get additional information from other sources as well.

I was joking ... it's sad that you took me seriously. Do you really think a site called "jihad watch" is going to be nuanced?

No, you don't know first hand. You haven't seen or met--first hand--a hundredth of one percent of the Muslims on this planet. You may have more firsthand experience than I do, but so do the folks who right reports that I read. In fact they likely have more firsthand experience than you do.

The vast, vast majority of Christians are terrorist. They enjoy eating babies.

Just because you have met thousands of Christians that do not does not mean that the majority do not. You know nothing about Christianity. The people who know the most about Christianity are not Christian. You don't know anything about how Christianity operates, because you've never seen it firsthand.

Your "logic" is sickening.

Any aggressive action, such as conquering, is by definition on a voluntary basis.

whatever ....

Originally posted by sumydid
Yes, mostly...

The caveat is the extremists and (worse yet) fanatic extremists aren't publicly condemned by a unified, peaceful, Muslim majority, assuming one exists. Instead they are allowed (through silence) to speak for all of Islam since they are the only ones getting the attention... and if it's all a matter of perception then sorry, that's not the ...[text shortened]... coincidence and mistaken perception and I don't believe it is, it's still a problem.

You just made that 99% thing up, didn't you? Know how I know? Because it's NOT TRUE.

Originally posted by scherzo
[b]Yeah, that's a small part of it. I'm also a subscriber at Jihad Watch and get additional information from other sources as well.

I was joking ... it's sad that you took me seriously. Do you really think a site called "jihad watch" is going to be nuanced?

No, you don't know first hand. You haven't seen or met--first hand--a hundredth of one ...[text shortened]... tion, such as conquering, is by definition on a voluntary basis.

whatever ....[/b]

Are you saying that modern day christianity is more of a global terrorist threat than modern day Islam?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you saying that modern day christianity is more of a global terrorist threat than modern day Islam?

I was not implying anything of the sort. Rather, I was showing the inherent, completely stupid flaw in his argument by removing its application to Islam and applying it to Christianity. I don't believe anything of what I said in those two paragraphs.