yall
-
Posts
3,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by yall
-
-
Yeah, I'll definately give you guys the rundown on our dirty life & times...!!!
Thanks for the heads up on the Palamino too.
-
Hey gang,
A friends and I are flying to Las Vegas tomorrow for some fun and relaxation (along with heavy drinking and gambling). We are staying at the Flamingo for 3 nights and taking a red-eye back Saturday night (landing back in Buffalo around 6:00 am Sunday morning where the ol' lady will pick us up and head straight to the Ralph!!!
).I was just curious if there were any Vegas "veterans" who had any recommendations or advice to offer on how to get the most from our trip, bang for buck, etc. (Good strip club recommendations gladly accepted too!
) -
The Pub on Broadway in Depew.
Best wings ever. If you go there for a Bills game, they serve free ones at half-time. (You have to be there from the 1st quarter though, or else they won't let you have any...)
-
And here is a nice op-ed piece that sums up who is really being irresponsible right now:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214338,00.html
(I know, I know "Ahhhhhh!!! FoxNews... Right-Wing Conspiracy!!!!")
-
Still, no one has addressed the implications of a religion being founded by a violent conqueror. The one link I provided may not be the pinnacle of credibility, but all you need to do is look around and you will find thousands of sites that accurately describe the life and times of the prophet.
Once again CTM.. you said you would respond, but never did. Our childish insults aside, can you deny that the violence perpetrated during the life of the prophet nullifies (or at least brings into serious question)the "peaceful" nature of islam?
-
-
Except the "fact" and "reality" is that that is not conversion to Islam. Islamic teachings themselves specifically state that such a conversion isn't recognized.
And if you can't discern between the individual acts of lunatics and overall religious doctrine...that's your own problem. By your logic, Christianity supports pedophilia because of David Koresh.
Wrong, all I have been saying all along is that Islam supports (by default) the actions of mohammed, which were quite violent.
Can you deny that?
-
Oh, and for those of you interested... here is a nice link about "Mr Peace" mohammed...
http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Mohammed.htm
And crap thrower (I'm assuming thats your name because you throw crap in response to arguments and pray that it sticks..) to say that islam was a peaceful religion until the 1950's ignores common sense and history itself.
-
I'm trying to remember the last time someone put a gun to a person's head and said "Convert and become a Muslim, or die!"
Really...name me ONE instance of forcible conversion to Islam. Just one. From any point in history. You can't, because there aren't any, because the Koran does not and has not ever recognized forcible conversion. Ever. Which is very unlike Christianity.
OK, here is one... took me all of .04 seconds to find...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/st...42746.asp?c=rss
Get out from the mosque much?
I could actually give you more links to more people who endured similar forced "conversions" but you don't seem to be one for little things like "facts" or "reality".
-
"Wantonly slaughtered"? Most Islamic cities had thriving Christian and Jewish communities well into the 20th century. Outside of the greater Palestinian area (which, not conicidentally, was where the Crusades - the Christian invasion against Islam - was fought), tolerance of other religions was the rule rather than the exception.
In fact, tolerance of people who hold other beliefs is written into the Koran:
Emphasis mine; primarily stressing the Judeo-Christian, since I doubt you're arguing about Islam's tolerance of Hindu or Buddhist.
That right there is a pretty unambiguous statement of equality before Allah. And, in fact, the Koran advocates - rather strongly, actually - forgiveness of Christians and Jews for not being Muslim.
ut forgive them [Jews], and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment.
And regardless of what the Koran actually says...the historical record has a more than fair number of examples of not just tolreance of but protection of Jews and Christians. The protection of Orthodox and Nestorian Christians in the Low Middle Ages springs most immediately to mind, as does the acceptance of Jewish refugees from the Inquisition (as of WWI, there were still Spanish-speaking Jewish communities scattered across the Ottoman Empire). The Jewish and Christian communities in most major Islamic cities I can think of (Kabul and Herat in Afghanistan being great examples) were thriving and important communities up to WWII and beyond.
