Ramadan Bomb-a-thon blast wounds 8 soldiers in Thailand

[alpine]

All Islamists aren't the same there champ. You seem to have a particularly difficult time accepting the basic fact that the world is more diverse than you give it credit for.

And once again you are merely deflecting instead of actually addressing any of the specifics of my post which is pretty telling in terms of your confidence in your own argument. You can't even seem to defend your own assertions.

You kidding me??? You have no idea who the guy thats talking, do you?

That is Turkish PM you fool, he is the PM of the "most" democratic you can find in mid east (the country you argued back to me about) and he got 50+% votes, meaning HE IS REPRESENTING 50+%, and if this is not enough, you can see muslims marching on the streets with his photos all over the mid east, especially after his successful islamist PR in DAVOS.

And you will keep going on with the same story, just like muslims do when a muslim blows himself up or get his new 4th wife after killing his previous while beating her up, or for all the bullshit islam is presenting us with its all clarity, you yet still have the nerve to go on with the same story; "muslims are not all like that" or another famous from muslims; "this is not islam", although the very birth place of islam and the arabic language, people can and do read the words of allah 5 times a day, so they don't know at as much as some muslims do, or Senegal muslims do, or you do....

Well, it is just you are so ignorant to realize or don't want to admit your whole argument (and along with that your whole "expertise") was just based on BULLSHIT...

 

[Osomir]

You kidding me??? You have no idea who the guy thats talking, do you?

I didn't even listen to it there chief. You're only posting it as a distraction from my past posts that you haven't been able to address.

I'm not interested in strawmen or deflections and I still find it rather sad that you have to rely so heavily on them.

Since you think I'm such a fool though Why have you ignored my offer of a formal debate? Wouldn't I be an easy opponent? what is it exactly that you're afraid of?

 

[longknife]

As usual, a concerted effort to divert from the main topic!!!

If the "majority" of Muslims decry this violence, WHY DON'T THEY STAND UP AND SAY SO?

Because, if they are devout Muslims, they agree that non-believers deserve to die.

 

[Osomir]

As usual, a concerted effort to divert from the main topic!!!

If the "majority" of Muslims decry this violence, WHY DON'T THEY STAND UP AND SAY SO?

Because, if they are devout Muslims, they agree that non-believers deserve to die.

When was the last time you marched in the street against the LRA? I'm guessing never. We all generally have better things to do and larger things to worry about, like raising our family or going to work. Muslims are no different.

 

[alpine]

You kidding me??? You have no idea who the guy thats talking, do you?

I didn't even listen to it there chief. You're only posting it as a distraction from my past posts that you haven't been able to address.

I'm not interested in strawmen or deflections and I still find it rather sad that you have to rely so heavily on them.

Since you think I'm such a fool though Why have you ignored my offer of a formal debate? Wouldn't I be an easy opponent? what is it exactly that you're afraid of?

What do you mean "formal debate" ?

 

[Osomir]

What do you mean "formal debate" ?

A structured debate on a topic that is only between two people or two groups of persons that is presided over by a moderator or several who then declare a winner after the pre-agreed upon number of posts each.

XXXXXXXXXX stakes could include ban bets of any kind, AV bets, etc (if agreed upon by both parties). It is essentially an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, have judgement over each others' respective arguments, and have it in an environment that doesn't get clogged by other posters or off topic discussion; and in which one deflects or ignores points at the risk of forfeiting the victory.

 

[Intense]

No money bets of any kind.

 

[alpine]

What do you mean "formal debate" ?

A structured debate on a topic that is only between two people or two groups of persons that is presided over by a moderator or several who then declare a winner after the pre-agreed upon number of posts each.

XXXXXXXXXX stakes could include ban bets of any kind, AV bets, etc (if agreed upon by both parties). It is essentially an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, have judgement over each others' respective arguments, and have it in an environment that doesn't get clogged by other posters or off topic discussion; and in which one deflects or ignores points at the risk of forfeiting the victory.

Ok, and what the topic would be? Senegal? Joking

Tell me what the topic you want to debate on.

 

[hobelim]

Nonsense. By your posts I assumed that you were a Muslim until I saw you claim to be an atheist.

That presented a bit of a logical problem. I know of may tolerant atheists who might defend others right to believe and practice any religion but never in a million years would any of them endorse even one religion that claims a belief in God much less Islam whose founder as recorded by history was a violent and psychotic megalomaniac and a pedophile to boot.

