or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is the US trying to insult Islam?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the US trying to insult Islam? - Page 6

post #201 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
How about the Abu Ghraib abusers? They are a disgrace, what;s your point? You have one right?

Abu Ghraib murderers?

Yes. Murderers

As an aside, I just wished to know if you were offended by what your compatriots were doing in the name of democracy.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #202 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Yes. Murderers

As an aside, I just wished to know if you were offended by what your compatriots were doing in the name of democracy.

Can't register because the security numbers aren't showing. Perhaps a quote or a link to another site.
post #203 of 236
He posed a question to NC. How about we afford NC the opportunity to reply before piling on with a bunch of silly and unnecessary quips?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #204 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
He posed a question to NC. How about we afford NC the opportunity to reply before piling on with a bunch of silly and unnecessary quips?

Can I answer it as well then, just to pass the time while NC gets here ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #205 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Can I answer it as well then, just to pass the time while NC gets here ?

What ABOUT MEEE!!! Pick me!! Pick me!!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #206 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
He posed a question to NC. How about we afford NC the opportunity to reply before piling on with a bunch of silly and unnecessary quips?

You obviously are not part of the collective. That is not how it works here.

post #207 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
He posed a question to NC. How about we afford NC the opportunity to reply before piling on with a bunch of silly and unnecessary quips?

I don't think they're silly and unnecessary at all. We're trying to point out the absurdity of that question.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #208 of 236
What if NC goes to bed at 9? We could be here all evening!!!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #209 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Of course.

But I am not seeing a connection between myself and T McV. We are both white, is that your point? However his belief structure and mine are not even close.

My questions to NC are apropos because both himself and the perpetrators of the crimes I mentioned claim the same roots.

This is an interesting stretch of logic.

Please tell me where I am wrong, but it seems to me:

You and T McV are both White, Christian, & American.

NC and the perpetrators of the crimes share less roots than do you and McV, unless NC is a native of Iraq as well as being Muslim.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #210 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
This is an interesting stretch of logic.

Please tell me where I am wrong, but it seems to me:

You and T McV are both White, Christian, & American.

NC and the perpetrators of the crimes share less roots than do you and McV, unless NC is a native of Iraq as well as being Muslim.

I think the drift here is that, at least in the last 50 years, Islam has had presistent problems with terrorism, and Christianity hasn't. Other than "normal" [human nature/Jim Jones self-styled] incidental acts of barbarism, there just isn't a wing that preaches a "by any means necessary" approach.

I'm not sure what being white has to do with this, though.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #211 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I think the drift here is that, at least in the last 50 years, Islam has had presistent problems with terrorism, and Christianity hasn't. Other than "normal" [human nature/Jim Jones self-styled] incidental acts of barbarism, there just isn't a wing that preaches a "by any means necessary" approach.

I'm not sure what being white has to do with this, though.

Again, as evidenced by IRA and ETA. While the latter is not necessarily fighting for a religious reason, I'm not so sure you can claim the same for the former.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #212 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
there just isn't a wing that preaches a "by any means necessary" approach.

Just because it's scattered doesn't mean there's not a wing. Various militia groups. Various compounds. Various separatist groups. Various religious groups. All armed to the teeth. Sometimes they pull a sheriff out of his cruiser and shoot him dead, like they did in Texas. Sometimes they blow up a building, like McVeigh did. Sometimes they shoot it out with FBI and ATF.

I should also note that in the 90s, Clinton's administration went after these domestic terrorists with gusto.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #213 of 236
A similar case of insult, by an Italian 'journalist' is being tried by an italian court. Her views are surprisingly similar to those of dmz and the likes.

More about the case here
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #214 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Just because it's scattered doesn't mean there's not a wing. Various militia groups. Various compounds. Various separatist groups. Various religious groups. All armed to the teeth. Sometimes they pull a sheriff out of his cruiser and shoot him dead, like they did in Texas. Sometimes they blow up a building, like McVeigh did. Sometimes they shoot it out with FBI and ATF.

I should also note that in the 90s, Clinton's administration went after these domestic terrorists with gusto.

Midwinter, these groups don't amount to more than the regular incidence of crime. If "militias" are a problem, then how should we classify the gang problem in America? I just don't think there is any comparision.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #215 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Midwinter, these groups don't amount to more than the regular incidence of crime.

Don't be so sure. McVeigh sure pissed a lot of us off, and I wouldn't go around Oklahoma saying that the Murrah bombing was "regular incidence of crime."

