If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   That Mother Jones article saying more right-wingers have killed Americans than Islamists? Yeah, it's about as accurate as you'd expect from that bunch   (breitbart.com) divider line 326
    More: Followup, Mother Jones, Islamists, Americans, Dr. George Tiller, Islamic terrorism, von Brunn, Ruby Ridge, Scott Roeder  
•       •       •

3336 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2013 at 8:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



326 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 10:23:17 PM

Tatsuma: rohar: No, no he didn't. He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.

Except that this is bullshiat.

He made deals with us, then reneged on the deals first change he got, killed all of our men, enslaved our women and children.


I didn't say the Jews didn't have reason, just that it happened.  Thin skinned much?

Seriously dude, I'm Vike, if I got my knickers in a knot about every tyrant that crossed my people, or every one of my tyrants that crossed another people, my ass would be so chapped I'd scream so loud every time I shiat that you'd hear it.
 
2013-04-26 11:19:16 PM

rohar: give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Except when they are Christians?

What would that have to do with it? Seems you think that if I don't say "that christian/murderer" that I'm not saying a person who claims to be christian should be held accountable for murder.

You are willing to say that a person who murders is not really a Christian. You are not only unwilling to say that about Muslims, but are unwilling to educate yourself on the basic facts

.s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Neither your double standard nor your arrogance

Which double standard are you talking about? Got any examples?

See above.

s2s2s2: Also requested: examples of my arrogance.

Is declaring who is and is not a true follower of Jesus the action of a humble man? Or is it the act of an arrogant man?


Jesus said, "Love your neighbor."
Muhammad followed it up with, "...unless he is an infidel, then you can either kill him or extort money from him for the privilege of being treated like shiat."

No, no he didn't.  He said some unflattering things about the Jews after years of peace with them, when they walked away from him and created alliances with his enemies, but he never said such a thing about infidels.

/hint for you , Jews are not infidels
//you should read before you spout about subjects


Hint for you: Nowhere in the post you responded to is a mention of "Jews."

//you should read before you spout about subjects

Ok, sure.  There's no mention of Christians, Barbors or Vikings as infidels in any of the Muslim texts.

Kindof a biatch to your theory ain't it?

No. And you still need to read, and understand, a post before you comment on it.

You are just making yourself look foolish.

Here's the fun thing, there's no mention of infidels anywhere in the Qur'an or generally accepted Islam.

That's the joke.

Thanks for playing along.


FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.
 
2013-04-26 11:32:54 PM

give me doughnuts: FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.


Words have meaning, even in Arabic.  Your loose use of terminology smacks of ignorance.

Kaffir wouldn't apply to any of the Abrahamic religions, even then there was no mention of seeking them out to extort monies from them or kill them.

I have a feeling the text you're referencing, maybe you could confirm it for me?
 
2013-04-27 12:35:18 AM

Smackledorfer: IlGreven: Smackledorfer: I look at things this way: 100% of mass killing incidents are the responsibility of crazy people deluded into fundamentalism of some kind.

I can't.  Because of the horrible state of mental health services in the U.S., and several high profile players actively blocking any meaningful reform in that area (yeah, Wayne, I'm looking at you)...to label someone as "just crazy" or "just another fundamentalist" tacitly implies that there's nothing we could have done...when in many cases, there is plenty we can do; we just don't do it because it might cost us actual money.

Whether society could have done more/better does not abdicate individuals from responsibility. I hope you aren't saying that.


It also does not absolve society the responsibility of trying to stop the individual. Which was the point I'm trying to make. There are glaringly obvious things we can do to make these kinds of things even rarer than they already are, but we don't because when someone calls such individuals "crazy", they're silently adding "therefore, there was nothing we could have done".
 
2013-04-27 01:00:18 AM

rohar: give me doughnuts: FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.

Words have meaning, even in Arabic.  Your loose use of terminology smacks of ignorance.

Kaffir wouldn't apply to any of the Abrahamic religions, even then there was no mention of seeking them out to extort monies from them or kill them.

