|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 23rd, 2006 12:32 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"I said that's when it became RAMPANT (essentially leading to CURRENT DAY ANTISEMITISM) not that it JUST THEN BEGUN. Out of the entire world, antisemitism was not prevelant until 1200 ad. Hurrah. :Rolleyes Quit picking bullshit things to argue about." I'm hiding behind sarcasm nehehehehe. I love how you continued to argue about bullshit, though  You see, the reason why all of this is relevant is because it led to relevant events; like it's influence on america and it's influence on current day Europe. None of that other stuff really matters because it effected america very little. Now if I had been comparing a country other than america, it may have. The fact that you can't see that simple little nugen makes you look incredibly stupid. Your timeline would've been a little more relevant if it was in accordance with that idea... and don't pretend you didn't know I was comparing america, because I know you did. If you didn't you are more vapid than even I realized. As far as I know the first jewish death by a christian (by what you say) falls into my timeline. I said "Pope innocent the III" and the "Crusades" which started in/around "1144" which you quoted as being one of the first jewish deaths or whatever. So um.. thanks for reminding me I can't follow timelines. P.S. I use adjectives for a reason, maybe you should learn what their usage is in the english language. PPS What i meant with him agreeing with my interpretation is my interpretation of the tennets of the religion, not the little historical fact or political outrages you're throwing around. Anybody can agree with those(WOMEN BEING BEATEN? OUTRAGE!), real knowledge of religion is a little more conceptual than that. That'd be like if I thought the entire christian religion boiled down to the crusades or something. I accept it as an important part of it's history, however, I don't use it to judge people. Unlike you, dear sir. Judger of judges, prosecutor of least important matters, duck of the name Quaker. |
|
| Jan 23rd, 2006 02:12 AM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | Dude, I didn't bother with all that pscho babble. I already provided you with a timelime and rephrased it a second time, because you're a child. Your only refutation is to say you were sarcastic. So you know, there's more then one Muslim on this board, but the one you're talking about confirmed things I've said too. Meanwhile, by your standard of authority, I am Mr. Middle Eastern, after all. Nanny-nanny rahrah. Is it second period yet? | |
| Jan 23rd, 2006 12:39 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
According to the only muslim on the board, my interpretation of the Koran appears to be superior to yours. I'm more than willing to take that alone as a victory, however, if you'd like to point out how my timeline is flawed I'd be happy to point out how it's not. I'd seriously like you to do this. Please show me how. I know you'll quote some stupid shit, but still. I want to see. The fact is, anti-semitism in Europe comes out of the bible. It is a direct result of the bible. Whether you want to argue that it occured as soon as they crucified jesus, or that it occured during the crusades when it really began to get heated up(like when they were all kicked out of spain in the 1400's and when they started burning them at the stake), is entirely irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that america is a christian nation that was built on the Church/ideas of the church from which the previous events transpired. America is also responsible for discrimination against plenty of other races, including kicking native americans off their land and beating women. From what I've seen in other threads you talk about the mistreatment of women alot, as if America is so superior in that respect. They aren't, you're just a hypocrite. All of this further connects with the fact that conflicts between america and the muslim nations have been going on for a very long time, and we aren't entirely innocent in the matter. What we got we deserved, because we were technically at war. Quit whining that they are criminals, you are just following propaganda. If you want to kill them because they are another nation who fucked with you and you want their land and the world to be a safer place or whatever, fine; but quit trying to justify it by saying they are EVIL(Which just shows your religious fervor; or the following of) and that their laws are so backwards and they need to die so we keep other people from dying. "WE ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR." And yet, before this century we were practically in the same boat. Plus, there's plenty of problems in america still without you lashing out at them for no reason. Considering KK's argument was that muslims suck because they hate jews, I consider it all quite apt. "I said Osama holds little diplomatic weight with Islamic nations -peace with him doesn't equal peace with the Arab supremacist movement. " Who cares about that? I was more interested in diplomatic relations with the other muslim nations-- which is why I said rebuilding iraq is important in that capacity. What do you think would happen if our diplomatic relations with muslim nations increased? Think about it... especially if there's any palpable connection between their government and their terrorists. If there's not, then quit acting like there is and shut up. If there is, then quit acting like nothing would happen. Hell, even excusing all of those facts; improved diplomatic relations with muslim nations would still have a huge effect... even if it was just to start ill-feelings towards the terrorists. I can't believe I even have to explain that."I got to the point where you quoted my insults towards you as evidence I'm scared of Muslims." You mean when I used your insult to insult you in a really lame way? Pussy. I didn't even think it was a good insult, and you took it seriously. P.S. Next time I'm acting like an overly liberal asshole don't jump in like I'm being serious; then try your best to follow context of character and realize when I'm acting like an overly conservative asshole to try to tip you off to the fact. Jackass. |