I don't endorse Islam, or any religion, i have an opinion concerning religion in general because I work with it a lot within my area of specialty: economic development and conflict. I've also done a lot of counter terrorism work so I am pretty familiar with Islamism and Islamic populations in general across the developing world.

My opinions stem from having both formal education and years of work experience in these areas. blah blah blah.....


yet some Muslims do the same thing with Muhammad by taking a moral man......

I don't believe that a godhead exists: hence my self declaration as an atheist. Not sure why that is so hard for you to swallow. Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean that I have to be completely ignorant about other religions.

and do you believe that Mohammed was deranged?

Historically speaking? No, I don't find much evidence of that in the early histories.

To say that Mohammed was a moral man after claiming knowledge of his violence and pedophilia is an irrational position that I have never heard any Atheist take,.

To have read about his 'inspirations' and delusions of grandeur and conclude he was not deranged is also not a position that I have ever heard any rational person take.


To say Mohammed was a moral man in addition to making the absurd claim that he was not the textbook definition of a megalomaniac and a child molester while insisting that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people while ignoring the violence done in the name of Islam on a daily basis is to support the religion of Islam.


Whether you are a real atheist or a fake atheist or a secret Muslim in atheist clothes you will never be a very great thinker..... or liar.

 

[Osomir]

To say that Mohammed was a moral man after claiming knowledge of his violence and pedophilia is an irrational position that I have never heard any Atheist take

i hate to break it to you, but you based your response on a typo. It was meant to be "mortal". I was referencing his non-divine nature.

To have read about his 'inspirations' and delusions of grandeur and conclude he was not deranged is also not a position that I have ever heard any rational person take.

I don't consider all religions and prophets to be the mere creations of madmen. I'm not very militant in my atheism, I merely don't believe in any sort of godhead or soul.

Whether you are a real atheist or a fake atheist or a secret Muslim in atheist clothes you will never be a very great thinker..... or liar.

It's still pretty sad that you feel so insecure about your arguments that you have to reassure yourself by making up back stories and motivations for me.

I'd be happy to discuss the details of Muhammad's life with you if you'd like. You seem pretty hung up on Aisha which, as a non-Muslim doesn't make a lot of sense to me given the discrepancies concerning her age between the secular histories and the Sahih Muslim and Bukhari accounts. The pedophile argument; from a secular point of view, has always been a rather flimsy one.

 

[Osomir]

Ok, and what the topic would be? Senegal? Joking

Tell me what the topic you want to debate on.

Haha. Not Senegal. But obviously I think it should probably have something to do with our differing beliefs concerning political Islam, Islamists (and diversity or lack thereof within that title), Or Islamic populations within politics / perhaps even just about Middle Eastern politics (since that is an area you seem comfortable with). Any suggestions?

 

[alpine]

Ok, and what the topic would be? Senegal? Joking

Tell me what the topic you want to debate on.

Haha. Not Senegal. But obviously I think it should probably have something to do with our differing beliefs concerning political Islam, Islamists (and diversity or lack thereof within that title), Or Islamic populations within politics / perhaps even just about Middle Eastern politics (since that is an area you seem comfortable with). Any suggestions?

Hmm, we debated about a lot of things but the whole point boils down to this, to my perspective; democracy can not survive in islam. This has politics, religion and socio-economic realities in it.

But on the other hand, it also can survive, as you have pointed out, like in Senegal

But regardless, I think I can make a pretty solid case out of this.

What did you have in mind?

 

[Osomir]

Hmm, we debated about a lot of things but the whole point boils down to this, to my perspective; democracy can not survive in islam. This has politics, religion and socio-economic realities in it.

That works for me.

"Is Islam incompatible with Democracy?"

Sound ok?

 

[alpine]

Hmm, we debated about a lot of things but the whole point boils down to this, to my perspective; democracy can not survive in islam. This has politics, religion and socio-economic realities in it.

That works for me.

"Is Islam incompatible with Democracy?"

Sound ok?

Sounds good to me.

 

[alpine]

But of course, before we start any debate, there will need to be a solid definition of democracy, since every islamic state name themselves "democrat" and even some name themselves ""more democrat than the west"

 

[alpine]

How about this,

"is islam compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?"

since this is more defined material, so we can go item by item as bullet points.

I guess anybody who thinks he is a "democrat" without being compatible with the UDHR, should think twice anyways...