Fact is, Islam from its inception to about 1950 has been no more and in many ways substantially less intolerant and violent than Western culture. That that changed around 1950 with the advent of Arab nationalism (the Arab League and Muslim Brotherhood - which is, in fact, NOT a "Muslim" brotherhood but an Arab one) is not the fault of Islam, nor does it represent Islam circa 1200.
Bravo. They were sort of okay to Jews and Christians, but Hindus? Zaoastrans? Nope sorry. They deserved death. Hardly the model of tolerance.
It's like me hating blacks, but being ok with hispanics, since they have some european lineage. I'm still a racist !@#$. Same goes for Islam.
-
Actually, JSP is discussing how Islam is, was, and has always been an uncivilized religion. Despite it being the flower of civilization for a couple hundred years.
And yes, that IS relevant, because if you don't understand the history of the Islamic world, you won't understand how it went from being a truly great civilization to the reactionary, xenophobic, intolerant civilization it is today. Or, in other words, those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat ignorant nonsense on the internet.
Again, the history of islam is rooted in violence, oppression, and intolerance.
See: Life of Mohammed.
You can blame all of the outside influences that there are and ever were, that doesn't change the fact that they worship the life and times of a murderous conqueror.
As far as the crusades go, they were a reaction to islamic violence. Both sides were bad, but one side started it. Wanna guess who? I shouldn't have to tell you if you know so much about their history.
-
Do you have a time machine? You seem to be stuck in the past.
Who gives a sh*t about how good or bad things were 1000 years ago. We are discussing a problem in the present that grows worse with each passing day. Radical Islam is spreading like wildfire and apologists like you are more concerned with trying to convince everyone that:
a) there is no problem
b) since other relions have been bad, there is no need to point fingers at islam
c) this is just a reaction to oppressive policy
d) all of the above
The problem is, all of those answers are wrong.
-
Hiding weaponry amongst civilians has little or nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the nature of asymmetric warfare. You can find umpteen examples of this in history and you would be pretty hard pressed to argue that any ethnic group or religion is more "guilty" of this than any other.
While his examples may not be the best, understand his point: we are at war with Islam, or rather Islam is at war with us.
I'm not hearing sh*t from the so-called peaceful members either. I used to think this was due to the loudest people being the only ones heard, but I think it's beyond that now.
The moderates are too quiet, and everytime a muslim blows himself and/or someone else up in the name of allah, they always find some way to point the finger at someone else. "Oh, it's poverty" or "US Imperialism" or "the Zionist pig". Someone else is always at fault, and the West needs to start blaming their sh*tty belief systems and culture. It's unfortunate, because a lot of decent people are gonna die on both sides before its over. And from what I can tell there are 2 possible outcomes, and one of them is the global islamic community stepping up and fixing THEIR problems.
-
Well, it really isn't an over-reaction. They are merely following their precious holy text.
-
All of it might be for all I know..
But the point that Jesus rejected parts of the old testament is at least a partial truism according to some of his apostles, which were the people that helped create the new testament to begin with (after all, Jesus didn't write a bit of it...).
But that's still getting away from the important point that if you look at what is attributed to Jesus in the manner of moral teachings and actions, it's hard to argue that he was not a peaceful man.
Mohammed on the other hand was a violent conquerer. To say a religion based upon him as a being, is peaceful, is a pretty dubious argument. To avoid godwin's rule, I'd say it would be like modeling your life on the teachings and actions of Stalin, and trying to say that the ideology is a peaceful one. Just beacause you love Stalin, and you are peaceful, doesn't mean the system of beliefs is a peaceful one.
It's just like I said before, the existance of !@#$ Christains don't mean it's a violent or extremist religion. The reverse can be said for peaceful, caring, moderate muslims. Just because they are good, it doesn't by default make their religion or prophet peaceful.
-
The first argument was not mine. It was somebody else's. I was pointing out that it made no sense. They were saying "Christ didn't make these statements, so they're in effect not part of the religion."
My bad... hand't followed the thread carefully enough.
