-->
@TheRealNihilist
Just curious...
"We wish more fire upon you" - Muslim world reacts to Notre Dame tragedy
Posts
Total:
87
-->
@Snoopy
What do you mean by fame over honor?Just curious...
You want my opinion?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What's up with post #25?
-->
@Snoopy
What's up with post #25?
You already know. I don't want a medal since I want to be in the hall of fame. Both are based on fame and have nothing to do with honor but itself.
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
What is truly sad is how there is no French culture. No Culture that you can identify as being exclusively French anymore. Multiculturalism has infested France to such a degree that it's now a conglomeration of warring tribes and city-districts.
Macron admitted the reality in this sad farewell to France and what it means to call yourself "French."
“There is no such thing as French culture. There is culture in France, and it is diverse. It is not French culture.”—Emmanuel Macron
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You tell me a false number when the process of getting the correct number is easy and now you decide to give me a number without evidence?
It is estimated that the population of Muslims around the world is around 1.7 billion. According to Pew Research Center Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.
Which is 000.2% higher than what I had it down to be. So fkn WHAT! You have no point and are simply making a argument out of this air.
World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Deaths directly caused by the war military and civilians killed are estimated at 50-56 million people, there were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine.
I put a conservative figure on those deaths at 60 million. So fkn WHAT! Again, You have no point and are simply attempting to creat a argument out of this air.
Dispute those figures if you wish. I DON'T CARE!
Alec simply told you
A considerable portion back the violence. Even Linda Sarsour, who is American supports Shariah law.
And you responded:
So not all Muslims back violence.
Now if you want to bore yourself rigid, read what it was that I actually wrote in reply to your silly response; post #10
No one is suggesting or has suggested that. Stop playing victim on behalf of muslims , they do that quite good on their own and without the help of apologists such as yourself. It took only a few muslims to bring New York city, a population of 8 million, to its knees.
Not all Germans were Nazis, the majority were peaceful, but it didn't stop the minority causing the deaths of over 60 million men women and children of which 16 million were murdered in death camps. The majority were irrelevant.
For you to keep using that same old BS rhetoric of "not all muslims" is wearing extremely thin. There are a estimated 1.5 billion muslims in the world. Just 1 half of a % of that number amounts to 75 million muslims. So stop with your "not all muslims" because as Alec has said above at post 7 "A considerable portion [of muslims] back the violence " and a considerable portion do want to kill or convert every Westerner on the planet because their god instruct them to do so.
-->
@Greyparrot
What is truly sad is how there is no French culture. No Culture that you can identify as being exclusively French anymore. Multiculturalism has infested France to such a degree that it's now a conglomeration of warring tribes and city-districts.
And this mirrors Great Britain. Diversity has killed the British person and his culture stone dead. Don't let this happen to the USA. You still have a chance of putting your foot down and saying no to all this shite of "multiculturalism" and so called diversity". Muslims do not want any of it either. but they will take your milk & honey while demanding another way of living: Sharia Law
At least it looks like you/USA has made a good start:
Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas have "banned sharia,"i.e., passed foreign law bans. In 2010 and 2011 more than two dozen states "considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Shariah, or foreign and religious laws more generally".
Sharia Has Come to Texas
This video is part of “Who’s Afraid of Aymann Ismail?,” a series featuring Slate’s Aymann Ismail confronting fears about Muslims.
-->
@Stephen
Which is 000.2% higher than what I had it down to be. So fkn WHAT! You have no point and are simply making a argument out of this air.
I expected you to be to use a calculator. If you are not what are you doing here? Maybe I am expecting too much from you.
Dispute those figures if you wish. I DON'T CARE!
What is your point in bringing in WW2? You didn't make that clear.
So not all Muslims back violence.
False. Linda Sarsour is one person and not representation of every single Muslim across the world. For you to make my point "so not all Muslims back violence" is telling how little you understand my point. I didn't use big words. Should I expect you to not understand simply words on-top of not being able to use a calculator?
Now if you want to bore yourself rigid, read what it was that I actually wrote in reply to your silly response; post #10
I have actually and for you to categorise 1.5% of a group when the majority of the 98.5% do not associate with them and still call them by the categorisation is laughable. I don't call a hamburger skeletal muscle when it is more comprised of ham and a bun which together are called hamburger. So why are you saying Muslims as if that makes it easier to understand what they are? Why don't you call them radical Muslims, Islamic fundamentalist or something instead of Muslims when they are only 1.5% of the Muslim population? Surely you can think of a better word to call them then Muslim.