Quote:
If "militias" are a problem, then how should we classify the gang problem in America? I just don't think there is any comparision. [/B]

Personally, I see it all as simply "crime," but "terrorism" sure plays better. At any rate, gangs in America are organized crime, no different from the mafia. They are not ideological or political or religious in nature. They are businesses.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #216 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Don't be so sure. McVeigh sure pissed a lot of us off, and I wouldn't go around Oklahoma saying that the Murrah bombing was "regular incidence of crime."

No kidding. Don't do that midwinter, you know what I meant.

Which brings me to another point, I am not here to slam Muslims, I responded to segovious' [who is most likely sound asleep at the moment] post that was trying equate the same possiblity of violence in the two sacred texts of Christianity and Islam. There is a feeling that if both religions 'really got back to their roots' we would be wading in blood.

Let's be clear, I don't think that's correct for Christianity -- and though Islam has strong tendencies for top-down government -- I don't think we would end up with the taleban either if the Muslims had their way; at the same time, they do presently have prickly cultural issues.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #217 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No kidding. Don't do that midwinter, you know what I meant.

Actually, I don't know what you meant. You seemed to be saying that domestic terrorists are just regular criminals until they do something on some kind of large scale.

Quote:
Let's be clear, I don't think that's correct for Christianity -- and though Islam has strong tendencies for top-down government -- I don't think we would end up with the taleban either if the Muslims had their way; at the same time, they do presently have prickly cultural issues.

I'm not going to comment on this, as it's directed at Seg., other than to point out that America was founded in part to get away from Christianity's centuries-long tradition (longer even than Islam) of top-down government.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #218 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not going to comment on this, as it's directed at Seg., other than to point out that America was founded in part to get away from Christianity's centuries-long tradition (longer even than Islam) of top-down government.

c'mon midwinter, English common law, (esp. things like the Bloodless Revolution of 1688 ) make that statement a bit obtuse.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #219 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
c'mon midwinter, English common law, (esp. things like the Bloodless Revolution of 1688) make that statement a bit obtuse.

Huh?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #220 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Huh?

it was the 8 after the closed pararentheses, it almost put my eye out.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #221 of 236
I got that. I was trying to figure out what your point was. You seem to be saying that English common law and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (which was really a Catholic/Protestant thing) did something somehow.

I'm trying to figure out what an English rejection of a Catholic dynasty in favor of Protestant power (which is of course bound up in all kinds of craziness on the Continent) has to do with my point that in England specifically and Europe generally, the governments tended to be Christian in nature and monarchically organized. Divine right of kings, in England at least, was falling away from Elizabeth Iand later James I's reignbut that doesn't change the simple fact that these governments are, essentially, "top down," whether or not the King can get pulled out of bed and have his head lopped off like Charles I or run out of town like Charles II.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #222 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I got that. I was trying to figure out what your point was. You seem to be saying that English common law and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (which was really a Catholic/Protestant thing) did something somehow.

I'm trying to figure out what an English rejection of a Catholic dynasty in favor of Protestant power (which is of course bound up in all kinds of craziness on the Continent) has to do with my point that in England specifically and Europe generally, the governments tended to be Christian in nature and monarchically organized. Divine right of kings, in England at least, was falling away from Elizabeth Iand later James I's reignbut that doesn't change the simple fact that these governments are, essentially, "top down," whether or not the King can get pulled out of bed and have his head lopped off like Charles I or run out of town like Charles II.

Midwinter, the (the 1689 English) Bill of Rights was foundational to advancement of constitutional law and constitutional law is the opposite of top-down government. The French, by contrast tried the same thing with their "bill of rights" but without the foundation of the Reformation it cost tens of thousands of people their lives, and did result in a top-down -- 5'2" -- top down government.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #223 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Midwinter, the (the 1689 English) Bill of Rights was foundational to advancement of constitutional law and constitutional law is the opposite of top-down government. The French, by contrast tried the same thing with their "bill of rights" but without the foundation of the Reformation it cost tens of thousands of people their lives, and did result in a top-down -- 5'2" -- top down government.

DMZ: Because the House season finale is on, do me a favor and save me the trouble of responding by looking up The Reform Bill of 1832 and its various versions (there are several). Then you can ask yourself why on earth in a government that's not "top down" something like the Reform Bill of 1832 would have been a big deal.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #224 of 236
Nevermind. Said something I wasn't entirely sure of.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #225 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
DMZ: Because the House season finale is on, do me a favor and save me the trouble of responding by looking up The Reform Bill of 1832 and its various versions (there are several). Then you can ask yourself why on earth in a government that's not "top down" something like the Reform Bill of 1832 would have been a big deal.