|
| Jan 22nd, 2006 11:53 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
"yet you imply Osama has no connection with the muslim nations-- not even in your own mind. " I said Osama holds little diplomatic weight with Islamic nations -peace with him doesn't equal peace with the Arab supremacist movement. I didn't even read the rest of that garbage. I got to the point where you quoted my insults towards you as evidence I'm scared of Muslims. You're a debate club flunkie . Come back with facts to back up your opinions...so far you can't even get a basic timeline right. |
|
| Jan 22nd, 2006 10:55 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I said it ISNT JUST FROM 9/11. I didn't say it's NOT AT ALL FROM IT. Obviously some of the sentiment is from 9/11, and some of it is from before that. Why are you arguing like I said 9/11 had no effect? Are you even aware of what your point is? You're stupid. I was saying there was a problem before 9/11 so you bring up how important 9/11 was? You're playing into exactly the type of bias I was talking about. So disillusioned. You think I brought up that point because i was unaware of the effect it had on america? Yea.  You think 9/11 and then you think muslim, and yet you imply Osama has no connection with the muslim nations-- not even in your own mind.I brought up the crusades to show previous problems with the muslims(and also to show how similar our cultures were not too long ago). A connection SHARED. The fact that america is heir to the christian legacy is obvious, the fact that muslims attack "non-believers" makes this a religious problem. Do the muslims have a problem with "Christians"? Do "Christians" have a problem with them? Do you want to argue any of those "Facts"? If not, then quit trying to tear apart well-established historical problems. The thing I find funny is you actually thought I believed antisemitism didn't begin until the crusades(when a few posts before i clearly mentioned i knew they were abused by the Egyptians), obviously your mind is so cloudy it can't see into anything. The crusades are relative to america; while the attitude egypt or even muslims had towards jews has a minimal effect on us. Do you know why? I dare you to think about it-- consider doing so before your next post. If you can figure it out I'll give you a cookie. The reason all of this is important is because it basically shows that american's are all, "Me me me" and are willing to force their philosophy/religion/ideas on another nation just as quickly as they would to us. Basically, america is as bad as the muslim nations and I see no reason they shouldn't be stamped out for their bullshit values just like the muslims should. I find that to be a worthy thing to point out. "or fantastical "everybody is bad" acid logic." Quit hiding behind, "All muslims are bad and I'm afraid", then. "instead of hiding behind sarcasm" Hiding? I put a "Hurrah" and a rollingeyes emoticon right after it. It's not my problem you fail to see obvious indicators. This just shows how good you are at reading comprehension and finding flaws in arguments at all-- for all you know I could be hiding a diamond in your eye. "You keep telling us that there's more substance to your bullshit then just...bullshit. " If you had any substantial argument to give on the subject you wouldn't be wasting your time arguing with me, so quit pretending like you have some secret golden nugget crammed up your nose you're just waiting to sneeze all over when I've made an appropriately powerful argument. "but 9/11 gave people an actual reason for which to base opinions" Great, that's not what I was saying at all. I'm glad you're capable of interpreting my arguments. Also, thanks for showing my argument in it's entirety; this muslim hatred isn't even based on anything valid, but the actions of a TERRORIST who you claim has little connection with the muslim governments. If there is no connection, then how could improved diplomatic positions and a cultural influence in the area have absolutely no effect on osama? "to credit all that anti-Islam sentiment to the tradition of The Crusades is wishfull thinking on your part." I was merely linking the two together by showing past influences on eachother. You seem to think this has anything to do with our current feelings on eachother. That's why you're stupid. I didn't show it for that, I showed it for the past; the events that lead to 9/11(not even really just that, just giving you an apt explaination). Why there was ill-will between us in the first place, how it wasn't some unfounded attack like people make it out to be. I find you so hilarious, you can't even follow a train of thought. People have somehow managed to go through a timewarp where nothing before ten years ago mattered. P.S. Haven't there even been more recent affairs between america and certain muslim nations where we were being a little more aggressive? Maybe taking land from/attacking someone or something? Not iraq, but something else. I just can't recall. |
|
| Jan 22nd, 2006 09:58 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
You're so busy worrying about my cock that you can't tell I'm responding to what I think is factual incorrect or and outright ridiculous argument. Try a factual response, instead of hiding behind sarcasm, or fantastical "everybody is bad" acid logic. You keep telling us that there's more substance to your bullshit then just...bullshit. "american hatred for muslims has been fucking cultivated for a long time, and isn't just a result of events like 9/11 " The American published of the Koran reported sales quintuppled in the weeks after 9/11. The Koran was on the best sellers list for the first time ever. American awareness, along with hatred, is a direct response to the events of 9/11. That you're even talking about "hatred for Muslims" is a tribute to 9/11. There was hatred towards Muslims before, but 9/11 gave people an actual reason for which to base opinions. The hate crimes reported were in response to 9/11.... to credit all that anti-Islam sentiment to the tradition of The Crusades is wishfull thinking on your part. |