Just 1 half of a % of that number amounts to 75 million muslims. So stop with your "not all muslims" because as Alec has said above at post 7 "A considerable portion [of muslims] back the violence " and a considerable portion do want to kill or convert every Westerner on the planet because their god instruct them to do so.
1.5% is a considerable portion? I am sorry have you heard of the more considerable portion that is 98.5%?
It is like saying the 1.5% of you that is intelligent is a considerable portion when the other 98.5% is st*pid. (Numbers are not accurate so don't cry about me calling you st*pid for not knowing how to use a calculator, might not be able to understand simple words and don't understand the highest percentage is the considerable portion).
In all serious, Islam is a religion of violence
“Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home).”Q8:60 “to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.”Finally, Q9:29 “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
To be clear, Muslims are PEACEFUL people, the religion itself is violent
-->
@Vader
Add majority of Muslims since there is a minority that do commit violence. Everything apart from that is correct but do you say the same about Christianity?To be clear, Muslims are PEACEFUL people, the religion itself is violent
-->
@TheRealNihilist
that is what I meant. I took it out just in case any butthurt people report me
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No. Nowhere in the bible does it say to fight or draw a sword to someone.
Orthodoxy is a peaceful religion
Catholicism used to be violent due to greed of the Pope
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The main difference between Catholicsm and Orthodoxy is the Pope.
Catholics believe the Pope can interpret the Bible and make laws with the religion.
Orthodoxy believes in whatever the Bible says is final, and there is no debating it. No Pope's, no nothing. This is why we are under severe criticism because the bible says being gay is a sin, and that is what are religion believes. However, we love everyone, even the sinner. No one is damned to hell forever if they confess
-->
@Vader
No. Nowhere in the bible does it say to fight or draw a sword to someone.
Luke 12:45:47
1Cor 4:21
Gal 5:12
I can bring more but would like to say what you say to these and tell me what version you follow as well so I can link you to the source instead of giving the verse.
Orthodoxy is a peaceful religion
So Orthodoxy follow the Bible without a pope?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yep. Straight out of the bible
-->
@Vader
How can the new testament be peaceful when God wants to murder people?
Luke 12:45:47But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.
It is refering to the sinner and hell When you do a sin, your rep decreases. Then when you confess, it all goes away
1Cor 4:21What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?
Meaning heaven or hell
Gal 5:12
I'm not sure what that means.
-->
@Vader
It is refering to the sinner and hell When you do a sin
How long do you stay in hell?
your rep decreases
What number do you have to be on to go to hell?
Then when you confess, it all goes away
What if I lie?
I'll stick to this one. So any chance of you putting me in the receiver?
It is refering to the sinner and hell When you do a sinHow long do you stay in hell?
eternity
your rep decreasesWhat number do you have to be on to go to hell?
idk
Then when you confess, it all goes awayWhat if I lie?
wdym?
-->
@Vader
So is this God all-loving?eternity
idk
How do you know you are going to heaven when you don't even know how many points you need to get into there?
wdym?
I confession my sins in the booth. I say some stuff but don't actually mean it. Is my confession negated?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What is your point in bringing in WW2?
You are showing your ignorance yet again. I shouldn't be surprised. Go back and read post ten, here>>>https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1660?
Or see someone about your terrible memory loss
False. Linda Sarsour
Wrong person. I haven't even mentioned that ungrateful bitch Linda Sarsour
-->
@Stephen
You are showing your ignorance yet again. I shouldn't be surprised. Go back and read post ten, here
This was your message:
World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Deaths directly caused by the war military and civilians killed are estimated at 50-56 million people, there were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine.I put a conservative figure on those deaths at 60 million. So fkn WHAT! Again, You have no point and are simply attempting to creat a argument out of this air.Dispute those figures if you wish. I DON'T CARE!
What is your point? You state before this Islam is the fastest growing population then you brush off your in-ability to do basic maths is with "So fkn WHAT!" then you bring in WW2 fatalities.
Wrong person. I haven't even mentioned that ungrateful bitch Linda Sarsour
Yes wrong person but you did use it as your part of your argument didn't you? I wouldn't have brought it up if you agreed with Alec and stated it with your argument.
Any chance of telling me how 1.5% is considerable?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Deaths directly caused by the war military and civilians killed are estimated at 50-56 million people, there were an additional estimated 19 to 28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine.I put a conservative figure on those deaths at 60 million. So fkn WHAT! Again, You have no point and are simply attempting to create a argument out of this air.Dispute those figures if you wish. I DON'T CARE!What is your point?