1832 is quite some time after 1689, and America well on it's way by then.

now, now midwinter, it was you who stated that America was:
Quote:
...founded in part to get away from Christianity's centuries-long tradition (longer even than Islam) of top-down government

That's just not the case, the groundwork that allowed the founding fathers the leeway to do what they did was only a continuation of the ideas surrounding Constitutional law that itself had it's roots in the Reformation.

I'll definitely give you the Puritians, but even then the wheels of Constitutional laws had been turning, all going back to the founding of parliament.

nevertheless, Luther had only nailed his thingy to the Wittenburg door 160 years before, so there was a SERIOUS amount of feces that contacted the rotary oscillator between those two dates. Someone should make a movie.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #226 of 236
So you didn't look it up, did you?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #227 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
So you didn't look it up, did you?

no --- if only to keep this thing focused --- I'll check, though.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #228 of 236
Okay, I checked, but in any event it sounds more like screwing around than anything else. At any rate the bigger battles had been won on the road to a democracy.


Anyway, have a Squatters for me, I'm going to got hunt down a bottle of Shiraz and kill it -- or make a good start.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #229 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
1832 is quite some time after 1689, and America well on it's way by then.

OK. Commercial break, so I'll lay a couple of things out for you:

1) Yes, 1832 is indeed a loooong time after 1689, which is a date you seem to want to hold as somehow the end of a "top down" government in favor of a government that is, if not actually constitutional, not quite what it had been before. And no, really, the US wasn't very far along at all by 1832.

2) The 1832 Reform Bill (the first of several) brought true democracy to England, and is regarded by some (including me, for what it's worth) as the beginning of the Victorian period. It said, among other things, that anyone owning £10 of property could vote. £10 in 1832 wasn't a huge amount of money, but it was a good bit, considering a few hundred a year in 1832 was an ok living. I'll have to check my books on this, so I'll come back to it if you want.

3) Now why would a government that's not "top down" need some Reform Bill to bring true democracy to it? Why would this be such a landmark in English history?

My point is fairly simple: a constitution doesn't mean a government isn't top down if it only lets the rich (or any other specific group) have a voice. Nor does a constitution prohibit a dictator or a violent culture. Didn't Germany have a constitution under Hitler? Did Iraq have a constitution under SH? In other words, just because England had common law, just because it had the Magna Carta, just because it has a Parliament of "elected" leaders doesn't really mean anything if only the top is allowed to play. And it really doesn't mean anything if the bottom, which of course doesn't have any say whatsoever, is subject to the will of the top.

Quote:
I'll definitely give you the Puritians, but even then the wheels of Constitutional laws had been turning, all going back to the founding of parliament.

See above.

Quote:
nevertheless, Luther had only nailed his thingy to the Wittenburg door 160 years before, so there was a SERIOUS amount of feces that contacted the rotary oscillator between those two dates. Someone should make a movie.

Isn't there a movie called "Luther"? Or are you joking?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #230 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
As an aside, are you offended by what your muslim brothers are doing in the name of Allah?

For example, 9/11, the beheadings in Iraq, the constant and consistent taking of their fellow Muslim's lives, in the name of Jihad?

I am curious to hear from someone with your standpoint. No offense intended.

Sorry, that you had to wait that long for an answer from me, what should I say: different time-zones, different sleep-work-freetime-system.

Yes, I'm offended by violent and radical islamists that justify attacks against civilians as religiously backed, eventhough it's clearly not, and I'm equally offended by those that interpret jihad as an offensive religious war, eventhough it has numerous non-war-related aspects and in times of war resembles only a defensive war-concept, in the jihad-case I'm offended by both, the radical islamists and the western media that expose the same nonsense about Islam for obvious reasons.

Osama Bin Ladin's group consists of deviated muslims, mostly secular people, that feel disoriented and guilty of their previous sinful lifes and have no religious education or knowledge besides the radical islamistic version. They all heard the US/Saudi-Arabia/Pakistan-call for jihad and travelled to Afghanistan/Pakistan in order to fight against the invading, atheistic Soviet-army.