I have a feeling the text you're referencing, maybe you could confirm it for me?


Yes, it's called the "Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an" by Marmaduke Pickthall.
 
2013-04-27 01:18:45 AM

give me doughnuts: rohar: give me doughnuts: FIne, call them kaffir (kur'r), then. It means the same thing "non-believers."

And once again, you duck the point that you brought up Jews when nobody else mentioned them.

The only joke around here is you.

Words have meaning, even in Arabic.  Your loose use of terminology smacks of ignorance.

Kaffir wouldn't apply to any of the Abrahamic religions, even then there was no mention of seeking them out to extort monies from them or kill them.

I have a feeling the text you're referencing, maybe you could confirm it for me?

Yes, it's called the "Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an" by Marmaduke Pickthall.


I'm just gonna leave this alone.  The post is self defining.  I cannot make this any better.

In short, I'm saying please proceed.
 
2013-04-27 03:35:18 AM

randomjsa:

So basically...

Far left wing website makes utterly vague claims...

Far right wing website examines said claims and says they are wrong...

The Fark liberal response is basically to employ massive ad hominem whining about the far right wing website and just continue screaming that the "right" are terrorists "Because we said so!"

Alternately you could have just dismissed the Mother Jones article as the complete and utter BS that it was and not have to worry if somebody else known for BSing decides to call them on it.

And, whether or not one agrees with all of the categorizations on the left/right axis, the Breitbart article makes a valid point.  The MSM, essentially every time there is an act of mass violence, before the first fact is known about the perpetrator, is on the case painting them as right-wing extremists.  Personally, I believe this is done intentionally, because a frighteningly large number of people will simply absorb the story as they hear it first, and leave it at that.  Take the mass shooting surrounding Jared Lee Loughner's attempt to murder Gabby Giffords...  The first pass was that since GG is a Democrat, it must be a right-wing plot.  And, in a flight of self-absorbed logical failure, many in the press blamed Sarah Palin for the incident, since a couple of her ads showed targeted districts, including Giffords' own district, with cross-hairs.

As the investigation continued, one of his friends said he wasn't political, and a classmate said that he was a very radical leftist.   Loughner had been suspended from college because of several disruptive outbursts from him, including tirades against Giffords for not being leftist enough, and against President Bush for not being a leftist at all.

The stupidity of this attempt to pin Giffords' shooting on the right is monumental.  That is especially true when one considers that Loughner was not so much left or right, but something one might call paisley as easily.  He was a paranoid schizophrenic who hated government, liked the left, and loved books with anti-government themes or paranoid world views.   Loughner is a leftist -- but the easy defense for the left is that while his views may have a seasoning of left, the first two ingredients on his package label are "batshiat insane," and "should be institutionalized."

But "you can't judge the left by one leftist whack job" wasn't enough, and the rationalizations as to why Loughner just HAD to be a rightist whack job kept coming, and they were stupid in the extreme.  Why, even on Fark, this bastion of reasonable and logical debate, certain of the leftist mob were arguing that since Loughner had "Mein Kampf" on his list of favorite books, it was clear he leaned right.  Conveniently forgotten was the fact that his book list also included "The Communist Manifesto."  He was probably looking for an anarcho-syndicalist commune, where they take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week -- but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two thirds majority in the case of...   but I digress.

 
2013-04-27 04:20:52 AM

s2s2s2:

Philip Francis Queeg: But are they Scotsmen?

You got me. There's a cute saying, so that means that people that claim to be something, without holding themselves to the standards of said something claimed, are what they claim to be for the sake of people who don't like either one.


conservativenewager.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-27 04:29:22 AM

Epoch_Zero:

No, all righteousness is self-righteousness. There can be good deeds done without moral grounds. However, the religious seem to only do good deeds when it fits into their own moral construction, which itself exists to satisfy their own ego, as they view doing good deeds as a selfish means to an end involving their own eventual reward, hence the satisfaction of ego.