You are like a little child that needs the same things repeatedly explained to him over and over and over again.
YOU used the "not all muslims" rhetoric.
This is how it started and why I used the WWII example. NOW, Are you sitting comfortably.
It started with YOU at post 6 saying:
omar 2345 If that is the case why isn't every single Muslim committing illegal activity in western countries
Alec responded at post 7 with this comment:
Alec A considerable portion back the violence
You responded to that with this overused BS at post 8;
omar 2345 So not all Muslims back violence
And then I came in and told you that although "not all muslims" do act violent that it was irrelevant BECAUSE IT ONLY TAKES A MINORITY TO CAUSE MAYHEM AND MURDER on a large scale.
I USED WWII as an example of what the MINORITY can achieve.
I WROTE in response to your "not all muslims" BS at post ten
No one is suggesting or has suggested that. Stop playing victim on behalf of muslims , they do that quite good on their own and without the help of apologists such as yourself. It took only a few muslims to bring New York city, a population of 8 million, to its knees.Not all Germans were Nazis, the majority were peaceful, but it didn't stop the minority causing the deaths of over 60 million men women and children of which 16 million were murdered in death camps. The majority were irrelevant.
Now if you cannot keep up with a simple conversation of who is saying what to whom, then simply leave thread. You have no point to make about the original op and have simply picked an argument over numbers. Please try to get it through that dense mass you call a brain, that I don't care if you don't accept those figures. It won't change the fact that it only takes a few >>> I.E. the MINORITY <<< to cause murder and mayhem on a large scale.
Wrong person. I haven't even mentioned that ungrateful bitch Linda SarsourYes wrong person but you did use it as your part of your argument didn't you?
I meant you had the wrong person down as mentioning Linda Sarsour . I didn't bring her into the argument that was someone else and I haven't at all used her in any way for my arguments. YOU HAVE THE WRONG PERSON YOU BUFFOON!!!! 😆 IT WAS ALEC who brought Sarsour into the thread NO ME!!! GO LOOK AT POST 7
This is what ALEC wrote:
Alec A considerable portion back the violence. Even Linda Sarsour, who is American supports Shariah law.
Do you see that? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ it is a quote from ALEC not Stephen.
Keep up or go away.
-->
@Stephen
Now if you want to bore yourself rigid, read what it was that I actually wrote
"We wish more fire upon you" - Muslim world reacts to Notre Dame tragedy
Muslim world or one individual. Counting is so difficult.
You responded to that with this overused BS at post 8;omar 2345 So not all Muslims back violence
My entire quote:
So not all Muslims back violence but we should still have some sort of agenda against all Muslims? Okay.
So why did not include the rest of it? If you said Islam fundamentalists then I wouldn't have a problem but you are saying Muslims as in plural without stating how many you are talking about it. If it is that 1.5% then do use a better category to call someone okay? I don't you even understand 1.5% of anything is a considerable but you may prove to me that you at least know that.
BECAUSE IT ONLY TAKES A MINORITY TO CAUSE MAYHEM AND MURDER on a large scale.
So we should blame the majority for what the minority did?
It won't change the fact that it only takes a few >>> I.E. the MINORITY <<< to cause murder and mayhem on a large scale.]
Nazi Germany weren't a minority back in Germany. They have majority. What are you talking about?
"In 1929, Germany entered a period of severe economic depression and widespread unemployment. The Nazis capitalized on the situation by criticizing the ruling government and began to win elections."
They were elected into power. Meaning they had majority support.
This is what ALEC wrote:Alec A considerable portion back the violence. Even Linda Sarsour, who is American supports Shariah law.Do you see that? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ it is a quote from ALEC not Stephen.
Why did you copy it? It is was part of your argument. It is basically like me saying I brought up history.com quoted the source but then say it was not part of your argument. It is part of your argument and you don't deny it here by doing what you did earlier on. Go to your post #17 when you brought him as your argument then you bring him up again with post #36 then in post #52 you said it was not your point when you are the one bringing it up as your point. If you are not doing so why are you jerking Alec off? Can't he speak for himself or do you need someone to confirm your biased in order for not to be a complete looney? Then in post #54 you still decide to jerk him off and still talk about him.
Wow talk about needing someone else to make your point to you but when you use it as your argument then you say it wasn't your argument? You don't know how to do maths, I assume don't know the difference between and is and ought and I can add doesn't understand when something is inside your argument. That is your argument. Even if I was quoting someone else you have used that as your argument.