Interesting is only that the normal armies of the arabic countries didn't fight the Soviets, but instead the arabic world and the US relied on these irregulars, trained in sabotage-, guerillia- and terror-attacks by Pakistan's ISI and US' CIA and equipped by the same. More than 100,000 irregulars were used in that liberating-war.

Their sacrifice was indeed honourable, and those that died while fighting Soviet-armies were true martyrs and heroes, that most likely will enter paradise.

The war was long, hard, torture-rich, brutal and cruel, and when the Soviets were eventually driven out, over a million Afghans died and countless jihadists, too. The surviving jihadists came out of that war brutalized, filled up with the most radical islamistic propaganda-religion, that was codeveloped by the Wahabists and the CIA for that purpose, all they knew was war and terror for years and and the US forgot them, no help in reintegration to their homesocieties, so those that went back to their homecountries formed terror-cells or political movements with the goal of overthrowing their dictatorial and secular regimes and to replace them by what they think is a true islamic government, but which is in reality a deviation.

Things changed dramatically when the US not only attacked Iraq in 1991, but also installed and manned military-bases in the Gulf-states and espescially in Saudi-Arabia, from then on Bin Ladin and the islamists around him declared official war against the US.

True to form with the techniques learned in Afghanistan the radical islamists that followed Bin Ladin's call started to attack US-interests, like its embassies in Africa, or the WTC in 1993 on US-soil or an US-military-ship in the middle-east, with no care for civilians.

Saudi-Arabia's government rejected Bin-Ladin's offer to organize a guerillia-war in Saudi-Arabia in order to drive out the american military from there, similar but on a bigger scale than the Somalia-acts.

The deviations and condemnanble distortions of Islam, that Bin Ladin but also the wahabists in general have developed partly with the US' CIA when the Soviet-Union was the enemy, were among others for example these:

- To define the enemy as infidels, pagans, atheists...
- To define all members of the enemy as non-civilians and qualified targets.
- To define suicide as a weapon and a way to gain martyrhood and immediate entry to paradise.
- To define jihad exclusively as war, and to smear the division between offensive and defensive war.

That was the groundwork for the embassy-bombings, 9/11 and the terror-bombings against civilians and police in Iraq.

Eventhough the theology of Bin Ladin and the wahabists is actually anti-islamic and against core-quranic messages, most muslims in the middle-east have a problem to condemn it, because they view Bin Ladin as the sole defender of the muslims, the only one who tried to confront the US, that has a long history and list of terror-attacks, coups, wars, and support of brutal dictatorships commited, and due to better weaponry with much bigger civilian losses, in the middle-east and in the thirdworld in general.

And Bin Ladin is clever enough to portray his campaign against the US as a defensive war with the goal to drive the US out of the islamic world.

So that's the dilemma, Bin Ladin's theology is wrong, far deviated from true Islam according to the Quran, his means of conducting war is anti-islamic and derives from guerillia-warfare-techniques applied on civilians and armies equally with no distinction made,

but his main-goal to undo the US-military-presence in the islamic world is one which most, including me agree with.

Between the US and Bin Ladin/wahabism, the islamic world is caught in the middle of two menaces, which seem to strenghten and nurture each other.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #231 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Sorry, that you had to wait that long for an answer from me, what should I say: different time-zones, different sleep-work-freetime-system.

Nightcrawler

No problem, and thank you for being mature and not taking offense at my questions.

I am reading your post and have a couple more questions if you don't mind. Take your time in replying, I understand.
post #232 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
No problem, and thank you for being mature and not taking offense at my questions.

I am reading your post and have a couple more questions if you don't mind. Take your time in replying, I understand.

You haven't asked any (?)
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #233 of 236
Back on the Qur'an flushing: looks like the Feds have been forced under FOIA to confirm there was such an incident reported.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #234 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
You haven't asked any (?)

I've been busy...

Oh wait the comment wasn't even directed at you, and yet you feel a need to inject yourself...
post #235 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I've been busy...

Oh wait the comment wasn't even directed at you, and yet you feel a need to inject yourself...

Yes, every time I read one of your posts I feel the need to inject myself - luckily the US has made it much easier to get hold of the requisite grade of opiate to make reading them if not exactly pleasurable, at least bearable.

In fact, even this small exposure has me itching.....scuse me while I call the man.....

I may be some time.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #236 of 236
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I've been busy...

Oh wait the comment wasn't even directed at you, and yet you feel a need to inject yourself...

Your posting in a pubic forum...

err... public I mean.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is the US trying to insult Islam?