I'd be fascinated to see your data on what religious people think, and why they do good deeds.  Could you point me to it, please?   TIA.
 
2013-04-27 04:34:43 AM

cubic_spleen:

Except that there is no "far left" in this country, except for maybe the three people in the E.L.F. What you call "far left" is actually "barely left of center". What you call "far right" is actually reactionary to the level that they can almost be called Monarchists.

I've seen this before -- you're a far-leftist, and you assume you are middle-of-the-road.  That skews your whole political outlook.

/ You're welcome...   Or, as you probably prefer, Your welcome.

 
2013-04-27 05:24:58 AM

IlGreven:

...and like I said, they also say James Von Brunn, while being a white supremacist and holocaust denier, was not a right-winger, while saying the sole motivation of the Fort Hood shooter was Islamic extremism, while it probably was more in line with the Virginia Tech shooter, or even Jared Loughner.

Thanks for pointing out that you are part of the problem.  At Fort Hood, Major Hasan jumped on a desk screaming 'Allahu Akbar' - God is Great - and began firing, killing 12 and injuring 31.  This one goes in the religious whack-job column; "workplace violence" my ruby red rectum.
 
2013-04-27 05:32:04 AM

coeyagi:

So you're constantly out denouncing Christians who cause harm upon others based on their own religious beliefs? (See: nearly every bill they've proposed regarding reproductive health or sexual orientation since 2010).

Why, sure, because not supporting abortion, or not teaching homosexuality, is the same as gunning down dozens of people.

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-04-27 05:56:45 AM

Philip Francis Queeg:

Except when they are Christians? Perhaps you don't understand the teachings of Jesus any better than those you claim aren't really Christians. Neither your double standard nor your arrogance have any basis in his philosophy,.

Okay, that's too much.  I've been striving to avoid commenting on your posts in this thread, because they are almost exactly 180o out from reality, and history suggests that anyone that out of it is not going to respond well to having their fantasies crashed.

But you spewing this categorically wrong crap, and then calling others arrogant and ignorant is too much to bear in silence.  So, NO, just NO.

Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and current Muslims are approximately the same intolerant, violent turds that Christians were in the 14TH century.  The big difference is that Islam does NOT have the equivalent of a Pope.  That means that any psychotic who becomes an Imam can gather a group of psychos, or create a group of psychos, and go off on some interpretation of the Koran, arm 'em up, and send 'em out to do whatever Hell on Earth they have planned -- and there's no Pope or Bishop to say "You're planning to do WHAT?" to the imam.  Each Imam is an "ultimate authority" unto themselves, and answers to nobody.

This diffuse authority in Islam is responsible for an attitude of religious laissez faire when it comes to wildly divergent Imams.  It also helps that those who complain about the radical sects tend to have their throats slit.  The way this tends to work, in my experience, is that if you present the hypothetical "reasonable Muslim" with a Koranic verse, and then ask them if they agree, they say "yes."  It often goes like this:

Do you support killing cartoonists if they portray Mohammed?
No, not really.
Well it says here -- See? -- that those who mock Islam must die.
Oh, well, then, I suppose it's okay.

 
2013-04-27 06:06:19 AM

machodonkeywrestler:

For some reason, you see yourself as a clear thinking beacon of shining justice who is infallible at judging peoples motivations and convictions.

Oh, look!   Another leftist who can read minds.  That's amazing.
 
2013-04-27 06:28:06 AM

rohar:

GeneralJim: Exactly -- that's the best use of a seriously biased outlet -- they'll research the seriously biased outlets on the other side, and tell you where THEY are farking up. Then go to those outlets to find out where the first one is dropping the ball. It saves me a lot of work, and both sides seem to enjoy it.

GeneralJim: I've always wondered who would be dumb enough to buy all that asinine crap from the socialist end of the spectrum. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Hypocrisy at it's finest in back to back posts.

/I'm sure he'll be here all night folks
//try the veal

Try looking up the word "hypocrisy" before you use it.  What I said is perfectly consistent.  The only thing biased outlets do reasonably well is point out the flaws in the the other side's biased outlets.  If you're buying the product of any of them...  well, you shouldn't.