|
| Jan 22nd, 2006 04:52 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
First off, I was being so incredibly sarcastic with the 1200 ad antisemitism remark I'm surprised you responded to it. Secondly, I'm not excusing it, I'm just making an argument why we shouldn't nuke them or go kill all of them like some people were suggesting. Rather, I'm trying to show they aren't unlike we were not too long ago, and there could possibly be a more peaceful solution. If you weren't so busy trying to flash your cock you'd pick up on the fact that none of my original argument was even directed at you. I was also trying to show the fact that american hatred for muslims has been fucking cultivated for a long time, and isn't just a result of events like 9/11 that somehow cloud your eyes. |
|
| Jan 22nd, 2006 03:31 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
"Out of the entire world, antisemitism was not prevelant until 1200 ad. " That's factually incorrect, but if you're desperate to be right, you can pretend that 1 million deaths over multiple continenants in 70CE doesn't earn the word "prevelant". As for America's sins? My past sins do not excuse your future fuck ups. Shari'a law stonings are not repparations for the US dragging their feet to allow the right of women to vote. We know your argument can't get past basic moral equivalency, and "so what, look at how bad the Bible and the US" are. It's not a competition. Self examination is great, but it doesn't absolve these nations from their actions. |
|
| Jan 22nd, 2006 01:59 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I was saying your morals, politics and philosophies essentially equate to, "me me me" and you are entirely unable to understand the fact that even our country hasn't been the perfect civilization it is now until this century. Smug ass americans. They just require some cultural changes, just like we did. Doesn't mean we need to go kill every single muslim out there; that's just hypocricy. Essentially I'm saying you're acting like a child and all the ideas you hold are selfish smug bullshit complexes builtup so you can feel superior-- when you're so obviously not. P.S. I already conceeded to the fact that antisemitism existed before the crusades-- remember I mentioned egypt-- but the crusades didn't make it any better, did they? Huh? Want to say it did? Were they eatting lolipops every day? Because i dont even think lolipops existed then. So do you want to lie? Considering alot of the anti-semitic sentiments actually originated in/near germany, i found the connection to be interesting. I said that's when it became RAMPANT (essentially leading to CURRENT DAY ANTISEMITISM) not that it JUST THEN BEGUN. Out of the entire world, antisemitism was not prevelant until 1200 ad. Hurrah. Quit picking bullshit things to argue about.PPS If you really want to get into what caused antisemitism in europe it'd be an obvious, resounding claim that the "Gospel" caused it. So regardless of whatever your claim is, mine will still come out on top. Kay thanks. |
|
| Jan 22nd, 2006 11:13 AM | ||
| Chojin | (61) D- Harvey, it's obvious that you haven't read the material. See me after class. | |
| Jan 22nd, 2006 08:56 AM | ||
| Pharaoh | The Crusades helped stop the jihad conquest of Europe. They were a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression. They were fighting to recapture Christian lands and defend Christians. And after the Crusades the Muslims resumed their efforts to conquer Europe by Jihad, as they still are today. | |
| Jan 22nd, 2006 02:26 AM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
Like I said, Jews became a Diaspora 517 years before that, at the hands of Anti-Semitism. The first crusade wasn't untill a thousand years later. Anti-semitism was rampant for 1000 years before. The first crusade was an important moment in Islamic history, but not for Jews. In fact, a great deal of Jews were persecuted simply because they were lumped in with Muslims, as being the same thing. So if we're talking reading comprehension, it's a shame I had to repeat that. I think you were trying to make some moral equivalency and use United States history to apologize for the current oppression of women in the Middle East? Why bother. |
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 09:50 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Again, reading comprehension. I said the crusades were when anti-semitism became particularly rampant in EUROPE. Like there wasn't anti-semitism before that. Remember egypt? Now I've opened the door to what lead to the holocaust. Seems like not too long ago we were still dealing with the same problems islam is currently dealing with. Women didn't even have real rights in america until this century. Have you forgotten that? Seriously though, quit being so smug. Like your shit don't stink
|
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 09:10 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Get your timeline correct. Jews became a diaspora in 587 BCE. A lot led up to that. The Great Revolt was in 70 CE, with a million Jewish deaths. Jews mark the destruction of the second Temple as a the pinacle event in Biblical aged anti-semitism. The first crusade was later, in 1096 CE, and the first christian blood libel against Jews was again later, in 1144 CE. |
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 08:57 PM | ||
| kahljorn | From Pope Innocent III. | |
| Jan 21st, 2006 05:53 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
Where'd you get that idea? |
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 05:44 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
