Discussion:
Doublethink on Islamic-badged terror
(too old to reply)
t***@gmail.com
2014-12-16 08:10:46 UTC
Permalink
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to associate the recently ended Sydney siege with any particular religious group (I consider it implicit in this statement that he intended that this view should be extended to all similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having reason to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case). We've heard similar from our own politicians and from other foreign governments.

It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the bloody obvious. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of followers of Islam that leads them to commit acts of terror to an extent that we just don't see with other religions. That is not to say that all or most of the followers of Islam are bad, or enemies, but there does appear to be something about Islam that provides a certain comfort and a perceived legitimacy to people who carry out dreadful actions in its name.

Is that fair enough, or am I racist/religionist/insert other thoughtcrime here?

Terry.
DVH
2014-12-16 08:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to associate the
recently ended Sydney siege with any particular religious group (I
consider it implicit in this statement that he intended that this
view should be extended to all similar situations, at home and
abroad, rather than having reason to believe that the Sydney siege
was a special case). We've heard similar from our own politicians and
from other foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the bloody
obvious. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of followers
of Islam that leads them to commit acts of terror to an extent that
we just don't see with other religions. That is not to say that all
or most of the followers of Islam are bad, or enemies, but there does
appear to be something about Islam that provides a certain comfort
and a perceived legitimacy to people who carry out dreadful actions
in its name.
Is that fair enough, or am I racist/religionist/insert other
thoughtcrime here?
Sounds fair to me.

Sky presenter had to be repeatedly corrected by Sky correspondent on
this issue yesterday.
the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
2014-12-16 09:40:18 UTC
Permalink
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to associate the recen=
tly ended Sydney siege with any particular religious group (I consider it i=
mplicit in this statement that he intended that this view should be extende=
d to all similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having reason =
to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case). We've heard similar f=
rom our own politicians and from other foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the bloody obviou=
s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of followers of Islam that=
leads them to commit acts of terror to an extent that we just don't see wi=
th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.

Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone hostage in a siege situation?

Or is it just that there is no Christian terrorist flag that they can wave from the windows when they do?


Maybe we just accept atrocities committed by those who call themselves Christian, as nothing more than the products of deranged minds?


However, we have been brainwashed for many years into beieving that all Muslim = bad = potential terrorist. This obviously suits the agendas of certain groups of people, and we oblige probably because it makes us feel superior to sit in judgement on what we have been told is a flawed religion.
That is not to say that all or most of the followers of=
Islam are bad, or enemies, but there does appear to be something about Isl=
am that provides a certain comfort and a perceived legitimacy to people who=
carry out dreadful actions in its name.
For centuries there have been people willing to hide behind the mask of 'religion' when committing crimes.

Do you not remember all those muderers who have told the police "God made me do it".


A nutjob is a nutjob, irrespective of his/her religion; but if you prefer to watch as a guman in the USA takes out all his classmates because it could not ever threaten you, then so be it.
Is that fair enough, or am I racist/religionist/insert other thoughtcrime h=
ere?
No, just selfish and easily led by the propaganda machine.
Terry.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
DVH
2014-12-16 09:53:50 UTC
Permalink
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to associate
the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular religious
group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement that he intended
that this view should be extende= d to all similar situations, at
home and abroad, rather than having reason = to believe that the
Sydney siege was a special case). We've heard similar f= rom our
own politicians and from other foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.