 

[Osomir]

I'd rather do "Is Islam incompatible with Democracy?" The UDHRs is both too long (too many articles for a concise debate) and too heavily debated in its application. You could argue that any country currently in existence doesn't follow it.

As for democracy, that is generally less controversial in definition than the UDHR. It's characterized by free and fair elections (or aims at them), rule of law, backed by a constitution, generally supported by an elected legislative branch, equality under the law, protection for minority populations, is generally multi-party, a healthy civil society, etc. All democracies will look a little different and have slight imperfections but in general we have a good idea of what democracy is and it isn't my intention to argue semantics anyway.

 

[alpine]

I'd rather do "Is Islam incapable with Democracy?" The UDHRs is both too long (too many articles for a concise debate) and too heavily debated in its application. You could argue that any country currently in existence doesn't follow it.

As for democracy, that is generally less controversial in definition than the UDHR. It's characterized by free and fair elections (or aims at them), rule of law, backed by a constitution, generally supported by an elected legislative branch, equality under the law, protection for minority populations, is generally multi-party, a healthy civil society, etc. All democracies will look a little different and have slight imperfections but in general we have a good idea of what democracy is and it isn't my intention to argue semantics anyway.

So you want to argue me what a democracy is now. I could do that all day too, if did had the time and passion for that but we have a very easy way to understand if any nation compatible with democracy or not, UDHR. As long as you can keep up, the democratic you are, it is that simple. There is no other quickest way to detect democracy for islam, because it will fail right at the beginning of it and god knows if it has any sense of it, I did not go through the list too long myself either. Here is a very valid way to prove if islam is compatible with democracy or not, but the question is, do you want to take it or not, what are you afraid of? You wanted a debate, here it is...

 

[Osomir]

So you want to argue me what a democracy is now. I could do that all day too, if did had the time and passion for that but we have a very easy way to understand if any nation compatible with democracy or not, UDHR. As long as you can keep up, the democratic you are, it is that simple. There is no other quickest way to detect democracy for islam, because it will fail right at the beginning of it and god knows if it has any sense of it, I did not go through the list too long myself either. Here is a very valid way to prove if islam is compatible with democracy or not, but the question is, do you want to take it or not, what are you afraid of? You wanted a debate, here it is...

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say here. Did i give a controversial definition of democracy?

The problem with debating the UDHR is that there are over 30 articles in it. That's thirty different debates, not focused enough. The other problem is the legal diversity in which it is applied, it really doesn't do anything to solve the problem you listed with democracy.

 

[alpine]

So you want to argue me what a democracy is now. I could do that all day too, if did had the time and passion for that but we have a very easy way to understand if any nation compatible with democracy or not, UDHR. As long as you can keep up, the democratic you are, it is that simple. There is no other quickest way to detect democracy for islam, because it will fail right at the beginning of it and god knows if it has any sense of it, I did not go through the list too long myself either. Here is a very valid way to prove if islam is compatible with democracy or not, but the question is, do you want to take it or not, what are you afraid of? You wanted a debate, here it is...

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say here. Did i give a controversial definition of democracy?

The problem with debating the UDHR is that there are over 30 articles in it. That's thirty different debates, not focused enough. The other problem is the legal diversity in which it is applied, it really doesn't do anything to solve the problem you listed with democracy.

Do you want to debate or no? You asked me what I wanted to debate as a subject and I have given you one. If you don't want to, thats fine too. We will call islam is not suitable to UDHR and that will be that.

In exchange, you can claim it is "democratic" as long as you like...

For the curious crowd; so you have UDHR, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", first put together in the west for all the countries to get together in a general understanding of the world. And it may or may not be shared by the others on this rock. But none of them, not even the infamous communists, except of course muslims, came up with an alternative to that, with an opposite understanding, which is named "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam".

All those regimes and ideas you have seen as dangerous till to this point, they all knew, even if they did not obey, these rules somewhat had a ground, but of course except islam.

Islam was the only one that was "opposing" it with an "opposite" idea. They claimed UDHR being "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition"; meaning, it was not islam enough, because it was promoting freedom for speech, for expression, for woman, for sex, for alcohol..., for anything you were planned to let the enjoyment of, that were already banned in the holy book koran. That is enough reason for the islamic countries to reject that all together and come up with the opposite.

Don't be fooled people, islam is the opposite of what you are standing for and it will always be. Either you will tolerate it, if not, should somehow teach it to tolerate you.