the time antisemitism really started to spread is the same time the religious war, or "Holy war", with muslims and various other religions was started. In fact, I think one of the popes made an official speech about it or something. That's all I was saying. Quit reading wrong, I only drew it up to compare jewish slaughter in the koran with jewish slaughter with the holy war thing. Mohummad talked about killing jews alot in the koran, that's what we were talking about. So yes, there were conflicts with the jews. |
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 04:59 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | conflict about the Holy Land ? Not back during Mohammeds day. He wasn't that interested in Jerusalem. | |
| Jan 21st, 2006 04:58 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
I meant to say the Romans innovated antisemitism against Jews. The concept of dual nationalities, and allegiance to Talmudic Laws, while living under Roman laws was too much for them to handle. In terms of the middle east in more modern history, it was Christians who laid down the ground work, which reached a boiling point with the Damascus Affair, and so on. Anyway, we know Jews weren't the only ones persecuted, not by far. Kahl said: "PPS Jews were mistreated by christians too. In fact, where do you think anti-semitism in europe came from? Very much a religious war." Again, Jewish persecution is not the result of a religious war as that sentence would suggest. I mentioned the Romans earlier, because the persecution at the hands of Christians in Europe was an extension of the attitudes towards Jews which continues from the Cruxifictian days. Meanwhile, there was never a religious war in Europe concerning Jews, so it's a silly way to try and paint the current war as as a Holy War. There are more appropriate things you could juxtapose. Like say...the crusades. Derrrr. |
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 04:41 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
The caananites are responsible for my thoughts on the industry of africa. "Muslims carried it on for centuries. " No shit, that's why I said their culture is unevolved ;/ Christians didn't inovate it; this shit has been going on for centuries with nearly every religion. I didn't say jewish persecution made it a religious war, what made it a religious war was both religions saying to kill the other religion and they would be rewarded with money and heaven. They offered indulgences. PS "let alone entirely unaware of Christians arbitrarily attacking Mohammed. " I don't think they had too many interactions back then other than fringe, but I can't remember for sure. However, there was plenty of conflict over the "Holy land" that would explain some of the jewish problems... Maybe I just want america to lose because i hate it? BEWARE MY DASTARDLY LIBERAL WAYS. |
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 04:33 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Uh... no. Jewish persecution does not equal a religious war. Anyway, the pass the buck argument is great, but where Christians innovated it (down to the creation of words like Zealot), Muslims carried it on for centuries. You have no idea how cliche your responses are Kahl. Here I'll help you. Say something about the Canaanites now. |
|
| Jan 21st, 2006 04:11 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Crusades at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade "The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, they were Roman Catholic endeavors to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other Europeans, such as the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France and the Northern Crusades." I don't have much time for anything else, I'll be back to answer questions later. P.S. What I'm saying is most of this war, with which both nations(or religions or whathaveyou) have harbored bad feelings for the other for a while, was mostly born out of conflict for the so-called "Holy land", and the extensions thereof. I don't see how you could argue that this is historically untrue. PPS Jews were mistreated by christians too. In fact, where do you think anti-semitism in europe came from? Very much a religious war. |
|
| Jan 20th, 2006 11:47 PM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
Quote:
Mohammed personally waged war on Jews and tribalists in his Arabian penninsula; I am unaware of no interaction with Christians, let alone entirely unaware of Christians arbitrarily attacking Mohammed. That is where you will have to do some research. |
|
| Jan 20th, 2006 08:32 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | You haven't made any points or asked any questions relevant to this thread, you putz. Go suck a dick so you can stop using phrases like "feminine intergration" you lunatic. Seriously, you're the conversational equivalent of belly button lint. Let's theorize about belly button lint. Say, have you ever watched paint drip before? I know, what is Art? Yeah, now we're really getting to understand the Middle East from crazy obtuse angles, maaan. | |
| Jan 20th, 2006 07:42 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Practical? Let me show you something you could learn through reading comprehension: "most of the effects of feminization are exageratted just like any other economical malnourishing. " Yes, I'm the one who said that, in the post about feminization. Feminization doesn't mean anything other than the effects further female integration have had on society and culture. There are plenty of good things, and some bad things. Argue you it if you will, but you'll just look like a jackass. There were REAL palpable effects that it had, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with women themselves. Also, in the past stuff like that was applicable. The times were different, you just don't understand that. Most of the argument was (quite obviously) just to bother you. I don't know why you think it's any thing other than that, but congratulations on picking up subtle details. The whole feminization thing is actually something some people believe, and some even treat it completely as a negative thing. P.S. Respond to some of the points/questions. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