Do try to focus on the issue.
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Or is it just that there is no Christian terrorist flag that they can
wave from the windows when they do?
Maybe we just accept atrocities committed by those who call
themselves Christian, as nothing more than the products of deranged
minds?
However, we have been brainwashed for many years into beieving that
all Muslim = bad = potential terrorist. This obviously suits the
agendas of certain groups of people, and we oblige probably because
it makes us feel superior to sit in judgement on what we have been
told is a flawed religion.
Post by t***@gmail.com
That is not to say that all or most of the followers of= Islam are
bad, or enemies, but there does appear to be something about Isl=
am that provides a certain comfort and a perceived legitimacy to
people who= carry out dreadful actions in its name.
For centuries there have been people willing to hide behind the mask
of 'religion' when committing crimes.
Do you not remember all those muderers who have told the police "God made me do it".
A nutjob is a nutjob, irrespective of his/her religion; but if you
prefer to watch as a guman in the USA takes out all his classmates
because it could not ever threaten you, then so be it.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Is that fair enough, or am I racist/religionist/insert other
thoughtcrime h= ere?
No, just selfish and easily led by the propaganda machine.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Terry.
the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
2014-12-16 10:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to associate
the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular religious
group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement that he intended
that this view should be extende= d to all similar situations, at
home and abroad, rather than having reason = to believe that the
Sydney siege was a special case). We've heard similar f= rom our
own politicians and from other foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.

A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in the way that a Muslim one is.

Yes, the victims are terrified; but that could be said for any armed or violent crime.


However, in any Muslim crime it is the religion of the criminal which dominates the headlines.
Post by DVH
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Or is it just that there is no Christian terrorist flag that they can
wave from the windows when they do?
Maybe we just accept atrocities committed by those who call
themselves Christian, as nothing more than the products of deranged
minds?
However, we have been brainwashed for many years into beieving that
all Muslim = bad = potential terrorist. This obviously suits the
agendas of certain groups of people, and we oblige probably because
it makes us feel superior to sit in judgement on what we have been
told is a flawed religion.
Post by t***@gmail.com
That is not to say that all or most of the followers of= Islam are
bad, or enemies, but there does appear to be something about Isl=
am that provides a certain comfort and a perceived legitimacy to
people who= carry out dreadful actions in its name.
For centuries there have been people willing to hide behind the mask
of 'religion' when committing crimes.
Do you not remember all those muderers who have told the police "God made me do it".
A nutjob is a nutjob, irrespective of his/her religion; but if you
prefer to watch as a guman in the USA takes out all his classmates
because it could not ever threaten you, then so be it.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Is that fair enough, or am I racist/religionist/insert other
thoughtcrime h= ere?
No, just selfish and easily led by the propaganda machine.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Terry.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
DVH
2014-12-16 10:50:08 UTC
Permalink
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?

I can't think of one in the twentieth century, apart from maybe the
Branch Davidians.
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Yes, the victims are terrified; but that could be said for any armed or violent crime.
However, in any Muslim crime it is the religion of the criminal which
dominates the headlines.
Naturally. He put an Islamic flag up and was an islamist preacher.

His life was devoted to his hobby of islam: he spent his time writing
letters to the families of dead soldiers.

He ran a website where he expressed his ravings.

What he did was clearly motivated by his religion.
the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
2014-12-16 11:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.

This is where the brainwashing has succeeded.
Post by DVH
I can't think of one in the twentieth century, apart from maybe the
Branch Davidians.
That is because you cannot think laterally. You have been conditioned to think with very narrow definitions.
Post by DVH
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Yes, the victims are terrified; but that could be said for any armed or violent crime.
However, in any Muslim crime it is the religion of the criminal which
dominates the headlines.
Naturally. He put an Islamic flag up and was an islamist preacher.
His life was devoted to his hobby of islam: he spent his time writing
letters to the families of dead soldiers.
He ran a website where he expressed his ravings.
What he did was clearly motivated by his religion.
Nonsense.

What he did was motivated by the thought that western society is waging both a physical and psychological war on people from his part of the world.

His actions were simply those of a nutcase, but motivated by a reality that the west tries to deny by parroting 'conspiracy theory' at anyone who mentions it.

