Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!
Fixed it for you. 
Double Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!
And adding an Bazinga!
Only if you’re trying to sell peace from high atop a stack of bodies. Otherwise, it’s just super.
You want to splain why a sarcastic remark to a sarcastic remark is a woosh?.
Nah, thats too easy. Why don’t you explain why a massacre ordered by Muhammed is an evil that must never be forgotten, but a massacre ordered by Moses isn’t worth mentioning?
Lesssee, you can mention it in both cases because Islam reveres all those old time religiousy types in the OT, too. Muhammad was following in their footsteps. Jesus took his own path. I wish they would all be forgotten.
And, again, I’m not claiming that Muhammad was any more or less evil than anyone else at the time. But his contemporaries are not the head of a major religion that others try to emulate today.
So, then, according to **Uzi’s **Theory of Eternal Emulation, the root of the problem is Moses, and the Hebrew/ Jewish religion? Because Mohammed was “following in their footsteps”. Then, it necessarily follows, does it not, that any suspicion and disapproval that we show for Muslims, we should show with equal contempt for Jews? Or even more so, since they are the originators of this train of massacre and genocide.
Can’t you come up with a sweeping historical theory that blames Canada? A daunting challenge, to be sure, but one with your talent for rationalization might well be up to the task. I have every confidence in you, and wait with bated breath.
Do you think that a religion’s followers will attempt to emulate their prophet?
Are you denying you have never heard the saying, “What would Jesus do?”? What would they base their idea of what Jesus would do from? Their ass? Of course, some do. Some will actually read the book about him. The same holds true with Muhammad.
You really are pushing the credibility* envelope when you think people only follow their religion because granddad did and that their beliefs don’t influence their actions.
*Credulous?
Only to the extent that it is convenient for them. When scripture imposes commandments that cramp their lifestyle, those parts get minimized or ignored.
Yes. Straight out of their ass, mostly. They interpret what the prophet says in terms of their own expediency. There is not a word in the Gospels that has not been turned around 180° to reach two mutually exclusive conclusions.
You don’t live in a collectivist culture. The typical Muslim does. That same Muslim that will drink in the west won’t even think of doing so in the ME. As I said earlier, if you look through your own cultural filter it is real easy to say things like this and assume they are true for everyone.
The concept of WWJD transcends the bible which, as has been pointed out in this thread, was a book compiled by men at a later date. Jesus never wrote down his teachings. What he taught didn’t require interpretation nor were his actions ambiguous in any way. He did not kill, he did not promote killing.
This is in stark contrast to Mohammad who killed people and promoted the concept of killing those who did not convert. As Uzi pointed out The Qurayzi were not a threat to the Muslims at the time they were attacked. They were slaughtered and enslaved without mercy. We see this in the 9/11 attacks as well and are continually reminded that radical Muslims wish to to inflict great harm on those who they disagree with.
That you choose to ignore the religious connection of people who will slaughter others over a cartoon makes no sense.
And your authority for this is, what, exactly? The Koran says they were plotting against Mohammed, you say they weren’t? OK. Bring it.
And I’ll ask you the same question that **Uzi **is so ineptly dodging: by your reasoning, should we hold modern Jews accountable for the actions of the ancient Hebrews? And if we do not, shouldn’t the same rationale apply to Muslims as well?
No. But if they perpetrate the same ignorant and barbaric crimes against people that their ancestors did, then it’s fair to throw them in the same pit and heap the same scorn upon them. In fact, I’d say that today’s perpetrators are considerably worse, given that they can look around them and see how civilized people behave.
Do you disagree with those two points?
Those aren’t points, those are truisms masquerading as points. Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden are more alike than they are different. Hitler and Stalin were the same monster wearing different skin, their ideological differences mean next to nothing.
Osama preaches a doctrine of hatred and violence, the Sufi imam at the center of the mosque controversy preaches a doctrine of peace and forgiveness. It doesn’t matter what the Prophet really said, what matters is what we hear.
Define “typical Muslim,” with cites please.
The Muslims I know personally do not drink either in the Mideast nor in the west.
Maybe you need to sit down and reflect on this comment a bit. Consider how it applies to your sweeping comments about Islam and Muslims. Feel free to change the word cultural to xenophobic or even pejudiced.
Oh, please. You’re evading the question and responding with platitude. There are two distinct points made in my reply to your post. Now why don’t you try commenting on them specifically.
OK, but you won’t like it any better.
OK, but that only includes the actual perpetrators of such crimes. If you have evidence that the entire Islamic world were co-conspirators, active in furthering those plans, then you are invited to bring such evidence. In its absence, you are invited to stop furthering hatred for the innocent.
So long as your remarks are confined to actual perpetrators, I can hardly care what you think of them. Even if I were to disagree, I wouldn’t bother to say so. Again, you are offering a truism as if it actually means something to our discussion, it does not. I don’t care what you think, what you say, about the guilty. I stand for the innocent.
If the Muslim world held you guilty for the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis, would you fling yourself at their feet, blubbering for forgiveness? Somehow, I think not.
Wait a minute. Why are you painting all their ancestors with such a broad brush. Are you of a mind that 100% of these ancestors perpetrated such crimes? How do you know it was everyone? Or even a majority? Or even a large number? Why do you cast them all into the same pit?
When you say things like that, do people start talking in a soothing tone of voice as they back out of the room?
Never mind. It appeared for a second that you were actually going to deign to have a real discussion with content. But I see that you prefer to resort to your inane content-free humor-free zingers. :rolleyes: Must have been the fact that you were asked questions that required thought and answers with content. Sorry about that.
You may carry on with your usual schtick now.