"If nobody corrects me, I must be correct!"

Post Reply New Topic

Sideways logic about muslims. Saying muslims want to kill you just because some loons who are in a minority commit terrorist acts is overstating the issue. What should be said is that there are dangerous muslims out there, just as much as there are dangerous Christians. If all muslims wanted to kill everybody else just for being no-muslim, this world wouldn't havbe made it to the 21st century. Hell, they would have done the job before the crusades. And speaking of which, the Christians back then were doing exactly the same thing to the muslims as what they claim the muslims are doing now. So anyone who gets paranoid of people in other countries just because they are different is actually having a big problem with where they really fit in with society. For example, I call myself pagan, and I have no real problem with muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hundus, Taoists etc. The problem I have is when PEOPLE from these groups refuse to coexist with one another and start wars in the name of their faith. That to me is senseless, and war in itself is a total waste, and also a total hypocrisy. 'Thou shalt not kill' was one of the Christian commandments, and the Koran has a similar one, but in the same breath it's the PEOPLE that follow these faiths that killl for their god. That is totally screwed. Maybe people should look at their neighbours a little closer and open their eyes; then they might see that we are all just human afterall.

Side-TRACKED!

If you are going to quote something, do it without the selective editing. You'll get nowhere subverting others' views to those of your own and vice-versa.

I took out the Muslim part so you might be able to read the rest. Apparently you're not.

I got the original post fine. Hence my reply. It was the Reader's Digest version that was annoying.

Lately I've had a lot of trouble with WP which has affected my ability to post, for example I might try to respond but the post doesn't go through and I get an error, the email alerting me to the response gets labeled Junk Mail, ect.

Just because not all Muslims are terrorists doesn't mean that all terrorists aren't Muslim.

Regardless of how many "good" muslims there are, does not change the fact that.

Virtually all terrorists are muslim



Three fallacys I will now point out in this post.

For the Muslims to succeed in killing everybody, that would have involved everyone... not fighting back.

I would love to see someone issue a rebuttal to the fact that Islam is THE problem in today's world without saying "butbutbut the crusades 800 years ago".

Also like to see those people acknowledge that the Crusades started when the Muslims attacked the holy land.

So your point is that white people and black people and Christians and so on never comit Terrorist acts? What about the the people who fight for ALF, or those Christians that blow up Abortian Clinics? I suppose the UNABOMER didn't exist?

What about this, Islam isn't the biggest problem in the world today, does that refute your arguement? Sure if you're Bush this might not be true but for everyone else that isn't trying to find Oil where ever they can it isn't so much of a problem.

Logically valid, but if you want to assert that all terrorists are Muslim, that is both logically and factually totally wrong. Concerning logic, "Not all A are B" does not exclude the possibility that "All B are A", but it doesn't prove it either. Accepting "Not all A are B" has absolutely no logical implications for the truth value of "All B are A".

You would be factually wrong because there are the good Christians of Northern Ireland, Hindu fundamentalists, the FARC, the right wing death squads in Colombia, Guatemala and several other countries, the Tamil Tigers (who pioneered suicide bombing), Timothy McVeigh, there used to be the Contras, the Interahamwe still exists. That's just off the top of my head, without looking up anything. You could add the Ku Klux Klan.

As far as pure logic is concerned, you did not assert that all Muslims are terrorists, but by the conventions of everyday discourse, that is the most likely implication of what you wrote, and the context of your statement reinforces that impression.


THE problem for the next 50 - 100 years is not religious extremism but the overexploitation and outright destruction of ecosystem services. Religious extremism comes a distant second to that threat, which already has caused more suffering and is certain to cause more if we carry on with business as usual.

If you want to focus on Islamic extremism, you should know that the main problem is Wahhabism. To the Wahhabis, Sufis and Shiites are polytheists and unbelievers. You may want to read a little here and here or download the two part documentary Jihad and the Petrodollar part 1 and part 2. Your claim is analogous to looking at the Dominionists and concluding that Christianity is THE problem.

McJeff: the thing with the crusades was that the Christians of the 11th century took it upon themselves to try to convert the Moors to their way of believing and their faith. So if the muslims (or Moors as they were known did not capitulate, they were put to the sword. When the inquisition came along, under Pope Innocent III, the target was not only the Moors, but ANY UNBELIEVER; and the Inquisition had the same aim as the Crusades - convert or perish. And all of this in the name of God. Now you might say that the muslims attacked the holy land first, and that's why the Crusaders went after them; well, that same comparison can be made for the reason extremist muslims went after the US and Israel. Simply because the US and Israel had attacked and invaded land belonging to muslims which led up to the current conflict. Now I'm not saying that either side had the right to practice what they did, because war is intrinsically wrong. What I am saying is that from their point of view, they say the nukes of Israel and the US as just a big of a threat as their forefathers did with the Christian swords.

So the Crusades had anything to do with evangelism and had nothing to do with the Holy Land and preventing the world wide Jihad from making an Islamic Hasfadah(theocracy)?

Laughable!

Logic and reason do not mix with religion and faith.

Or they do and you are blind.

They don't and you are a dingleberry.

Logic and reason - Where is there evidence that God exists? God need not exist to explain the universe. It operates fine without divine intervention, as we have discovered so far.

Faith - God exists because this book says so. If it can't be explained, then God did it, and I admit I'm unwilling to know how else it might have happened.