/ Looks like you've already tried the mushrooms.

 
2013-04-27 06:37:48 AM

rohar:

Here's the fun thing, there's no mention of infidels anywhere in the Qur'an or generally accepted Islam.

"Infidel" is another way to translate "unbeliever."   Dumbass.

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28



 
2013-04-27 06:54:32 AM

I'll just drop this here for all the haters...


New York Times vindicates Andrew Breitbart
 
2013-04-27 09:52:01 AM

GeneralJim: I'll just drop this here for all the haters...
New York Times vindicates Andrew Breitbart


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
And Breitbart was certaily a nut.
 
2013-04-27 10:06:28 AM

GeneralJim: rohar: Here's the fun thing, there's no mention of infidels anywhere in the Qur'an or generally accepted Islam.
"Infidel" is another way to translate "unbeliever."   Dumbass.


Yup, but this word, specifically, has it's roots in European Christianity, not in Islam.  As you'll find, Infidel was used to describe Muslims.  The use of the term when describing what Muslims believe about Christians is projection at scale.
 
2013-04-27 10:35:49 AM
Great, now GJ has arrived to stupid up the place.  Though I now realize why he makes his text green; it's a warning, "Beware, mind-boggling retardation and projection here."
 
2013-04-27 12:28:20 PM

GeneralJim: Why, sure, because not supporting abortion, or not teaching homosexuality, is the same as gunning down dozens of people.


Yet, praying five times a day towards a giant black box while kneeling on a rug  is the same as hijacking an airplane and ramming it into a building.
 
2013-04-27 05:34:42 PM

give me doughnuts:

GeneralJim: I'll just drop this here for all the haters...
New York Times vindicates Andrew Breitbart


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
And Breitbart was certaily a nut.

And that would make the New York Times a bit squirrelly?
 
2013-04-27 05:45:54 PM
rohar:

GeneralJim: rohar: Here's the fun thing, there's no mention of infidels anywhere in the Qur'an or generally accepted Islam.

"Infidel" is another way to translate "unbeliever."   Dumbass.

Yup, but this word, specifically, has it's roots in European Christianity, not in Islam.  As you'll find, Infidel was used to describe Muslims.  The use of the term when describing what Muslims believe about Christians is projection at scale.

Bullshiat.  Trying to make a tortured point with etymology is inane.  In modern English, "infidel" = "unbeliever."   From Dictionary.com: "c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir."  It even gives the Arabic word used in the Koran as a definition.  Case closed.


Expecting the average English speaker to even be aware of any faint gradation of meaning is a ridiculous stretch.  If it were a William F. Buckley quote we were discussing, it might be feasible to consider that he might be making a subtle point through choice of wording -- but not here, not now.
 
2013-04-27 05:48:10 PM

Flaumig:

Great, now GJ has arrived to stupid up the place.  Though I now realize why he makes his text green; it's a warning, "Beware, mind-boggling retardation and projection here."
Oh, look, more useless fluff.  Hardly surprising in this case, however.   Right, Fluffy?
 
2013-04-27 05:50:28 PM

that bosnian sniper:

GeneralJim: Why, sure, because not supporting abortion, or not teaching homosexuality, is the same as gunning down dozens of people.

Yet, praying five times a day towards a giant black box while kneeling on a rug  is the same as hijacking an airplane and ramming it into a building.

This whole "analogy" thing confuses you, doesn't it?
 
2013-04-27 07:18:42 PM

GeneralJim: Flaumig: Great, now GJ has arrived to stupid up the place.  Though I now realize why he makes his text green; it's a warning, "Beware, mind-boggling retardation and projection here.

"Oh, look, more useless fluff.  Hardly surprising in this case, however.   Right, Fluffy?


Oh look, projection...just like I said.  Practically every post I've ever seen from you on Fark could be replaced with "No U!" and no one would be able to tell the difference.
 
Displayed 26 of 326 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report