There's a report that an al-Qaeda linked group tried to assassinate the Dalai Lama. Now, why would they do this? He's never killed a Muslim. He's never invaded a Muslim country. And my knowledge he's never drawn a picture of Mohamed. So would they target what may be the most peaceful man on the planet? That's just not rational. Oh. Read the last line of the piece.
Story
Can't wait to see what Za and Murph have to say. They're continued denial that there is a danger aspect to Islam is a riot to read.
Categories:
In Case You Missed It,
Islam,
War On Terror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
(Fox News.. oh!)
bin Laden said it...
Well that explains it.
bin Laden doesn't speak for Islam.
It's akin to me saying "as christian, I declare that paper-clips are EVIL, and urge all christians everywhere to take-up arms against stationery!"
You can decide whether I speak for all Christendom, or whether I've had one too many bumps on the head.
You can also assess the level of threat that I pose to the stationery industry, but the two are separate.
The same can be said for bin Laden and other terrorists, how much threat they pose is something entirely different to whether they speak for Islam or not.
Then again, it's the same bin Laden that America cheered when they fought atheistic Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980's. He is motivated by nationalism, and a bad attitude, as much as anything else... yet you lot (Chris and John) insist that Islam is the cause. bin Laden has motivation a little more complex than 'single issue', he may say he is a 'fighter of Islam' (in the same way I am a crusader against office supplies), but a genocidal psycho, isn't likely to say, 'I don't play well with others'.
I don't put much stock in the 'internal ascription of madmen', only a fool would.
Murph, your second comment has been deleted. Call me crazy, but I don't appreciate being called dumb. Please, don't do it again.
"Call me crazy" (I would, but you'd delete it!)
I didn't call you dumb, I'm sorry you took it that way.
I said "I'd dumb it down a bit", largely cos the the first post is a long rambling argument that heads in six different directions (and is a little silly), so I put it in 'point form'.
I did refer to you directly, in promising to try and meet the 'riot to read' component you mention in OP.
It sounded like you expected a genuine representative of the 'loony left'. Za's rational and coherent, so that just leaves me to make an effort (at which point I loaded it up with sarcasm).
.. but I am certain that I didn't call you dumb.
Perhaps I should ask if censoring what I posted is a not so subtle way of saying that you'd prefer that I didn't post comments on your blog?
As I would have thought that abusing the hell out of me like John sometimes does when he mistakes vigorous disagreement, with personal insult, would have been natural course if you didn't like what I said.
(that and I would have thought that, despite a difference of opinion on many things, and while I have a 'smart mouth', that you'd realised that I'm very careful on avoiding personal insults (political figures excluded)).
So, if you are trying to 'send me a message', not to comment here, I'll not bother you again, otherwise accept my apology for the misunderstanding, and get over it :p
Saying "I'll dumb it down" is borderline. Even with sarcasm. As for John abusing the hell out of you? My readers can say anything about each other they want so long as it doesn't get out of hand. By that I mean go on for weeks and weeks and have it morph into slams on each other rather than about the original post. On those occasions I close comments.
And no message sending.
Seems Murphy's got me covered again, so I'll just use a historical example.
Hitler (who was raised Catholic) gained much support because Catholic priests got behind him. Now despite the fact that Catholic priests elsewhere denounced what he was doing, the fact that the representatives of Catholicism in Germany agreed with him means that Catholicism is evil and hates Jews and non-Aryans, right?
Because that's exactly what's happening with Al Qaeda. They have their chosen hate targets, and some Imams support them, but many denounce them.
Osama speaks for Islam as much as Hitler spoke for Catholics. Not very much.
As a correlary point, I'm not saying that Osama has anywhere near as much power as Hitler.
He'd need to be voted in somewhere to have armies that can take down most of Europe.
Note to Everyone. Henceforth; I think that Za and Murphy should from this point forward be refered to as "The Twins". Alot easier than writing their names and since they both view every subject exacly the same way; Why not?
"they both view every subject exactly the same way"
Not so, it's just that you don't get off the same, narrow, repeated: 'Islam is the whole problem' line (ie. one claim, repeated with dull predictablity), so you haven't had the chance to see in what ways we differ in opinion...
Twins.
Wow. Snappy and intelligent comeback as always John.
Perhaps you'd like to take a look at all the things you've argued with us on. I think you'll come out to "broken record", because you keep repeating the same tired arguments over and over and never come up with anything new.
Identical Socialist Wacko Twins.
Is that better? You know how your opinion always seems to matter so much to everyone. Heh...
Religion of Peace Strikes again!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152770771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Identical Socialist Wacko Twins.
Yeah see, we've gone over this before and you couldn't work out what I was - so Socialist is just evidence of you giving up any thought in this discussion.
Oh, and once again we return to "Al-Qaeda is not Islam".
Post a Comment