I suppose we'll agree to disagree on our interpretations of Islam. I live near a mosque and know many peaceful followers. I think theirs is a religion of devotion, and, yes, unironically stated, one of peace. What is passing for Islam in the media and in the schools of radicalism is a distortion being used for political gain and power.I too know many peaceful muslims. My family doctor is whom I trust implicitly.
The non-extreme, peaceful followers are certainly the rule, not the exception. That being said, I think they don't represent the true meaning of Islam, much in the many many people think Catholics don't fully represent the teaching of Christianity.
The "peaceful" snippets of the islamic holy texts aren't enough to counter the explicit calls for violence, especially when taken into consideration with the violent history of mohammed.
-
Don't throw the "Christianity is based solely on the word of Jesus" crap out there, because if that were the case, evangelists wouldn't be running around condemning homosexuals (please find for me where Jesus said anything about them), and they'd find it a hell of a lot harder to rationalize a lot of their behavior.
The fact is that the big three monotheistic religions draw a lot from the same well. There have been societal advancements in the west that have changed our outlook more than most realize. But if you want to follow the Bible word-for-word, you are going to be living a life that is no less backwards to our understanding than that which you consider the Muslim world to live. That's the truth.
All religions have a history of violence, because there has always been violence. It's up to each one of us to determine whose (if any) teachings within one can lean on. The predicament we find ourselves in now is not due to there being any more violence than there has ever been, but rather the greater capabilities of destruction via violence coupled with technology.
Quit it with the "religion of peace" crap. If you follow any religion, look in the mirror.
Ok, I had to counter the fallacy in your first statement before proceeding any further. By your logic, since Jesus said nothing about automobiles and computers, wacko evangelicals would be able to rationalize a ban on driving and computing due to the lack of comment on either subject by Christ?
Just because someone calls themselves Christian, doesn't make it so. The whole point of Christ's teachings were peace, acceptance, and tolerance. Someone misinterpreting his work doesn't nullify the work, it just makes the person a retard.
Secondly, Christ basically said to ignore the old testament stuff, so there goes the argument associating Christianity with the slavery, sacrifice, and violence found in the old testement.
Lasty, Islam IS a violent religion. Forget what the books (Hadith and Quran) say, even though they advocate subrogation and violence against non-believers, and look at the life of Mohammed the doucheba.... I mean "Phrophet". The guy MURDERED people. He killed many. Sure he started out peaceful, mostly because he had no power or authority. But once he had those, look out.
A violent Christian is a bit of an oxymoron. They are mutually exclusive. If you are one, you are not the other. Plain and simple.
Islam on the other hand encourages violence. Both through the scripture and through the example of the creator of said religion.
-
How dare you insinuate islam is violent! Say that one more time and I'll blow you up!
-
I just got a Miller jersey for my birthday. At first I was dissapointed that it wasn't one of the new ones.
After seeing the new ones... well... you can understand why I said "At first".
-
-
Finnally, something we can all agree upon. Class act all the way.
-
I don't know why Troy Vincent speaking would have any effect on the Pats, but ok... (I know you meant Law...)
The point is, that Law raising a fuss, didn't help. Spikes making a stink also, will not help. He should know that. He is a professional. When professionals do stupid things, they take criticism. It's really that simple.
-
Whatever.
Oh snap.. you got him there.
Listen, Spikes does deserve critisism for those comments. They were stupid. Especially "why don't they just put me on IR" nonsense.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Takeo is also one of my favorite players, and it makes it all that more annoying when your favorite guy on the squad says stupid sh*t.
-
Yeah, and the Pats obviously had their heads on straight for the upcoming game.
What he said was stupid. He contradicted the coaching staff and doctors. They were dumb comments, and as a professional he should know better.
Bench him? No effin way. Cut him? Ha... he is one of our best players.
Settle him down and don't let his initial hysterics ruffle anyone in the lockerroom and everything will be just fine.
.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Really? I don't mind one bit. I figure there is always a chance he catches a stray bullet while going through NYC... : )