So why did not include the rest of it?
there was no need to. I agreed with it. I agree that " not all muslims back violence" or are even terrorist. What can't you understand? I simply say as an example that it doesn't need a majority to cause death and destruction and used minority of Nazis of WWII as an example. So now go away you fool. You are embarrassing yourself.
So we should blame the majority for what the minority did?
Do you see what you have wrote above. You really are dense aren't you? NO ONE HAS BLAMED "ALL MUSLIMS" (the majority) for anything have they? How many fkn times do you need to be told the same thing or have the same thing explained to you.?
Why did you copy it?
I didn't copy it to, or use it in MY ARGUMENT. I have only repeated it to show you who it was that posted it originally .
It is was part of your argument
No it wasn't. If you insist on that, then show us all where I have used it to support my argument. Hurry up! I haven't got all FKN DAY!
when you brought him as your argument
No I supported Alec's claim and explained why. You are just far too befuddled to grasp what is being said and are atrocious at keeping up.
None of this has anything to do with the op. You have turned it into a personal argument. So as far as I am concerned, this is the end of this thread for me. Go find someone else who will stand you for as long as I have, you buffoon.
I stick by what I have wrote: that muslims around the world are celebrating the destruction of the Christian iconic Cathedral Notre Dame
-->
@Stephen
I agreed with it. I agree that " not all muslims back violence" or are even terrorist. What can't you understand?
Then think of a better term. 1.5% of a group is not a fair representation of them. Instead of Muslims call them Islamic fundamentals or militant Muslims or something else.
I simply say as an example that it doesn't need a majority to cause death and destruction and used minority of Nazis of WWII as an example.
The Nazi party were elected. In order to be elected it requires to be voted in or supported. This would mean that they won a majority election in order to get in.
You really are dense aren't you? NO ONE HAS BLAMED "ALL MUSLIMS"
Then call them Islamic fundamentalists or say some Muslims. Muslims with a plural can mean any amount of more than 1 if you don't say how many you are talking about. Since you didn't say how many people can view Muslims in a different way. An Islamaphobe can see that as all Muslims, another can see that only the people who were saying things on social media about Notre Dame,
I have only repeated it to show you who it was that posted it originally .
I read that when he typed it and I didn't see the need for you to use him as your argument. You pretty much quoted Alec and said you agreed with him. That is part of your argument. If it wasn't you wouldn't even mentioned him.
then show us all where I have used it to support my argument. Hurry up! I haven't got all FKN DAY!
Here:
Alec has only suggested that " A considerable portion back the violence". The comment is valid and correct, so stop crying.
It wasn't valid or correct but you agreed with him. In order to have an argument you would have to agree with what you are saying. If it was so correct you or Alec would be able to give numbers of this "considerable" amount that you keep talking about.
No I supported Alec's claim and explained why.
You have pretty much admitted to use what Alec said as part of your argument. In order for an argument to take place you would need a claim which can be supported by an explanation and/or evidence. You used what Alec said as your claims and then said it "is valid and correct,".
None of this has anything to do with the op.
Okay then let me talk about it
of which the West has saved and given refuge to MILLIONS!
They wouldn't be refugees if countries like the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia were murdering, bombing their countries. Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen are my examples.
You have turned it into a personal argument.
I don't care enough about you to make it personal.
So as far as I am concerned, this is the end of this thread for me.
Coward.
that muslims around the world are celebrating the destruction of the Christian iconic Cathedral Notre Dame
How many 1.5%? This is not a considerable portion nor should they be called by Muslims if they only represent 1.5% of it when there is the majority that is 98.5%.
of which the West has saved and given refuge to MILLIONS!They wouldn't be refugees if countries like the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia were murdering, bombing their countries. Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen are my examples.
Do you mean western interference into middle eastern countries that have nothing to do with them?
Coward.
No. I am just sick of repeating myself over and over to someone with the mental capacity of the embryo of a clam.
I don't care enough about you to make it personal.
Good. But you could have fooled me. You have been spouting shite about everything but the content of the OP for ages now on this thread
-->
@Stephen
You deny the involvement of the west in replacing people like Saddam Hussein and then making IS more relevant?Do you mean western interference into middle eastern countries that have nothing to do with them?
No. I am just sick of repeating myself over and over to someone with the mental capacity of the embryo of a clam.
Making excuses for your cowardice.
Good. But you could have fooled me. You have been spouting shite about everything but the content of the OP for ages now on this thread
I told you what you were not capable of. I don't know you personally so I can't make personal attacks.