That he, and many others choose to hide behind the cloak of religion, is similar to how Christians will hide behind theirs when it suits them.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
abelard
2014-12-16 11:29:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:10 -0600, "the most stupid and gullible
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
What he did was clearly motivated by his religion.
Nonsense.
What he did was motivated by the thought that western society is waging both a physical and psychological war on people from his part of the world.
His actions were simply those of a nutcase, but motivated by a reality that the west tries to deny by parroting 'conspiracy theory' at anyone who mentions it.
That he, and many others choose to hide behind the cloak of religion, is similar to how Christians will hide behind theirs when it suits them.
there's been a nasty case of workplace violence in pakistan
where over 100 children have been killed (i can't tell you
the religion of those doing the killing and you'd never ever
guess)

i blame in on richard the lionheart...if only he's stayed behind
to look after his possessions in france...
napoleon and hitler would never have dared...
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-16 12:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:23:10 -0600, "the most stupid and gullible
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
What he did was clearly motivated by his religion.
Nonsense.
What he did was motivated by the thought that western society is waging both a physical and psychological war on people from his part of the world.
His actions were simply those of a nutcase, but motivated by a reality that the west tries to deny by parroting 'conspiracy theory' at anyone who mentions it.
That he, and many others choose to hide behind the cloak of religion, is similar to how Christians will hide behind theirs when it suits them.
there's been a nasty case of workplace violence in pakistan
where over 100 children have been killed (i can't tell you
the religion of those doing the killing and you'd never ever
guess)
i blame in on richard the lionheart...if only he's stayed behind
to look after his possessions in france...
napoleon and hitler would never have dared...
Richard the Lionheart? Napoleon? Hitler?

You mustn't mention their religion, unless you think they must have been Muslims?

But then, you will not be admonished for not sticking to the issues; like wot I am.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
DVH
2014-12-16 19:04:43 UTC
Permalink
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
This is where the brainwashing has succeeded.
Post by DVH
I can't think of one in the twentieth century, apart from maybe the
Branch Davidians.
That is because you cannot think laterally. You have been conditioned to think with very narrow definitions.
How are you defining "think laterally"?
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Yes, the victims are terrified; but that could be said for any armed or violent crime.
However, in any Muslim crime it is the religion of the criminal which
dominates the headlines.
Naturally. He put an Islamic flag up and was an islamist preacher.
His life was devoted to his hobby of islam: he spent his time writing
letters to the families of dead soldiers.
He ran a website where he expressed his ravings.
What he did was clearly motivated by his religion.
Nonsense.
What he did was motivated by the thought that western society is waging both a physical and psychological war on people from his part of the world.
His actions were simply those of a nutcase, but motivated by a reality that the west tries to deny by parroting 'conspiracy theory' at anyone who mentions it.
That he, and many others choose to hide behind the cloak of religion, is similar to how Christians will hide behind theirs when it suits them.
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-16 21:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
A far too complex subject for you, if you cannot define lateral thinking for yourself.
Post by DVH
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
This is where the brainwashing has succeeded.
Post by DVH
I can't think of one in the twentieth century, apart from maybe the
Branch Davidians.
That is because you cannot think laterally. You have been conditioned to think with very narrow definitions.
How are you defining "think laterally"?
Thought so.
Post by DVH
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Yes, the victims are terrified; but that could be said for any armed
or violent crime.
However, in any Muslim crime it is the religion of the criminal which
dominates the headlines.
Naturally. He put an Islamic flag up and was an islamist preacher.
His life was devoted to his hobby of islam: he spent his time writing
letters to the families of dead soldiers.
He ran a website where he expressed his ravings.
What he did was clearly motivated by his religion.
Nonsense.
What he did was motivated by the thought that western society is waging both a physical and psychological war on people from his part of the world.
His actions were simply those of a nutcase, but motivated by a reality that the west tries to deny by parroting 'conspiracy theory' at anyone who mentions it.
That he, and many others choose to hide behind the cloak of religion, is similar to how Christians will hide behind theirs when it suits them.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-17 08:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
abelard
2014-12-17 10:22:47 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..

that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-17 12:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set
for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
Exactly my point.

When any version of christianity is involved, everyone falls over themselves to make any excuse which will prevent them being labelled terrorists.

If anything similar happened within any branch of the Muslim community, it would be siezed on immediately as a barbaric act of terrorism, and there would have to be links to Al Qaeda and/or Isil.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
abelard
2014-12-17 12:03:09 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 06:00:28 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set
for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
Exactly my point.
it isn't...it's the very reverse of what you claimed
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
When any version of christianity is involved, everyone falls over themselves to make any excuse which will prevent them being labelled terrorists.
If anything similar happened within any branch of the Muslim community, it would be siezed on immediately as a barbaric act of terrorism, and there would have to be links to Al Qaeda and/or Isil.
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-17 12:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 06:00:28 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set
for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
Exactly my point.
it isn't...it's the very reverse of what you claimed
And what do you think that I claimed?
Post by abelard
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
When any version of christianity is involved, everyone falls over themselves to make any excuse which will prevent them being labelled terrorists.
If anything similar happened within any branch of the Muslim community, it would be siezed on immediately as a barbaric act of terrorism, and there would have to be links to Al Qaeda and/or Isil.
--
Let's try another one.

How about Balcombe Street?

This was a terrorist organisation, which was partly funded by members of the public in the USA, and maybe even politicians there.

However, when they exploded a bomb did the whole world roundly condemn the entire Christian faith as being and/or harbouring potential terrorists?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
abelard
2014-12-17 12:26:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 06:11:37 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 06:00:28 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to
associate the recen= tly ended Sydney siege with any particular
religious group (I consider it i= mplicit in this statement
that he intended that this view should be extende= d to all
similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having
reason = to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case).
We've heard similar f= rom our own politicians and from other
foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset
of followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror
to an extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set
for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken
anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a terrorist act, in
the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
Exactly my point.
it isn't...it's the very reverse of what you claimed
And what do you think that I claimed?
you know what you claimed and it was a false claim
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
When any version of christianity is involved, everyone falls over themselves to make any excuse which will prevent them being labelled terrorists.
If anything similar happened within any branch of the Muslim community, it would be siezed on immediately as a barbaric act of terrorism, and there would have to be links to Al Qaeda and/or Isil.
Let's try another one.
How about Balcombe Street?
This was a terrorist organisation, which was partly funded by members of the public in the USA, and maybe even politicians there.
However, when they exploded a bomb did the whole world roundly condemn the entire Christian faith as being and/or harbouring potential terrorists?
nationalism...not religion...

one incident, 40 years ago...no-one killed

islamism...1000s of attacks in the asserted name of religion each
and every year in dozens of countries...
and with a deliberate purpose of killing innocents....


as usual, you are babbling
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
DVH
2014-12-17 12:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible
person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be
wrong to associate the recen= tly ended Sydney
siege with any particular religious group (I
consider it i= mplicit in this statement that he
intended that this view should be extende= d to
all similar situations, at home and abroad, rather
than having reason = to believe that the Sydney
siege was a special case). We've heard similar f=
rom our own politicians and from other foreign
governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is
to deny the bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly
a problem with a subset of followers of Islam that=
leads them to commit acts of terror to an extent
that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem
to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever
taken anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a
terrorist act, in the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves
Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very
minor christianist cult
Exactly my point.
When any version of christianity is involved, everyone falls over
themselves to make any excuse which will prevent them being labelled
terrorists.
Branch Davidians were under siege by the government, not the other way
around.

You probably can't raise an example of a Christian armed siege in the
age of terrorism because there just hasn't been such an event.

If you want to label the crusades as terrorism, then people would think
you're eccentric but they probably wouldn't object strongly.

However, I'll help you out a little. Eric Rudolph is described as a
serial bomber rather than a terrorist. His religion is often mentioned,
but the bias is towards labelling him a nutcase.

Having said that, one swallow doth not a summer make.
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
If anything similar happened within any branch of the Muslim
community, it would be siezed on immediately as a barbaric act of
terrorism, and there would have to be links to Al Qaeda and/or Isil.
The Sydney bomber handed those links to you on a plate.
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-17 12:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever,
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 10:30, the most stupid and gullible person
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 09:40, the most stupid and gullible
person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be
wrong to associate the recen= tly ended Sydney
siege with any particular religious group (I
consider it i= mplicit in this statement that he
intended that this view should be extende= d to
all similar situations, at home and abroad, rather
than having reason = to believe that the Sydney
siege was a special case). We've heard similar f=
rom our own politicians and from other foreign
governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is
to deny the bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly
a problem with a subset of followers of Islam that=
leads them to commit acts of terror to an extent
that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem
to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever
taken anyone hostage in a siege situation?
A clearer case of whataboutery ne'er was seen.
Do try to focus on the issue.
That is the issue.
A Christian armed seige is not considered to be a
terrorist act, in the way that a Muslim one is.
What Christian armed siege?
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves
Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very
minor christianist cult
Exactly my point.
When any version of christianity is involved, everyone falls over
themselves to make any excuse which will prevent them being labelled
terrorists.
Branch Davidians were under siege by the government, not the other way
around.
You probably can't raise an example of a Christian armed siege in the
age of terrorism because there just hasn't been such an event.
If you want to label the crusades as terrorism, then people would think
you're eccentric but they probably wouldn't object strongly.
However, I'll help you out a little. Eric Rudolph is described as a
serial bomber rather than a terrorist. His religion is often mentioned,
but the bias is towards labelling him a nutcase.
Having said that, one swallow doth not a summer make.
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
If anything similar happened within any branch of the Muslim
community, it would be siezed on immediately as a barbaric act of
terrorism, and there would have to be links to Al Qaeda and/or Isil.
The Sydney bomber handed those links to you on a plate.
Did he?

Or was it the rabid slavering media with its saturation coverage and instant judgement?

New South Wales Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said:- there is as yet no evidence his actions were linked to international Islamist militant networks, despite his use of a flag with the Islamic creed on it during the siege.


Do we know if the deaths in the Lindt cafe were caused by the idiot, or by the commandos that stormed the building?


And, I will bite..... what kind of bomb did your "Sydney bomber" have with him?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
White Spirit
2014-12-17 14:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
Exactly my point.
Back of the net. Bravo &c.
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-17 15:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by White Spirit
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:54:00 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by DVH
On 16/12/2014 11:23, the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Any armed siege by those who like to call themselves Christians.
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
Exactly my point.
Back of the net. Bravo &c.
Oh dear.


Another decent thread fucked by the stalker.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
White Spirit
2014-12-17 16:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by White Spirit
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
Post by DVH
Which one specifically?
WACO
dodgy try..
that was a siege by a secular/socialist government, of a very minor
christianist cult
Exactly my point.
Back of the net. Bravo &c.
Oh dear.
Another decent thread fucked by the stalker.
It was fucked as soon as you made a contribution.

Oh, and just how does replying on a public forum constitute stalking?
Joe
2014-12-16 16:59:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.

What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.

Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
--
Joe
abelard
2014-12-16 17:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.
What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.
Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
with socialists, you have to make allowances/benefits...every week
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-16 17:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.
What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.
Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
with socialists, you have to make allowances/benefits...every week
Presumably, you get your EU farm subsidies/benefits every month rather than weekly? Or does hypocrisy come naturally?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
abelard
2014-12-16 17:34:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:27:32 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.
What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.
Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
with socialists, you have to make allowances/benefits...every week
Presumably, you get your EU farm subsidies/benefits every month rather than weekly? Or does hypocrisy come naturally?
what subsidies are they, my little socialist/liar?
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-16 18:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:27:32 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.
What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.
Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
with socialists, you have to make allowances/benefits...every week
Presumably, you get your EU farm subsidies/benefits every month rather than weekly? Or does hypocrisy come naturally?
what subsidies are they, my little socialist/liar?
--
Maybe you could tell us. You always seem very defensive when anyone mentions it.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
abelard
2014-12-16 18:37:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 12:33:09 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:27:32 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.
What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.
Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
with socialists, you have to make allowances/benefits...every week
Presumably, you get your EU farm subsidies/benefits every month rather than weekly? Or does hypocrisy come naturally?
what subsidies are they, my little socialist/liar?
Maybe you could tell us. You always seem very defensive when anyone mentions it.
you're the one who is claiming they exist...

why should i care which lies you tell on which days...

all socialists lie...it is in the genes...

nobody sane expects anything else from you
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
the pathetic trainspotting anorak
2014-12-16 17:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.
How come you say that you are trying to be objective, and just end up being pedantic?
Post by Joe
What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.
Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
Because my point was that a siege is a siege is a siege; except that when it is a siege by a muzzy with demands for silly flags - it is called Islamic terrorism.

Whereas if it was some born again Christian demanding to wave the flag of St George, he would be dimissed as just another nutter, and international terrorism would never be mentioned.


I just exaggerated the opposite scenario for effect. But I expect that you knew that, but thought you would look clever by turning on the patronisation, and I now understand your difficulties.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
abelard
2014-12-16 17:35:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:25:54 -0600, "the pathetic trainspotting
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
Post by Joe
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:40:18 -0600
"the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice
Post by the most stupid and gullible person ever, thick as pigshit and twice as nasty
Post by t***@gmail.com
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the
bloody obviou= s. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of
followers of Islam that= leads them to commit acts of terror to an
extent that we just don't see wi= th other religions.
I think you are falling into the trap that you seem to have set for yourself.
Are you saying that no gun-toting Christian has ever taken anyone
hostage in a siege situation?
Trying to be objective, and trying to actually read what was posted,
no, I don't think he's saying 'that no gun-toting Christian...',
because I can't see that anywhere in what he posted.
How come you say that you are trying to be objective, and just end up being pedantic?
Post by Joe
What I can see is 'a subset of followers of Islam' and 'to an extent
that we just don't see with other religions.' Is that synonymous with
the 'no gun-toting Christian...' that you posted? It looks considerably
different to me.
Why didn't you address what he actually posted, instead of something
you made up?
Because my point was that a siege is a siege is a siege; except that when it is a siege by a muzzy with demands for silly flags - it is called Islamic terrorism.
Whereas if it was some born again Christian demanding to wave the flag of St George, he would be dimissed as just another nutter, and international terrorism would never be mentioned.
when did this happen, my little socialist/liar?
Post by the pathetic trainspotting anorak
I just exaggerated the opposite scenario for effect. But I expect that you knew that, but thought you would look clever by turning on the patronisation, and I now understand your difficulties.
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
abelard
2014-12-16 10:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
I noted the Aussie PM stating that it would be wrong to associate the recently ended Sydney siege with any particular religious group (I consider it implicit in this statement that he intended that this view should be extended to all similar situations, at home and abroad, rather than having reason to believe that the Sydney siege was a special case). We've heard similar from our own politicians and from other foreign governments.
It seems to me that accepting such a statement is to deny the bloody obvious. There is very clearly a problem with a subset of followers of Islam that leads them to commit acts of terror to an extent that we just don't see with other religions. That is not to say that all or most of the followers of Islam are bad, or enemies, but there does appear to be something about Islam that provides a certain comfort and a perceived legitimacy to people who carry out dreadful actions in its name.
Is that fair enough, or am I racist/religionist/insert other thoughtcrime here?
yes, that is very fair
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
DVH
2014-12-16 11:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
yes, that is very fair
You're not allowed to mention his religion.

He placed a flag with some Arabic writing on it in the window.

His profession was "communicator".

His website was about human relations with metaphysical entities.

He wore a beard to look tough.

He went to a building on Fridays and did exercises.
abelard
2014-12-16 11:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by abelard
yes, that is very fair
You're not allowed to mention his religion.
He placed a flag with some Arabic writing on it in the window.
His profession was "communicator".
His website was about human relations with metaphysical entities.
He wore a beard to look tough.
He went to a building on Fridays and did exercises.
perhaps he'll change his name to sue sorric....

but i'm not sure if sue is his religious name or a public request
for legal action.....
perhaps he is just trying to get in touch with his feminine side
--
www.abelard.org
























---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Loading...